Black Holes Don't Exist

Yes, they have changed over time, but the cosmological constant has not. It is an energy density, so vacuum energy can increase over the course of time (due to the expanding universe), but the vacuum energy density (which the cosmological constant measures) does not.If I have a container with 8 liters of water and a volume of 1 cubic meter and then it increases to 2 cubic meters with 16 liters of water, the amount of water has changed but the density has not.The Cosmological constant is a density. What the Standard model predicts is an energy density. One that is constant according to observations and according to the Standard Model.

What was wrong with the explanation from 2012 that it required a repeat? Obviously you knew I could do it, since I'd done it before.

quote:

---

If I have a container with 8 liters of water and a volume of 1 cubic meter and then it increases to 2 cubic meters with 16 liters of water, the amount of water has changed but the density has not.
The Cosmological constant is a density. What the Standard model predicts is an energy density. One that is constant according to observations and according to the Standard Model.

---

You really don’t get it. Forget the changing volume. It is the density between matter and energy which has changed. If you calculated the vacuum energy in the past, then calculated it now, it’s density is different. Forget the volume for now, think balance of state.

Son, the answer for calculating energy density, that is observed today, from quantum background still does not work. Just the infinities alone in perturbation theory cause issues. No one, except a very few individuals expect that vacuum energy can be reconciled to 107 orders of magnitude.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

You stated the cosmological constant has changed over time. I am saying this is wrong. I am not talking about the comparison between matter and energy. No, the density is exactly the same. Seriously, why do you think this. I have given you the paper, explained the method twice, explained the theoretical background three times and you still keep repeating this. What problem do you have with the paper I linked to which calculates the correct answer? Why do you think this issue is unsolved?
Can you provide a reason why you believe this is unsolved, without referencing almost fifty year old calculations. What infinities in perturbation theory? I have the calculation in front of me, the paper I linked, and there are no perturbative infinities.

It's like deja vu, all over again. attributed to Yogi Berra.

quote:

---

You stated the cosmological constant has changed over time. I am saying this is wrong. I am not talking about the comparison between matter and energy.

---

So the cosmological was constant during inflation? Let me guess, you say yes. Hopeless.

quote:

---

Seriously, why do you think this. I have given you the paper, explained the method twice, explained the theoretical background three times and you still keep repeating this. What problem do you have with the paper I linked to which calculates the correct answer? Why do you think this issue is unsolved?
Can you provide a reason why you believe this is unsolved, without referencing almost fifty year old calculations.

---

Let me draw a very short parallel here.I guess you can say that black holes don’t exist then? You understand how ignorant that sounds in light of real observations. Well there is a paper written on it so let us jump on board. Who here for a single minute believes that black holes don’t exist because of a bad Standard Model prediction That is just funny.This is exactly what I am claiming here bad assumptions lead to more bad assumptions.Well Son says vacuum catastrophe does not exist, never has. Because a paper points out that it is all imagination. Hopeless..

Ya know, people can read the thread. They know no one, least of all Son Goku, claimed that black holes don't exist. Way back in Message 14 Son Goku wrote: You're just ignoring what Son Goku says and making up your own ridiculous stuff. So when you go on to say: The term hopeless more appropriately applies to someone who objects to certain conclusions because they appeared in a technical paper (that they haven't read) while ignoring the fact that their own claims also appeared in technical papers (that are nearly a half century old and that in all likelihood they also haven't read).--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix title.

Plus, of course, the fact that Son never said the problem never existed; he acknowledged that it existed and explained why it no longer exists.

