Why Isn�t Edward P. Tryon A World-famous Physicist?

[shunyadragon]

I do understand what "nothing" means in reference to the QZPE cosmos. But that is not nothing thus the whole thing fails to demonstrate that the universe (or multiverse) could appear from nothing. The QZPE cosmos is not nothing.

Again, the highlighted above is a philosophical/theological assumptions. This post clearly reinforces your ignorance of science, and how science works.

[Jedidiah]

Again, the highlighted above is a philosophical/theological assumptions. This post clearly reinforces your ignorance of science, and how science works.

I guess that makes two of us.

[shunyadragon]

I guess that makes two of us.

No, insults are Duck, Bob and Weave dodge. It is clear you have a problem when you keep asserting a philosophical/theological problem concerning the nature of "nothing" in a science thread.

[little_monkey]

The QZPE is misleading. QFT postulates that at every point there is an infinite number of harmonic oscillators, that is, infinite energy. So it isn't a surprise that vacuum energy is already in the system - it's already in the hypothesis.

[JimL]

The QZPE is misleading. QFT postulates that at every point there is an infinite number of harmonic oscillators, that is, infinite energy. So it isn't a surprise that vacuum energy is already in the system - it's already in the hypothesis.

Are you sure about that? I'm not a phycisist and i don't know what is meant by this, but "infinite" at every "point" sounds like a contradiction.

[shunyadragon]

The QZPE is misleading. QFT postulates that at every point there is an infinite number of harmonic oscillators, that is, infinite energy. So it isn't a surprise that vacuum energy is already in the system - it's already in the hypothesis.

QZPE is not misleading, but it is good you provided more information on Quantum Field Theory (QFT), which is the theory of QZPE function as a field, which would be QZPE field in the greater cosmos.

[little_monkey]

Are you sure about that? I'm not a phycisist and i don't know what is meant by this, but "infinite" at every "point" sounds like a contradiction.

You get rid of this infinity by looking at energy density. So you have infinite energy, you divide by the volume, which is also infinite. The ratio, which is the density, is finite. The infinite energy is redundant anyway as what we measure are differences in energy. The vacuum is defined as the state with no particle, nevertheless, the vacuum energy is not zero.

[JimL]

You get rid of this infinity by looking at energy density. So you have infinite energy, you divide by the volume, which is also infinite. The ratio, which is the density, is finite. The infinite energy is redundant anyway as what we measure are differences in energy. The vacuum is defined as the state with no particle, nevertheless, the vacuum energy is not zero.

Huh?

[little_monkey]

Huh?

Indeed, these concepts are difficult to wrap your head around. And words fail in these instances. You can only look through the math to see what is happening. And math is logical, meaning it is devoid of inconsistencies.

[shunyadragon]

You get rid of this infinity by looking at energy density. So you have infinite energy, you divide by the volume, which is also infinite. The ratio, which is the density, is finite. The infinite energy is redundant anyway as what we measure are differences in energy. The vacuum is defined as the state with no particle, nevertheless, the vacuum energy is not zero.

Would not infinity be simply assumed?

[little_monkey]

Would not infinity be simply assumed?

It's in the postulate: at every point in space-time, there is an infinite number of harmonic oscillators. So, yes, an hypothesis is an assumption.

Every system has unprovable truths (Godel's incomplete theorem). In math, you have axioms (unprovable truths) and theorems (provable truths). In science, you have hypotheses (unprovable truths) and theories (provable truths). This is true in every system produced by the mind, whether it's math, science, philosophy, art, any of the social sciences, etc. Your mind cannot escape that.

[Truthseeker]

In science, you have hypotheses (unprovable truths)

Whoa, I think maybe you mean that hypotheses in science are propositions that have yet to be well-supported empirically.

and theories (provable truths).

Those are propositions that seem to be well-supported empirically.

This is true in every system produced by the mind, whether it's math, science, philosophy, art, any of the social sciences, etc. Your mind cannot escape that.

According to :Warning: I have not checked the Wikipedia entry thoroughly. Use at your own risk.

[little_monkey]

Whoa, I think maybe you mean that hypotheses in science are propositions that have yet to be well-supported empirically.



Those are propositions that seem to be well-supported empirically.




According to :Warning: I have not checked the Wikipedia entry thoroughly. Use at your own risk.

Godel's theorem: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F." That's what I said in post #26.

[Truthseeker]

Godel's theorem: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F." That's what I said in post #26.

[little_monkey]