Re: [asa] Multiverse and ID

From: <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
Date: Sun May 10 2009 - 09:24:50 EDT

Einstein didn't know anything about quantum vacuum energy in 1917. (However, he later suggested that the cosmological constant might be connected with the "Poincare stresses" of classical electron theory, which have some similarities with the "regulators" of quantum field theory.)

The idea that the cosmological constant must due to quantum vacuum energy is a prejudice of theorists trained in particle/high energy physics rather than classical general relativity. Anoher prejudice among many relatvists is the notion that the cosmological constant is a mere fudge factor whose justification disappeared with the discovery of cosmic expansion. The discovery that the expansion is accelerating in a way that can be accounted for by a cosmological term that's far smaller than what quantum theory suggests ought at least call both of those prejudices into serious question. It may be - as Eddington, e.g., argued - that the cosmological constant represents a fundamental aspect of physics. Attempts to develop a further generalization of general relativity based on affine geometry agree with this since they demand - & don't merely allow - a cosmological constant.

Shalom,
George

---- George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 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.‚ÄĚ 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 Sun May 10 09:25:33 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 10 2009 - 09:25:33 EDT