|
On September 17 2012 10:46 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:02 Thenerf wrote:
As somebody who had been working on Dark Energy research there are about 5 of these discoveries a year. And this has been going on for several years and they awarded the Nobel Prize for its discovery this year.
I also worked with a doctor out of UMD who professed MOND(Modified Newtonian Gravity) and sad to say that research was discredited years ago.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Dark Energy has been 100% solid science for a while now. There were no recent discoveries made but there are a lot of very "Eager" astronomers. doesnt most of this science rely on the CMB data produced by wmap, which may not be entirely accurate?
WMAP was not the first and definitely not the only evidence. What WMAP did was create a universal (360) image. It was definitive because instead of looking at a single galaxy cluster and claiming dark energy, you could see everything at once and still say that's dark energy.
Any discrepancy of the data is generally considered moot considering the sample size is the WHOLE UNIVERSE!
|
On September 17 2012 10:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:44 starfries wrote:
Einstein: luckiest physicist EVER. How was he... lucky? I understand maybe he stumbled over a few things but he was just simply a genius not just "lucky"
I'd guess it has to do with the cosmological constant? Einstein's theory of relativity predicted an expanding universe, when prevailing belief at the time was that the universe was constant. So Einstein introduced the cosmological constant to explain why the universe wasn't expanding. Of course a couple of years later, turns out the universe was expanding and Einstein ended up with egg on his face (in his own opinion).
Then decades after his death, turns out the cosmological does exist, in the form of dark energy which explains why the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating.  Just guessing that's what starfries meant. Coming up with a theory that accurately explains the universe is genius. Coming up with a theory that turns out to explain something that does not exist, and then have it turn out to be right anyways, that's just crazy. 
|
On September 17 2012 10:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:44 starfries wrote:
Einstein: luckiest physicist EVER. How was he... lucky? I understand maybe he stumbled over a few things but he was just simply a genius not just "lucky"
I guess the argument would be that he was lucky to pick the right axioms when he built SR and GR. You could also call it intuition (or genius if you prefer) ofc.  And to be fair, when it can to quantum mechanics, we saw no luck from einstein in making guesses ("god does not play dice lulz"), but plenty of genius in ability to disprove his own standpoint.
But all that is a bit off topic.
|
On September 17 2012 10:50 nadafanboy42 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 17 2012 09:44 starfries wrote:
Einstein: luckiest physicist EVER. How was he... lucky? I understand maybe he stumbled over a few things but he was just simply a genius not just "lucky" I'd guess it has to do with the cosmological constant? Einstein's theory of relativity predicted an expanding universe, when prevailing belief at the time was that the universe was constant. So Einstein introduced the cosmological constant to explain why the universe wasn't expanding. Of course a couple of years later, turns out the universe was expanding and Einstein ended up with egg on his face (in his own opinion). Then decades after his death, turns out the cosmological does exist, in the form of dark energy which explains why the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating. Just guessing that's what starfries meant. Coming up with a theory that accurately explains the universe is genius. Coming up with a theory that turns out to explain something that does not exist, and then have it turn out to be right anyways, that's just crazy.
Nononononononon. He predicted a static universe that's why its called the cosmological CONSTANT. It's was a very famous debate. His equations are wrong because they failed to predict dark energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
The first sentence btw. It's funny because the expansion constant(aka Hubble's constant) is the only "constant" that is always changing. Which doesn't make sense according to general relativity.
|
On September 17 2012 10:55 Thenerf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:50 nadafanboy42 wrote:On September 17 2012 10:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 17 2012 09:44 starfries wrote:
Einstein: luckiest physicist EVER. How was he... lucky? I understand maybe he stumbled over a few things but he was just simply a genius not just "lucky" I'd guess it has to do with the cosmological constant? Einstein's theory of relativity predicted an expanding universe, when prevailing belief at the time was that the universe was constant. So Einstein introduced the cosmological constant to explain why the universe wasn't expanding. Of course a couple of years later, turns out the universe was expanding and Einstein ended up with egg on his face (in his own opinion). Then decades after his death, turns out the cosmological does exist, in the form of dark energy which explains why the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating. Just guessing that's what starfries meant. Coming up with a theory that accurately explains the universe is genius. Coming up with a theory that turns out to explain something that does not exist, and then have it turn out to be right anyways, that's just crazy. Nononononononon. He predicted a static universe that's why its called the cosmological CONSTANT. It's was a very famous debate. His equations are wrong because they failed to predict dark energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constantThe first sentence btw.
