The Vacuum Energy is fictitious.

[Tyger]

Jeff, old boy

Originally posted by jeff
Writing the ground or vacuum state of a quantum system as |0>, we can calculate the VEV (vacuum expectation value) <0|H|0> of the hamiltonian. This is just the ground state energy of the system. However, although the vacuum is a writhing ocean of quantum fluctuations, because we are generally interested only in energies relative to the vacuum, we conventionally perform a "subtraction" in the hamiltonian by setting <0|H|0> = 0. However, we can detect the vacuum by inducing a shift &Delta;&epsilon; in it's energy through the introduction of a source and sink where particles would be created and annihilated with the interceding propagation of particles between source and sink creating a force between them. Although the VEV of the energy is not observable, the force resulting from it's shift created by disturbing the vacuum in this way is. In the Casimir effect the source and sink are thin parallel conducting plates with the Casimir force between them given roughly by &Delta;&epsilon;/d where d is the separation between the plates.

this is the only description of the CE you've given. You're saying that the vacuum energy can be arbitrarily set to zero or some other value. I'm saying that it is observable in the form of the surface tension of the material involved. A specific physical prediction, no crackpot idea involved. What's more there may be very real and practical ways of observing the VEV, such as scattering electons off the virtual photons between the plates, so who's theory is more real, mine which makes specific predictions, or yours which uses a little mathematical trickery to make the fields vanish? Do you know how shocked people were when Bohm and Aharanov showed that the vector potential was real and observable? There were plenty who thought they could subtract it out and disregard it.

And you're right, I don't understand QFT the way I want to, but that doesn't mean I don't know about its very real shortcomings. And what do you plan to do to reduce the twenty six free parameters in the Standard Model?

 

[lethe]

Originally posted by HunterSThompson
Recently on some mexican TV station, I saw some guy from Plank institute in Munich (if i remember correctly). He was saying the expansion of the universe is accelerating due to this mighty vacuum force. Is this the same vacuum this thread is reffering to?

in principle, yes, it is the same vacuum. however, the vacuum is not well understood enough to actually predict the properties of the vacuum that would yield the observed acceleration of the cosmos.

Which of these is favored currently?
IS this a result of outdated information or conflictiong theory?

acceleration is a rather new observation. but it is well supported and most cosmologists believe that the universe is currently accelerating and therefore no big crunch. instead the universe will end a cold and desolate wasteland.

 

[jeff]

Originally posted by marcus
Sounds like abuse.

It isn't.

 

[jeff]

Originally posted by Tyger
this is the only description of the CE you've given.

I also posted,

...the origin of the shift arises from changes in the boundary conditions for the fields. In fact such effects may even be viewed as a result of the local breaking of the translational invariance of the vacuum by the sinks and sources.

...we have a quantization in the space between parallel plates analogous to the standard particle in a box scenario familiar from quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by Tyger
You're saying that the vacuum energy can be arbitrarily set to zero or some other value.

In the absence of gravity, yes.

Originally posted by Tyger
I'm saying that it is observable in the form of the surface tension of the material involved. A specific physical prediction...

Hmm...surface tension. We'll, with respect to this wording, I think the closest we can get to each other on this issue is this: Since causality precludes perfectly rigid bodies, like any force, the casimir force will - however slightly - deform the objects on which it acts.

Is your view experimentally differentiable from the standard one?

 

[jeff]

Originally posted by lethe
...the universe will end a cold and desolate wasteland.

 

[Tyger]

I did find some more on the web

but not any plans for experiments that would confirm whether the effect was due to any intrinsic vacuum energy.

http://alsystems.algroup.co.uk/casimir/VED2.html

http://www.quantumfields.com/casfin.pdf

http://www.quantumfields.com/

The first link does contain some interesting comments concerning the ZPE and the CE.

The second link contains some comments by Casimir himself saying that the effect might be caused by fields from the plates. His comments are very interesting.

The third is the homepage of the fellow quoting Casimir. He seems to be trying to commercially exploit the effect, but he has pretty good scientific bona fides.

And of course there's plenty of hoaky links about it.

 

[elas]

Those who support the existence and primacy of Vacuum Force are confronted by a major obstacle in that the existence of a Vacuum Force does not require that any great change be made to Quantum Theory. That is to mean that as the forces of Quantum Theory are the interactions of Vacuum Force and Vacuum Force Carrier in a Quantum Vacuum Theory, then the mathematics remain largely unchanged.
It is my belief that one case where it might be possible to find a difference between the two concepts, is in the change in Atomic Radii caused by the addition of one neutron; that is changes in the Atomic Radii of Isotopes.
Unfortunately there is at present no Table of Atomic Radii for isotopes, but this is only a minor point because Quantum Theory tells us that it is determined by Magnetic Force and from that we can deduce the manner in which the radii changes should occur. It follows that if the Atomic Radii of Isotopes were a known quantity it should be possible to determine whether particles are Quantum Force Fields or Quantum Vacuum Force Fields.
This is the project that I am currently working on. Although there is still much to be done and I am a long way from having anything fit to publish; I can say that taking a rough sample of the figures as they stand they seem to support the Vacuum Force concept and that particle structure follows the pattern proposed in my Single Force concept (it cannot be called a theory until a lot more work is done).
The change in isotope radius caused by the addition of one neutron for the isotopes of each element is constant and reductive for all isotopes of all elements. If true, this cannot be explained as any other than a vacuum action.

 

[elas]

Re Any crackpot can spin bullsh*t theories. submitted by Marcus

Extract from ACHILLES IN THE QUANTUM UNIVERSE
By Richard Morris
Souvenir Press
‘The physicist of the 1990’s view things differently. They feel a complete explanation of the sub-atomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess’.


Extracts from THE LIGHTER SIDE OF GRAVITY
By Jayant V Narliker
Cambridge University Press
1) ‘Yet gravity remains an enigma today’
2) ‘I feel the last word on gravity has yet to be said’


Extracts from MODERN ELEMENTARY PARTICLE PHYSICS
Gordon Kane (Professor of physics, University of Michigan)
Open questions-
1) Why theory takes the form it does?
2) Why there are some particles and not others?
3) What is the physical origin of mass?


I believe these questions can be answered by introducing Vacuum force and Vacuum Force Carrier into the explanation. A rough outline of how I feel this can be done is on my web site. Constructive criticism and knowledge of other people’s ideas are always welcome. I do not claim to be right; indeed I have changed my views considerably over the years, thanks largely to the helpful comments of others, that is how progress is made. Insults add nothing to the debate, but if your understanding of the fundamentals of nature is greater than mine, I would be delighted to hear them.


‘It is the perfection of all God’s works that they shall be done with the greatest simplicity and therefore they that would understand the frame of the world must endeavour to reduce their knowledge to all possible simplicity.’
Sir Isaac Newton