Do I have this right

[fuji]

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says you cannot measure both the energy of something and its location at the same time, at the quantum level. Therefore, for any point in space you can't be sure of its exact energy level. Since you can specify its location exactly, you can't know how much energy is there, even for an "empty" point in space. It might be very nearly zero, but it's not zero.

This implies that there is a very low level energy field everywhere in space, even supposedly empty points in the vacuum have a small but unknown quantum of energy. This is the vacuum energy. It's near zero, but not zero.

Since this energy exists it has an energy density, which is also near zero, but not zero. Since there's density, there's pressure, like a gas in a volume of space, exerting a pressure. This pressure is near zero, but not zero. And it exists everywhere, although it's nearly zero.

Over very large distances, like the distances between galaxies, this pressure incrementally adds up to a very large force. This force pushes outwards everywhere at once. Over the distances between galaxies this force creates an increasing acceleration. Everything moves further from everything else.

This implication of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle gives rise to the cosmological constant and is the reason why the universe is expanding.

 

[Jubee]

 

[shack]

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says you cannot measure both the energy of something and its location at the same time, at the quantum level.

I believe that is wrong.

I think it says you can determine either the position or the velocity of an electron, but not both. Not the energy.

But I am not sure.

 

[basketcase]

Actually for inter-related properties, the more accurately you can measure one, the less accurately you can measure the other. Originally applies to momentum and location but there are some other applications.

And yes, only applies at a quantum level.


And the given example is not applicable since the uncertainty principle applies to particles, not points in space. An empty point has no energy/momentum/force, merely a potential to have energy if a particle were located there.




p.s. for shack, if talking about only kinetic energy of a particle it (and momentum) only exist if the particle has some speed so it not really wrong.

 

[fuji]

I believe the uncertainly principle applies to all points in space, as an "empty" point is one in the wave field that currently has zero energy for all known quantum energy fields.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

However if you are measuring the energy and location of a wave at the same time you violate the uncertainty principle. So if you know the location exactly of a point, you can't know that it has zero energy. Therefore you can't know that any specific point is truly an empty point.

I believe this is the proof that the vacuum energy exists: no known point can be known to have no energy in the wave field, so it actually has approximately zero energy, rather than zero.

And approximately zero is not zero, so there is in fact energy present, and since energy has mass, the vacuum has a density, however small, which behaves similar to an ideal gas in a volume and therefore exerts an outward pressure.

If I'm getting those wrong, what's the right explanation in English for how the equation of state gives rise to the cosmological constant?

 

[Celticman]

This thread looks like a mind meld between Fuji and Canada-Man has been visited on us

 

[bishop]

If there was no sea of quantum foam around us the uncertainty principle would still be valid.

While this quantum foam might be the dark energy that is responsible for pushing things apart, I do not think it is the culprit and I have not read anything that points to is as the culprit. Though in science everything is connected, so I am sure indirectly dark energy and the quantum foam is connected.

The energy contained in these quantum fluxuations is incredible, richard fyneman once said that in one cubic meter of empty space there is enough energy there to boil all away the oceans on earth.

 

[AK-47]

This thread looks like a mind meld between Fuji and Canada-Man has been visited on us

Fuji is trying to sound intelligent (again).

Emphesis on trying

 

[fuji]

If there was no sea of quantum foam around us the uncertainty principle would still be valid.

While this quantum foam might be the dark energy that is responsible for pushing things apart, I do not think it is the culprit and I have not read anything that points to is as the culprit. Though in science everything is connected, so I am sure indirectly dark energy and the quantum foam is connected.

The energy contained in these quantum fluxuations is incredible, richard fyneman once said that in one cubic meter of empty space there is enough energy there to boil all away the oceans on earth.

The wiki link above talks about this being ONE explanation for the cosmological constant. There's no consensus on any of the explanations nor even on whether there is a cosmological constant.

One interpretation is that we live in a holographic universe and that all space-time is just a ripple on the surface of a sea of energy. The surface is expanding, like a bubble.

It seems that expansion will eventually dissipate the universe, that eventually distances will grow so large that the density of the universe tends asymptotically towards zero until there is nothing.

 

[AK-47]

One interpretation is that we live in a holographic universe

Even though you're not nearly as smart as you think you are, you're not that far off with this statement.

Look into astral projection (or OBE's)

 

[fuji]

Even though you're not nearly as smart as you think you are, you're not that far off with this statement.

Look into astral projection (or OBE's)

Any comment on the actual topic, or did you just come here to post insults and try and get yourself banned?

 

[AK-47]

Any comment on the actual topic, or did you just come here to post insults and try and get yourself banned?

No, I honestly meant that. A holographic universe is part of the Astral Projection theory.

Fuck dude, you started a deep thinking thread. Why are you surprised by its replies??

 

[bishop]

The wiki link above talks about this being ONE explanation for the cosmological constant. There's no consensus on any of the explanations nor even on whether there is a cosmological constant.

One interpretation is that we live in a holographic universe and that all space-time is just a ripple on the surface of a sea of energy. The surface is expanding, like a bubble.

It seems that expansion will eventually dissipate the universe, that eventually distances will grow so large that the density of the universe tends asymptotically towards zero until there is nothing.

There is dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, dark whatever. Each of these dark shit either drive things closer or drives things aparta based on the size of the object/objects and distances. It is a hodge podge of discountinous theories and inconsistent ideas.

The quantum foam is real, the unvertainty principle is real. The cosmological constant and the dark matter/energy/flow/whatever are unknowns.

 

[Yoga Face]

I think it means if you knew all there was to know about the universe you cannot still not determine what will happen because the quanta (as you stated) cannot be determined

Therefore the universe is not a mechanical clock ( as Newton thought) that was wound up

the universe is undetermined

 

[basketcase]

There is dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, dark whatever.....

There are physicicts who doubt that. For example John Moffat at the Perimeter Institute has published an a non-Einstienian theory of gravity which doesn't require dark energy/matter to adapt relativity to observations.

I would expect that someone like you who has casts doubt on the validity of theoretical physics as a science would be unhappy with dark energy/matter as it is theorized simply because Einstein wouldn't work without it.

 

[bishop]

There are physicicts who doubt that. For example John Moffat at the Perimeter Institute has published an a non-Einstienian theory of gravity which doesn't require dark energy/matter to adapt relativity to observations.

I would expect that someone like you who has casts doubt on the validity of theoretical physics as a science would be unhappy with dark energy/matter as it is theorized simply because Einstein wouldn't work without it.

There is a million exotic theories, unfortunately none have experimental evidence nor have testable predictions in the foreseeable future.

Theoretical physics is not a science until there is experimental evidence, math in itself is not science. With that said I am much more of a fan of theories which is atleast backed up by math than theories which are backed up only by imagination.