Rather than argue wikipedia, I'm just going to quote the nobel prize committee:
The coming and going of the cosmological constant
In 1915, Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which has been the foundation of our understanding of the Universe ever since. The theory describes a Universe that has to either shrink or expand.
This disturbing conclusion was reached about a decade before the discovery of the ever-fleeing galaxies. Not even Einstein could reconcile the fact that the Universe was not static. So in order to stop this unwanted cosmic expansion, Einstein added a constant to his equations that he called the cosmological constant. Later, Einstein would consider the insertion of the cosmological constant a big mistake. However, with the observations made in 1997–1998 that are awarded this year’s Nobel Prize, we can conclude that Einstein’s cosmological constant – put in for the wrong reasons – was actually brilliant.
The discovery of the expanding Universe was a groundbreaking first step towards the now standard view that the Universe was created in the Big Bang almost 14 billion years ago. Both time and space began then. Ever since, the Universe has been expanding; like raisins in a raisin cake swelling in the oven, galaxies are moving away from each other due to the cosmological expansion. But where are we heading?
SOURCE: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/popular-physicsprize2011.pdf
I'll leave it to everyone to decide for themselves who's correct.
|
On September 17 2012 10:42 Thenerf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:11 Cascade wrote:On September 17 2012 10:02 Thenerf wrote:
As somebody who had been working on Dark Energy research there are about 5 of these discoveries a year. And this has been going on for several years and they awarded the Nobel Prize for its discovery this year.
I also worked with a doctor out of UMD who professed MOND(Modified Newtonian Gravity) and sad to say that research was discredited years ago.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Dark Energy has been 100% solid science for a while now. There were no recent discoveries made but there are a lot of very "Eager" astronomers. Do you know which the most popular candidates for dark energy are for the moment? Vacuum fluctuations? Some supergravity/strings? Other things? Any hope to experimentally exclude/confirm any theory anytime soon? The "mainstream" theory is quantum foam which is closely associated with the same logic used to derive the Higgs Boson mechanism. However, there is no observable evidence to support this model. Essentially that there is an energy based on quantum uncertainty that will spontaneously cause nothing to turn into particles. That splitting creates and expanding force of energy. My research dealt with what's called Invariant Time dilation wherein dark energy is a form of warped space in which the relative clock is faster. As opposed to gravity which has a slower relative clock. There is evidence to support this but unfortunately it's surprising hard to convince a community of old, bitter, and generally full of themselves men that they might be wrong. In order for physics to reach actual advancements you need to plow through all of the shit which usually takes decades. And dark energy was only discovered in the 90's. I'd also like to note that String Theories don't actually predict anything. They are pretty much just an outlet for the very math minded people in physics to just keep adding dimensions. It usually goes like this: "You know what's better than 21 dimensions? 22!" I have actually been in the room with string theorists and this is how they see things.
ok, with vacuum fluctuations I referred to what you call quantum foam. We did the calculation for that in a quantum field theory class back in undergrad, and from the standard model you get a contribution of the wrong sign, and more than 100 orders of magnitude too large. Do I remember that correctly? So people hope that future particle physics models (susy or whatever) will include cancelling factors back to just exactly the right contribution to explain the current acceleration?
I know that strings don't predict anything, but that doesn't stop people from considering it a strong candidate for things sometimes. I did supergravity as masters, with bouncing dimensions and everything. That could include all kinds of growing and shrinking universes, but didn't predict anything as you said.
So what's up with the invariant time dilations then? So it is some kind of opposite curvature? Is it related to some negative mass, or just space curving on its own? What measurements do you agree with? Can you sum it up shortly without going into too much technicalities? I Haven't really done any gravity after my masters...
|
@nadafanboy42
The Nobel prize committee pointed out that he didn't understand an expanding universe, nor have any explanation. He put in a place holder constant which to this day has yet to be explained.......well officially at least. Don't be a fanboy.
|
What are the implications of the universe expanding + accelerating.
Assuming that space is infinite, can we safely assume that the universe will keep on expanding + accelerating forever?
