That reading material being: "The 10 most overhyped physics and astronomy claims from 2023".
Quote: "While there have been huge scientific advances in a wide variety of aspects of physics and astronomy, there have also been wild headlines that do not reflect at all what's true in this Universe."
Now there's a surprise!
Good stuff. Thanks for sharing, Bonsai.
if a spining blackhole drag the spacetime. What shape it will take geometrically. Wouldn't it make anti gravity there.
Very interesting discussion here on physics.stackexchange.com in response to a question about Planck scales. See the bit about quantum foam and how theorists believe huge energies exist at the Planck scale ie vacuum point energy. I have been schooled.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...e-look-like-at-the-planck-length-in-a-drawing
https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...e-look-like-at-the-planck-length-in-a-drawing
I read that vacuum energy is a special case of zero point energy. I'll refer to vacuum energy.
Could Planck-scale vacuum energy simply go away?: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v12/105
Below, I've given the essence of the solution contained in the article:
In simple terms, even though the quantum foam may have an enormous energy, it can still resemble a zero-energy vacuum on large scales.
Last edited:
Mass-on-spring isolation systems are anti-gravity devices, if you place a scale under the object isolated by the mass-on-spring system it would show the object weighs less than before.
But surely this then would not account for an expanding universe ie if the Planck scale expansions and contractions effectively cancelled at cosmological scales?
I struggle to understand where this energy is coming from, and why it would need to even exist to explain the universe we observe. In essence, it says our cosmos as we perceive it, overlays an absolutely enormous energy field of density 10^80 joules/m^3 that somehow cancels out, leaving an observed 10-^27 joules/m^3.
To put this into perspective, the total mass energy of the observable universe is 4.2 x 10^69 joules, and the total energy output of all stars 10^55 watt seconds aka joule/seconds. So the vacuum point energy per m^3 is 14 orders of magnitude greater than the total energy output of all stars in the observable universe. But, we don’t see it and we cannot access it. What we see is Einstein‘s 10^-27 joules/m^3.
Last edited:
Do you have some actual experimental results?
Perhaps Sabine Hossenfelder could investigate this effect with the accelerometer she used in her video above?
That's the bit I didn't understand!
At the end of the day, gravity does not have an adequate quantum field theory description, and our physics remains incomplete.
Three months back I quoted Sabine Hossenfelder:
"Not everyone agrees that this [the vacuum catastrophe] is a problem in need of fixing. The cosmological constant is technically just a constant of nature, a number in an equation that can take on any value, says Sabine Hossenfelder. “All these debates about why does it have the value it has are not scientifically good questions,” she says. Nothing about quantum field theory was falsified when its prediction didn't match astronomical measurements, and the theory is still as useful as it ever was. “I think most people in the cosmology and astrophysics community believe it's a problem because they've been told that for a long time [since 1967].”
I suppose the people formulating the QM view of vacuum energy would argue that the universe was once not electrically neutral, but then in the early part of its existence, protons and electrons combined and it became neutral and that applied across the whole cosmos except where there are very specific conditions being created eg lightning, static electricity and so forth. So, by analogy, you could have a situation where enormous energies are arranged so as to cancel perfectly ie nature abhors an imbalance in these energies. If you look at the binding energy within the nucleus of an atom, thr forcrs are enormous. I think it was Feynman who explained if you pulled the constituents of a nucleus apart, the attractive forces at 1 metre would be many tons.
However, the fact that we cannot measure or test for quantum vacuum energy means we can never verify the hypothesis.
However, the fact that we cannot measure or test for quantum vacuum energy means we can never verify the hypothesis.
@Galu, I invented the first hi end isolation platform with 6 count ‘em! directions of motion/isolation. 0.5 Hz In vertical. Think about it, the springs expert an upward force 🔝. Hel-loo!
So, that's the anti-gravity to which you referred!
The 2024 Nobel prize for physics is still up for grabs. 😀
If I could explain it to the average person they would not give me the Nobel prize. Wink, wink
We can't actually visualise spacetime itself, but we can look for oscillations in the accretion discs of black holes that are a result of Lense-Thirring precession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense–Thirring_precession
We are dealing with phenomena that would only be apparent on the level of the Planck scale - around a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a metre.
If you measured the diameter of an atom in Planck lengths, and counted off one Planck length each second, it would take you 10,000,000 times the current age of the universe! 😵