What will happen to the universe?

[KrazyHorse]

See why I don't like putting it in layman's terms? How am I supposed to explain to you that matter/antimatter asymmetry can be explained by spontaneous symmetry breaking fairly easily, but the same is not true of the vacuum energy without you knowing any field theory? Also, you should note that there is still a discrepancy between the observed level of CP violation and the amount of matter in the Universe...

Hell, I barely understand the objections to low-level supersymmetry violation. It's not my field...

[Lancer]

Where does the energy in the vacuum come from?

[Lancer]

Energy in a vacuum or the vacuum of space? Background radiation wouldn't exist in a vacuum created in a lab, yes?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you want a much better example of us being concerned by the appearance of "intelligent design", then the you should ask about the fine-tuning vacuum energy problem .

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
See why I don't like putting it in layman's terms? How am I supposed to explain to you that matter/antimatter asymmetry can be explained by spontaneous symmetry breaking fairly easily, but the same is not true of the vacuum energy without you knowing any field theory? Also, you should note that there is still a discrepancy between the observed level of CP violation and the amount of matter in the Universe...

Hell, I barely understand the objections to low-level supersymmetry violation. It's not my field...

In that case what makes you see it as a superior example of concern about the appearance of "intelligent design"? Surely something so far on the bleeding edge leaves the most room for alternative explanations to "intelligent design".

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Lancer
Energy in a vacuum or the vacuum of space? Background radiation wouldn't exist in a vacuum created in a lab, yes?

Backround radiation exists everywhere in the entire universe. Backround radiation comes from the big bang. Ask someone else for more details, because it gets complicated and I am no expert so i'm not even going to try to explain more details because i'll get something important wrong ><. There is some very cool stuff about it though.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lancer
Energy in a vacuum or the vacuum of space? Background radiation wouldn't exist in a vacuum created in a lab, yes?

I'm sure my reply will be as painful for KH to read as anybody's but I can say that the background radiation is not related to the vacuum energy.

A rough idea of the vacuum energy is that it can be pictured as accounting for virtual particles which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum. Obviously that is a useless description to a physicist but I think it provides more insight than being ignored or being told it's pointless to try to describe the vacuum energy.

[Lancer]

Well it seems to me that if creation exists in a vacuum, then maybe there's something in that vacuum besides nothing.

Btw, granite flows, did you know that Geronimo?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Geronimo



In that case what makes you see it as a superior example of concern about the appearance of "intelligent design"? Surely something so far on the bleeding edge leaves the most room for alternative explanations to "intelligent design".

I don't think it's evidence of "intelligent design".

I'm pointing out to another where he should be directing his arguments if he wants to conclude such a thing. Personally, I think it's a simple matter of our theories being full of ****.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Vesayen


Backround radiation exists everywhere in the entire universe. Backround radiation comes from the big bang.

Uh....vacuum energy is not the same as the CMB.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lancer
Energy in a vacuum or the vacuum of space? Background radiation wouldn't exist in a vacuum created in a lab, yes?

Not background radiation. Vacuum energy = the energetic cost of having space. And it exists everywhere, not just in volumes under vacuum.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lancer
Well it seems to me that if creation exists in a vacuum, then maybe there's something in that vacuum besides nothing.

"The vacuum" in modern physics doesn't mean "a place where there's nothing". Such a place doesn't exist, according to modern understanding. The vacuum is the ground state, the quantum state with the lowest expectation value for energy.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Uh....vacuum energy is not the same as the CMB.

I know the difference, he was not making it clear which he was talking about.

[DaShi]

How does one go about converting themselves to pure energy? Sticking your fingers in Christmas tree light sockets doesn't seem to quite make it.

[Lancer]

So energy is there from another dimention, but it isn't right, doesn't figure and this bothers KH for reasons only he can fathom.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Urban Ranger was providing a very, very condensed version of Hawkings theory that the laws of physics, as we know them, came into being microseconds after the Big Bang. The "ball of energy" he referred to was the time before those few microseconds.

Yeah, that's it. Thanks.