But if the universe is finite, will it eventually collide...?
|
Hmmm, I wish they could elaborate more on what it is but regardless this was fucking awesome! Sweet discovery and i hope this leads to more knowledge and research.
|
On September 17 2012 11:08 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:42 Thenerf wrote:On September 17 2012 10:11 Cascade wrote:On September 17 2012 10:02 Thenerf wrote:
As somebody who had been working on Dark Energy research there are about 5 of these discoveries a year. And this has been going on for several years and they awarded the Nobel Prize for its discovery this year.
I also worked with a doctor out of UMD who professed MOND(Modified Newtonian Gravity) and sad to say that research was discredited years ago.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Dark Energy has been 100% solid science for a while now. There were no recent discoveries made but there are a lot of very "Eager" astronomers. Do you know which the most popular candidates for dark energy are for the moment? Vacuum fluctuations? Some supergravity/strings? Other things? Any hope to experimentally exclude/confirm any theory anytime soon? The "mainstream" theory is quantum foam which is closely associated with the same logic used to derive the Higgs Boson mechanism. However, there is no observable evidence to support this model. Essentially that there is an energy based on quantum uncertainty that will spontaneously cause nothing to turn into particles. That splitting creates and expanding force of energy. My research dealt with what's called Invariant Time dilation wherein dark energy is a form of warped space in which the relative clock is faster. As opposed to gravity which has a slower relative clock. There is evidence to support this but unfortunately it's surprising hard to convince a community of old, bitter, and generally full of themselves men that they might be wrong. In order for physics to reach actual advancements you need to plow through all of the shit which usually takes decades. And dark energy was only discovered in the 90's. I'd also like to note that String Theories don't actually predict anything. They are pretty much just an outlet for the very math minded people in physics to just keep adding dimensions. It usually goes like this: "You know what's better than 21 dimensions? 22!" I have actually been in the room with string theorists and this is how they see things. ok, with vacuum fluctuations I referred to what you call quantum foam. We did the calculation for that in a quantum field theory class back in undergrad, and from the standard model you get a contribution of the wrong sign, and more than 100 orders of magnitude too large. Do I remember that correctly? So people hope that future particle physics models (susy or whatever) will include cancelling factors back to just exactly the right contribution to explain the current acceleration? I know that strings don't predict anything, but that doesn't stop people from considering it a strong candidate for things sometimes. I did supergravity as masters, with bouncing dimensions and everything. That could include all kinds of growing and shrinking universes, but didn't predict anything as you said. So what's up with the invariant time dilations then? So it is some kind of opposite curvature? Is it related to some negative mass, or just space curving on its own? What measurements do you agree with? Can you sum it up shortly without going into too much technicalities? I Haven't really done any gravity after my masters...
"a contribution of the wrong sign" - Not sure I understand what you're saying here. But yes quantum fluctuations are the same. The uncertainty energy is 0.5(planck)(lower case sigma)..........its hard writing physics equations  and its derived from the commutation of wave-particle states.
Invariant Time dilation is basically negative mass. You change the direction of the field vectors(opposite curvature) by flipping the sign of the energy(rho). Instead of a collapsing field you get an expanding field. The evidence presented was a Blue Shift and Concave Light Lensing effects which were both already observed. The logic was based on super symmetry where every field has its equivalent and gravity was the only field that didn't have one. Then we found DE and well...now it does.
|
On September 17 2012 11:09 XenOmega wrote:
What are the implications of the universe expanding + accelerating.
Assuming that space is infinite, can we safely assume that the universe will keep on expanding + accelerating forever?
But if the universe is finite, will it eventually collide...?
eventual entropic heat death of the universe
|
What irritates me is that science is, I find, like a giant castle of cards. It's like a superposition of theories. It's like a theory of a theory of a theory of a theory, with inner circles of logic... and that castle of theories is called reality. I find that kind of thinking slightly precarious, especially since most theories are, yes, based on measurements, but those measurements are never, NEVER, 100% free of uncertainty... so we're piling up uncertainty in each theory. So in the end, I think (?) that there will be a point where all theories are so full of inherent uncertainty (because they're on top of a huge chain of theories with uncertainty) that those theories will be just as unrealistic as giant brain-washing alien invadors. And that point, I think, is being reached with 21st century science. I think we, humans, are headed towards a "knowledge ceiling", where we can no longer seek answers by looking out at the sky, through instruments and such, but rather can only find answers by looking inside, within ourselves.