I am saying that the constant denoted by the symbol in Einstein's field equations for general relativity is constant. The field equations are: where , known as the stress-energy, describes the energy and momentum flux due to matter. , the metric, describes how distances work in the spacetime, is the Einstein Tensor, which describes a specific aspect of the spacetimes curvature. describes the energy present in empty space.So what I am saying is: That , the object known as the cosmological constant, is a constant, that it does not vary over time and space.I do not know what you are refering to when you say "the cosmological", so I'm not claiming anything about whether it is constant or not.I am saying the cosmological constant, the term in the field equations, is a constant. The paper linked to at the start of this discussion is not a Standard model prediction. The calculation is done in what is known as the Hawking-Hartle vacuum. This is basically the lowest energy state of a scalar quantum field and a scalar quantum field alone. In fact this the same toy model I mentioned earlier in reference to the vacuum energy calculation. It is not a standard model calculation.Can you answer the following question:
When you say the Standard Model what do you mean?
You seem to blame it for everything, but have given strong hints that you don't know what it is, such as claiming it displays supersymmetry. Do you know what it is? I'm saying that the vacuum catastrophe was a problem of old toy models and is not a problem of the actual standard model.The paper does not "point out it is imagination", it mathematically proves that the standard model has no vacuum catastrophe.Once again, can you actual say what is wrong with the paper.If nothing else, please answer the following question, this will be my fifteenth time asking it over the last two years, so can you just answer:
Why do you think the Standard Model displays the vacuum catastrophe? Given that the vacuum catastrophe was found in an old toy model, not the Standard model, why do you believe the Standard Model has a vacuum catastrophe?

quote:

---

I am saying that the constant denoted by the symbol in Einstein's field equations for general relativity is constant. The field equations are:

---

That cosmological constant by Einstein was before inflation was proposed. At inflation the vacuum energy went to something like 10^90 in magnitude, settled out to almost zero, and remains at almost zero (or very low) in this epoch. Even the statement that it remains’ may not be the factual. That is what I am saying about being constantIf you calculate a constant by quantum field theory you leave out gravity. This allows you to add any constant to the definition of energy density. That is your problem with with the QFT calculations

quote:

---

So what I am saying is: That , the object known as the cosmological constant, is a constant, that it does not vary over time and space.
I do not know what you are refering to when you say "the cosmological", so I'm not claiming anything about whether it is constant or not.
I am saying the cosmological constant, the  term in the field equations, is a constant.

---

Only in GR. If the assumption: Cosmological constant = vacuum energy After you equate the two there is no constant in the term constant.

quote:

---

I’m saying that the vacuum catastrophe was a problem of old toy models and is not a problem of the actual standard model.
The paper does not "point out it is imagination", it mathematically proves that the standard model has no vacuum catastrophe.
Once again, can you actual say what is wrong with the paper.

---

You wish to sell me a used car I am not buying it because you are leaving out so many facts that your statements mean nothing.

quote:

---

The term hopeless more appropriately applies to someone who objects to certain conclusions because they appeared in a technical paper (that they haven't read) while ignoring the fact that their own claims also appeared in technical papers (that are nearly a half century old and that in all likelihood they also haven't read).

---

I used hopeless out of frustration, stepping back I see that was wrong. Thank you for a concise evaluation.

You're welcome, but you didn't answer the implicit question. Why do you imbue papers on the subject from the 1970's with greater validity than more recent papers, especially having read none of them? Don't you have to read the papers before you can assess Son Goku's explanation that the work from 40 years ago used an approximate model that isn't capable of producing an accurate estimate of the cosmological constant, while the paper he cited uses a more accurate model that produces a result consistent with current estimates?When I poke around on the web on this topic I see some articles that understand that the calculations from the 1970's used an approximate model, others that think the vacuum catastrophe is still a very real problem, and none that seem aware that the problem has been solved as Son Goku claims. Given that the date on the paper (Measurement of the
flavour-specific CP violating asymmetry in decays) is July 11, 2012, it seems that more work is needed to provide confirmation, but nonetheless it does seem to support Son Goku's claim:

quote:

---

In conclusion, our result is the most precise determination to date, and is in agreement with the Standard Model prediction.

