Re: [asa] Multiverse and ID

From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sat May 09 2009 - 23:52:36 EDT

Hi George,
 
Unfortunately, I am not all that familiar with vacuum energy, which was one reason I made the mistake of connecting the wrong dots.  It seemed to me that Dark Energy was the quick and ready mystery source for why the expansion of the universe was found to be accelerating.  Ok, it is, but I assumed this amount (120 orders) was needed over and above the vacuum energy level originally determined prior to the discovered acceleration.   However, I recently learned that the vacuum energy (quantum zero-point energy) has an amazingly high calculated value of about 10^93 grams per cc (based on truncating wavelengths at the Planck length), but the current measured value is only 10^-28 grams per cc.  Thus, we have the 10^120 difference.  But, not knowing the calculated vacuum energy amount, I went the wrong way and found myself accidentaly off by 240 orders of magnitude from the level that it actually is.  [Fortunately, you will find my work will
 rarely be off this much. :)]
 
This presents another puzzle to me, however:  Einstein was reportedly off by 120 orders of magnitude with his cosmological constant -- which only kept our suspected static universe from collapsing.  So, can we say his value was 10^-148 g/cc?
 
"Coope"
 

--- On Fri, 5/8/09, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] Multiverse and ID
To: "George Cooper" <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>, asa@calvin.edu
Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 3:42 PM

Coope -

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The quantum vacuum energy is many
orders of magnitude larger than the value that would provide a cosmological
constant to account for present observations of acceleration. (Cf. the
"Search and Discovery" section of the March Physics Today.)

Anyway, if you made a sign error you would have been off by 2 x 10^120.
(But that means that your estimate of your error is indeed off by ~ 10^240.)

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Cooper" <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:06 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Multiverse and ID

> Speaking from the cosmological peanut gallery, I think the zero-point
> energy density value (prior to Dark Energy) is the most bizarre result
> I've ever seen. You may be amused to know that I had assumed Dark
Energy
> was the mystery solution to the acceleration of the universe, which was
> found to be 120 orders of magnitude greater than they thought for a
> non-accelerating universe. But, as I understand, I had it all wrong and
> the 120 orders of magnitude is the amount of suppression for the
> zero-point energy density.
>
> Thus, I was off by 10^240! Is this a record? [Prv. 15:33 is my only
> comfort here. :( ]
>
> "Coope"
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of George Murphy
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 2:03 PM
> To: wjp; Ted Davis
> Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu; Nucacids
> Subject: Re: [asa] Multiverse and ID
>
> The idea that "the world simply popped out of the quantum
vacuum" does not
> at all solve the problem of ultimate origins since the quantum vacuum is
> very far from being "nothing."
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "wjp" <wjp@swcp.com>
> To: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
> Cc: <asa@lists.calvin.edu>; "Nucacids"
<nucacids@wowway.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 1:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Multiverse and ID
>
>
>> May I suggest that Murray Gellman's (and probably others) notion
that
>> the world simply popped out of the quantum vacuum is another example
>> of anything being possible with infinite ignorance.
>>
>> bill
>>
>> On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:16:10 -0400, "Ted Davis"
<TDavis@messiah.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> This is great stuff for a new thread, Mike. As one of the triune
>>> moderators, I am intervening with a quasi-trinitarian omnipotence
to
>>> change the title, in order to convey more accurately what this one
is
>>> about. List members are asked to keep this heading for future
posts
>>> related to Monton's comments and Koonin's
"abracadabra" "model" for the
>>> origin of life.
>>>
>>> At least this member of the relevant trinity thinks this stuff is
>>> equivalent to the kind of "magic" that Polkinghorne says
that God
>>> doesn't
>>> get involved in. As I like to say sometimes, once you invoke
infinity
>>> all
>>> bets are off: this is truly a multiverse of the gaps. I wish
I'd been
>>> asked to be one of the reviewers for this "science." At
least now the
>>> resurrection becomes no longer impossible scientifically, does it?
>>> Somehow I sense that Dawkins would figure out a way to mis-use the
>>> anthropic principle to keep divine action from getting too close
for his
>>> comfort, even if apparently it means to him that *anything* can
happen,
>>> no
>>> matter how improbable it really is. There just has to be
universe,
>>> somewhere, where Frodo keeps his finger and another one where
Peter Pan
>>> really can fly; but somehow the anthropic principle would just
have to
>>> rule out the existence of a universe in which Dawkins believed in
God...
>>>
>>> This type of *$%^ is the best argument I have seen for considering
>>> joining
>>> the ID movement. Certainly it supports ID arguments about the
>>> arbitrariness of ruling out "non-natural" causes, even
when those causes
>>> have some of the attributes usually associated with the
"intelligent
>>> designer". The multiverse is infinite in space and time (if
you don't
>>> agree, look at how many times Koonin uses that word), the ultimate

>>> ground
>>> of being, the source of every good and perfect gift (namely,
worlds that
>>> produce life "intelligent" enough to believe anything is
possible), the
>>> giver of life, and our only hope--which is of course that we have
no
>>> hope.
>>>
>>> I've often told students that Aristotle's heaven had some
of the
>>> attributes of divinity--perfection and eternity--which strike me
as an
>>> implicit commentary on Greek polytheism. Christian Aristotelians
>>> rightly
>>> removed the latter and eventually telescopic observations put the
former
>>> to rest. Penzias & Wilson added the observations to put the
former into
>>> serious question for those who did not have confidence in
revelation,
>>> but
>>> now it seems that eternity is back on the menu. Of course, this
time,
>>> it
>>> won't be subject to observational refutation--but only b/c,
when it
>>> comes
>>> to other universes with which we will never in principle have any
>>> contact,
>>> nothing is subject to observational refutation. I am reminded of
what
>>> Galileo's interlocutor Salviati, said to the Aristotelian
Simplicio in
>>> his
>>> famous book about the Copernican system, “our discourses must
relate to
>>> the sensible world and not to one on paper.” Now that Simplicio
has
>>> been reborn, in the person of Mr. Koonin, can!
>>>
>>> we bring back Salviati on behalf of Galileo?
>>>
>>> If anyone hears about pigs taking flight, somewhere, please do
send me
>>> the
>>> reports. I'll submit them to Biology Direct for possible
publication.
>>>
>>> Ted
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
message.
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 9 23:52:53 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 09 2009 - 23:52:53 EDT