I have no bloody idea how I went from science to philosophy, but yeah. You get my point.
|
On September 17 2012 11:25 Thenerf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:08 Cascade wrote:On September 17 2012 10:42 Thenerf wrote:On September 17 2012 10:11 Cascade wrote:On September 17 2012 10:02 Thenerf wrote:
As somebody who had been working on Dark Energy research there are about 5 of these discoveries a year. And this has been going on for several years and they awarded the Nobel Prize for its discovery this year.
I also worked with a doctor out of UMD who professed MOND(Modified Newtonian Gravity) and sad to say that research was discredited years ago.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Dark Energy has been 100% solid science for a while now. There were no recent discoveries made but there are a lot of very "Eager" astronomers. Do you know which the most popular candidates for dark energy are for the moment? Vacuum fluctuations? Some supergravity/strings? Other things? Any hope to experimentally exclude/confirm any theory anytime soon? The "mainstream" theory is quantum foam which is closely associated with the same logic used to derive the Higgs Boson mechanism. However, there is no observable evidence to support this model. Essentially that there is an energy based on quantum uncertainty that will spontaneously cause nothing to turn into particles. That splitting creates and expanding force of energy. My research dealt with what's called Invariant Time dilation wherein dark energy is a form of warped space in which the relative clock is faster. As opposed to gravity which has a slower relative clock. There is evidence to support this but unfortunately it's surprising hard to convince a community of old, bitter, and generally full of themselves men that they might be wrong. In order for physics to reach actual advancements you need to plow through all of the shit which usually takes decades. And dark energy was only discovered in the 90's. I'd also like to note that String Theories don't actually predict anything. They are pretty much just an outlet for the very math minded people in physics to just keep adding dimensions. It usually goes like this: "You know what's better than 21 dimensions? 22!" I have actually been in the room with string theorists and this is how they see things. ok, with vacuum fluctuations I referred to what you call quantum foam. We did the calculation for that in a quantum field theory class back in undergrad, and from the standard model you get a contribution of the wrong sign, and more than 100 orders of magnitude too large. Do I remember that correctly? So people hope that future particle physics models (susy or whatever) will include cancelling factors back to just exactly the right contribution to explain the current acceleration? I know that strings don't predict anything, but that doesn't stop people from considering it a strong candidate for things sometimes. I did supergravity as masters, with bouncing dimensions and everything. That could include all kinds of growing and shrinking universes, but didn't predict anything as you said. So what's up with the invariant time dilations then? So it is some kind of opposite curvature? Is it related to some negative mass, or just space curving on its own? What measurements do you agree with? Can you sum it up shortly without going into too much technicalities? I Haven't really done any gravity after my masters... "a contribution of the wrong sign" - Not sure I understand what you're saying here. But yes quantum fluctuations are the same. The uncertainty energy is 0.5(planck)(lower case sigma)..........its hard writing physics equations and its derived from the commutation of wave-particle states. Invariant Time dilation is basically negative mass. You change the direction of the field vectors(opposite curvature) by flipping the sign of the energy(rho). Instead of a collapsing field you get an expanding field. The evidence presented was a Blue Shift and Concave Light Lensing effects which were both already observed. The logic was based on super symmetry where every field has its equivalent and gravity was the only field that didn't have one. Then we found DE and well...now it does.
With wrong sign I mean that while we need a negative vacuum energy of around X (to fit measured current cosmological constant), what you get from a naive standard model calculation is about -X*10^120 or something. So to explain todays observed cosmological constant from that, you would need contributions from non-standard model particles that cancels out the -X*10^120, and gives that little extra +X for the actual signal. Or that is how I understood it from my lecturer back in QFT classes.
Looking at wiki shortly, they seem to agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy although the article "is in need of en expert physicist" and the calculation includes only QED. Not sure if things would change much with QCD, weak force or higgs. Would still surprise me if they would cancel out to 120 orders of magnitude, but I don't know how the calculations would go.
So you would be happy if they found susy particles then? Is your model touching on quantum mechanics as well, or is it only large scale?
|
On September 17 2012 11:37 sorrowptoss wrote:
What irritates me is that science is, I find, like a giant castle of cards. It's like a superposition of theories. It's like a theory of a theory of a theory of a theory, with inner circles of logic... and that castle of theories is called reality. I find that kind of thinking slightly precarious, especially since most theories are, yes, based on measurements, but those measurements are never, NEVER, 100% free of uncertainty... so we're piling up uncertainty in each theory. So in the end, I think (?) that there will be a point where all theories are so full of inherent uncertainty (because they're on top of a huge chain of theories with uncertainty) that those theories will be just as unrealistic as giant brain-washing alien invadors. And that point, I think, is being reached with 21st century science. I think we, humans, are headed towards a "knowledge ceiling", where we can no longer seek answers by looking out at the sky, through instruments and such, but rather can only find answers by looking inside, within ourselves.