---

You're under no obligation to agree, but even those who produced the 1970's results expected that the vacuum catastrophe would resolve under more accurate models, which is what appears to be happening now. If you expect anyone to agree with you that the current work resolves nothing then you'll have to provide some reason, something you have yet to do.There's a lot in the paper I don't understand, some of it extremely basic. For example, nowhere in the paper do the terms "cosmological constant" or "vacuum energy" appear. I assumed that the symbol is the cosmological constant, but is that correct?Also, on page 13 near the bottom the paper simply states the predicted values of the Standard Model, and it was at this point I realized the paper doesn't actually present the calculation for this value. This value was actually calculated elsewhere, and this paper just presents it. I think what this paper may actually be reporting is a more accurate measurement of the cosmological constant, which they then compare with this already calculated prediction of the Standard Model (the reference provided is Theoretical update of B-Mixing and Lifetimes). Son Goku will have to confirm, since I'm totally out of my element on this subject.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

quote:

---

You're welcome, but you didn't answer the implicit question. Why do you imbue papers on the subject from the 1970's with greater validity than more recent papers, especially having read none of them? Don't you have to read the papers before you can assess Son Goku's explanation that the work from 40 years ago used an approximate model that isn't capable of producing an accurate estimate of the cosmological constant, while the paper he cited uses a more accurate model that produces a result consistent with current estimates?

---

I have just dusted off a Scientific American from September 2004. It, more than any other article, at the time, helped me to form my opinions about the cosmological constant and the vacuum catastrophe. Something Son and I have talked about over a year ago, my recollection about this is sketchy so my apologies to Son if they don’t jive with his recollection.Calculations for virtual particles were first preformed in the 1930’s. Apparent problems at the time were not taken too seriously because it was assumed that cancelation of these virtual particle effects would prove a solution. In general, physics that do not involve gravity disregard the absolute energy of a system, only energy involving differences between states is considered. If a Constant is added to all the energy values, it can later cancel out of the calculations and be disregarded (please excuse the simple analysis). All this is saying is that calculations that do not consider gravity (non GR) do not consider curvature of space time by vacuum energy (additions to the stress energy tensor).So physics like QFT, that do not consider gravity, can cancel out aspects of vacuum energy, but they are not considering the vacuum energy contribution to space curvature. They can avoid the vacuum catastrophe all together but do not reflect space time accurately. We know that the critical density of the universe by the observation of a flat universe. The vacuum energy contribution to the equation of state is around 70%, that is current stress energy contribution of vacuum energy. So there must be a absolute contribution of energy from vacuum energy, it is not a differences of state situation.Now vacuum energy can be added to the stress energy tensor in Einsteins field equation (Son showed a tensor) but must be fine tuned by observations to reflect reality. You can not just add all the calculated vacuum contributions and come up with a answer this is the vacuum catastrophe.Nothing but fancier math has changed. There is still a rift in calculations between Standard Model and Relativity (although I acknowledge there is cross-work in this area). Fine tuning is still a problem though. I believe my last conversation with Son was on the topic of normalization in regards to QFT calculations. I am only a layperson trying to rake it all in all the info, this is apparently Son’s field. But I do not accept his supposed solutions to the vacuum catastrophe, as most true authorities in the field are in agreement.

quote:

---

When I poke around on the web on this topic I see some articles that understand that the calculations from the 1970's used an approximate model, others that think the vacuum catastrophe is still a very real problem, and none that seem aware that the problem has been solved as Son Goku claims.

---

I agree with your last sentence, I have my own opinion about the BB not being able to reconcile all the problems, especially if they can not find Dark matter or Dark energy. It seems to me a better way is from a new cosmological model, say the 5d by Carmeli. It does not contain dark energy or dark matter.

And yet even without taking into account any addition to the space time energy tensor at all, GR readily models gravity within the solar system. Surely something is completely wrong with your thinking.The only reason for adding vacuum energy is to explain the increasing rate of expansion of the universe. The constant plays no role even in explaining the rotation rates of galaxies. None at all. What does not follow from your reasoning is that QFT is inaccurate in its description of physics. And in fact, the issue is one on which we've repeatedly asked you to explain yourself. The correct calculation of zero point energy indeed does involve avoid a vacuum catastrophe and has been argued to be consistent with Lambda. So what is the issue? Totally BS. The value used in Einstein's equation is derived from observation, but the number calculated from particle physics is not. If the two values are consistent, then there is no issue. You don't seem to have any way to argue that Son Goku is wrong on this issue other than your own personal incredulity.