I have no bloody idea how I went from science to philosophy, but yeah. You get my point.
I can definitely understand how it can seem that way, with all these fantastic theories after each other. And you are of course correct in the sense that all measurements have errors, and that we can never prove any model 100%.
But I find that the more I learn, the more convincing it is. I work in particle physics, and while I understand how that seems like imagination to someone not into the field, the fact is that we test our models to incredible accuracy. My favourite example would be the lamb shift, where you use electromagnetism and quantum field theory (particle physics) to predict the energy levels of a hydrogen atom. Using only electromagnetism and the most basic quantum mechanics you get about 4 digits right, which roughly corresponds to shooting a cannon ball across the atlantic and hitting a specific block in some city. Not bad for accuracy, and managing to do so is probably a sign that your models are on the right track. Adding on all the corrections from more advanced quantum mechanics and particle physics, you can predict the energy levels to 8 digits. Which roughly corresponds to hit a coin when shooting the cannon ball across the atlantic. Which is a pretty convincing accuracy imo, and enough to say that we probably understand pretty well how shooting cannon balls (or the hydrogen atom) works.
And when I go to other fields, I feel like you that I am a bit sceptical at first, "can they really be sure about this??", but I tend to find that yes, they seem to know pretty well what they are doing, and yes, they have thought of all the possible loopholes. Again, we can never be 100% sure, but in general the more you look up experimental data and the predictions, the more convinced you get. For cosmology, maybe a better example would be the GPS, that accounts for the effects of warped space time (together with all the mechanics in the satelite, the electromagnetism in the signals, etc) from the earths gravitational field to measure time at a nanosecond level, so we can get accuracy of a few meters on our positions.
So have a look at your GPS, see how accurate it is. And realise that without including warped space time, the GPS would be pointing many kilometers differently, and quickly drifting away. See how the point on your GPS doesn't move many kilometers per second? I myself feel pretty confident that today's science is well connected to reality, and built on a solid foundation.
|
On September 17 2012 11:08 Thenerf wrote:
@nadafanboy42
The Nobel prize committee pointed out that he didn't understand an expanding universe, nor have any explanation. He put in a place holder constant which to this day has yet to be explained.......well officially at least. Don't be a fanboy.
Please, explain more about what Einstein didn't understand.
Don't be a hater.
|
On September 17 2012 11:08 Thenerf wrote:
@nadafanboy42
The Nobel prize committee pointed out that he didn't understand an expanding universe, nor have any explanation. He put in a place holder constant which to this day has yet to be explained.......well officially at least. Don't be a fanboy.
....
Don't be a fanboy?
Way to discredit one of the greatest thinkers of his time. He was ahead of his time, a lot of his work paved the way for future advances. He's accomplished more for humanity than you or I ever could.
...Don't be a fanboy?
WTF is wrong with people
|
On September 17 2012 18:49 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:08 Thenerf wrote:
@nadafanboy42
The Nobel prize committee pointed out that he didn't understand an expanding universe, nor have any explanation. He put in a place holder constant which to this day has yet to be explained.......well officially at least. Don't be a fanboy. .... Don't be a fanboy? Way to discredit one of the greatest thinkers of his time. He was ahead of his time, a lot of his work paved the way for future advances. He's accomplished more for humanity than you or I ever could. ...Don't be a fanboy? WTF is wrong with people
?? Don't behave like a child please. He was a human, he could be wrong even though he was the greatest mind of his time.
|
On September 17 2012 11:54 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:25 Thenerf wrote:On September 17 2012 11:08 Cascade wrote:On September 17 2012 10:42 Thenerf wrote:On September 17 2012 10:11 Cascade wrote:On September 17 2012 10:02 Thenerf wrote:
As somebody who had been working on Dark Energy research there are about 5 of these discoveries a year. And this has been going on for several years and they awarded the Nobel Prize for its discovery this year.
I also worked with a doctor out of UMD who professed MOND(Modified Newtonian Gravity) and sad to say that research was discredited years ago.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Dark Energy has been 100% solid science for a while now. There were no recent discoveries made but there are a lot of very "Eager" astronomers. Do you know which the most popular candidates for dark energy are for the moment? Vacuum fluctuations? Some supergravity/strings? Other things? Any hope to experimentally exclude/confirm any theory anytime soon? The "mainstream" theory is quantum foam which is closely associated with the same logic used to derive the Higgs Boson mechanism. However, there is no observable evidence to support this model. Essentially that there is an energy based on quantum uncertainty that will spontaneously cause nothing to turn into particles. That splitting creates and expanding force of energy. My research dealt with what's called Invariant Time dilation wherein dark energy is a form of warped space in which the relative clock is faster. As opposed to gravity which has a slower relative clock. There is evidence to support this but unfortunately it's surprising hard to convince a community of old, bitter, and generally full of themselves men that they might be wrong. In order for physics to reach actual advancements you need to plow through all of the shit which usually takes decades. And dark energy was only discovered in the 90's. I'd also like to note that String Theories don't actually predict anything. They are pretty much just an outlet for the very math minded people in physics to just keep adding dimensions. It usually goes like this: "You know what's better than 21 dimensions? 22!" I have actually been in the room with string theorists and this is how they see things. ok, with vacuum fluctuations I referred to what you call quantum foam. We did the calculation for that in a quantum field theory class back in undergrad, and from the standard model you get a contribution of the wrong sign, and more than 100 orders of magnitude too large. Do I remember that correctly? So people hope that future particle physics models (susy or whatever) will include cancelling factors back to just exactly the right contribution to explain the current acceleration? I know that strings don't predict anything, but that doesn't stop people from considering it a strong candidate for things sometimes. I did supergravity as masters, with bouncing dimensions and everything. That could include all kinds of growing and shrinking universes, but didn't predict anything as you said. So what's up with the invariant time dilations then? So it is some kind of opposite curvature? Is it related to some negative mass, or just space curving on its own? What measurements do you agree with? Can you sum it up shortly without going into too much technicalities? I Haven't really done any gravity after my masters... "a contribution of the wrong sign" - Not sure I understand what you're saying here. But yes quantum fluctuations are the same. The uncertainty energy is 0.5(planck)(lower case sigma)..........its hard writing physics equations and its derived from the commutation of wave-particle states. Invariant Time dilation is basically negative mass. You change the direction of the field vectors(opposite curvature) by flipping the sign of the energy(rho). Instead of a collapsing field you get an expanding field. The evidence presented was a Blue Shift and Concave Light Lensing effects which were both already observed. The logic was based on super symmetry where every field has its equivalent and gravity was the only field that didn't have one. Then we found DE and well...now it does. With wrong sign I mean that while we need a negative vacuum energy of around X (to fit measured current cosmological constant), what you get from a naive standard model calculation is about -X*10^120 or something. So to explain todays observed cosmological constant from that, you would need contributions from non-standard model particles that cancels out the -X*10^120, and gives that little extra +X for the actual signal. Or that is how I understood it from my lecturer back in QFT classes. Looking at wiki shortly, they seem to agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy although the article "is in need of en expert physicist" and the calculation includes only QED. Not sure if things would change much with QCD, weak force or higgs. Would still surprise me if they would cancel out to 120 orders of magnitude, but I don't know how the calculations would go. So you would be happy if they found susy particles then? Is your model touching on quantum mechanics as well, or is it only large scale?
My model for dark energy only touches on large scales. Personally I treat the standard model as incomplete and try not to draw conclusions from it. The missing particles are only the beginning of the problems. Given the approach to add "fundamental" particles every 5 years or so each time you make a calculation you end up doing them with only part of the physics. The Standard Model approach has always been fuzzy(pun intended) about evidence.
My model in regards to small scales required the discovery of a "dark photon" which is a boson who's propagation velocity isn't c. It's the field interaction responsible for dark matter and would be the stepping stone between the fundamental forces. We looked for it possible from neutrino interactions and never found it. And I'm not sure where to look for it (or how to) which puts a giant ? on that.
|
I guess even if you talk about serious matters on youtube, such as dark energy and physics you still have to use jumpcuts every 5 fucking seconds
|
Interesting... But the bad part is that unless we get to use it somehow for our benefit, i dont see it beein so important.
Who knows, maybe we will have stuff running on dark energy soon? Portal guns?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
