To dramatically and hideously oversimplify the Wikipedia article on vacuum energy:

First, you have the energy/time uncertainty principle. To totally rape the mathematics, this states that as time intervals grow shorter, the ability to precisely measure the energy level change of a field diminishes. In other words, as you move interactions towards Planck time scales, you can no longer reliably track the energy of a field. Shorter than the Planck time, all bets are off; you can no longer define the energy level at all. This means that on ultra-brief time scales, energy is more or less doing totally unpredictable things.

This is generalized in particle mechanics as the concept of "virtual particles." Virtual particles are, to again totally molest the mathematics, just particles that exist for such brief fractions of the Planck time that their properties are utterly unmeasurable. (Anything that survives long enough or exists with enough energy to interact with anything measurably is no longer virtual.) A virtual particle exists and then stops existing. One theoretical mechanism for this is particle/anti-particle pairings, where a virtual particle spawns near its virtual antiparticle, the two combine, and then resolve back into component energy via annihilation. I don't know if there are any measured results that indicate that this is going on, but I certainly remember it being one of the most popular explanations of virtual particle interaction.

There's a ton more to this and I'm obliterating a lot of relevant facts in trying to condense the information. Quantum mechanics is notoriously sticky stuff - the kind of thing that some of the world's most brilliant minds have had trouble comprehending - so you'll have to forgive me if (1) something got lost in my own learning of this material and/or (2) I've totally left out something cool and/or important.


Anyways, the point is, because of quantization of energy fields (i.e. you can't have any arbitrary real number value for an energy level, only multiples of the relevant fundamental charge constant) and the uncertainty principles, energy is never zero, even in a totally empty universe.

You are right based on the standard model of physics but as we all know it is not a complete theory. When they talk about virtual particles and the uncertainty principle I am pretty sure these are just rules set in to place to make the standard model of physics work.

What I am saying is obviously wrong based on the standard model of physics but I am looking for more of an contradiction to known facts. An example of this would be "If that were the case then running a test for zero point energy in space would likely return lower levels than on earth." I then would agree but I would question if the difference in levels would be measurable.

There is no "standard model of physics." There are three models: classical Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, and general relativity. Also, you're utterly wrong about these being arbitrary hypothetical rules - quantum mechanics has got some seriously powerful backing evidence. If you take ten seconds to skim the linked Wikipedia article on vacuum energy, you'll find at least four excellent references to experiments confirming the mechanisms behind vacuum energy. A few minutes of reading will net you a good set of examples of how things like virtual particles and the uncertainty principle categories have been confirmed experimentally.



Science.


It works, bitches.

The Standard Model of PARTICLE Physics is a totally different beast.

The standard model of particle physics is a quantum mechanical framework, by the way.

[quote name='ApochPiQ' timestamp='1317064784' post='4866184']
The Standard Model of PARTICLE Physics is a totally different beast.

Well, I'll let Steve speak for himself, but it seemed quite obvious he was talking about THE 'Standard Model'... which is what most physicists refer to it as. Maybe not though.
[/quote]

Yes, that is what I was referring to. Also I'm surprised when ApochPiQ was naming theories he never mentioned sting theory since from what I have read it is the closest to a complete theory.

I didn't mention string "theory" because it's painfully close to departing from scientific inquiry altogether. It's not even wrong.

I didn't mention string "theory" because it's painfully close to departing from scientific inquiry altogether. It's not even wrong.

Seems to me for any theory to be complete it needs to account for all evidence. String theory for the most part seems to do this even if the theory is generally abstract. The three classical models you mentioned earlier do not hold up in all situations. They use a lot of magic numbers which have been generally proven wrong. Some examples would be for instance the speed of light and photons having zero mass. Photons have been proven to exert forces on mater and their speed has also been proven to be variable based on frequency and other factors. Also in another post in the Lounge some evidence has even been presented that neutrinos could even move faster than light. Whether this is true or not still has yet to be proven.

I personally have my own theories as to how the universe actually works which seems to align most closely to string theory. I obviously don't fully understand the math so I accept that my theory is probably wrong. I think that things like quarks and leptons are actually some type of vibrating stings or something similar. I also think all particles have mass which is directly related to their Inertia or potential energy. A particle that has zero mass would move at infinite speed and would in turn be at all points of space at any given time. Actually I don't think I should bother explaining my theory since it's probably just going to come off as non nonsensical rambling. Anyway, I think my theory is actually an abstract understanding of string theory but I don't fully understand the math so I can't be sure.

String theories (there are infinitely many possible variants) only somewhat "account" for the data. Yes, the equations work in many cases (the ones we haven't solved yet notwithstanding), but there is one fundamental problem: string theory has yet to make any testable predictions. This is the fundamental core of scientific advancement: you come up with a model, you test the model against data, then you make predictions within the model and go do experiments to see if it holds up. There is, to date, a severe lack of experiments that could even hypothetically prove or disprove string theory. That's why I refer to it as bad science, and I am far from alone in that view.

Yes, our three current categories of model have problems. Nobody is denying that. Everybody wants a Theory of Everything. String theory family does not qualify.


As for your examples of things being "proven wrong:"

• There is a difference between what is commonly called "the speed of light" and the speed at which an arbitrary photon is actually moving. Even high school physics can teach you that a specific bit of light can be slowed down almost arbitrarily. There are fascinating experiments in this field. What is emphatically not disproven is the nature of c (the "speed of light") as a fundamental constant. There are hypotheses that suggest c is variable, but to my knowledge the jury is still out on whether or not evidence fits those suggestions. Of course, there's also the role of inflation/hyperinflation cosmological theory and its impact on the practical measurable value of c, but as far as general relativity goes, the idea of c as a fundamental constant has been proven pretty damn powerfully.

• Photons have zero rest mass. General mass is the same thing as energy, so any energetic photon can have mass-like interactions with other matter. There is nothing being disproved here. In fact, the very phenomenon of photons having mass-like interactions is an overwhelming proof that general relativity's equation of mass and energy is correct!

• The neutrino thing is so over-hyped it isn't even worth bothering with. Give it a couple weeks for the pseudoscientist hipsters to stop screaming about it, and the debunk will be forthcoming. It's telling that even the people who collected the data are very careful about saying it may be flawed. The "conclusions" are all coming from people who are not rigorous scientists and who lack the discipline to thoroughly examine the possible explanations for a set of data before wildly speculating about what's going on. I could do an experiment that proves that my car can drive faster than the speed of sound. I could publish a paper and freak out a bunch of auto racing enthusiasts. Then it turns out my speedometer was just broken. Oops.

• The final important factor here is that of course our theories are constantly being revised and tuned. That's the point of science. No honest scientist treats a model as ultimate truth; a model is just a model. A theory is just a model that has stood the test of experimentation and observation. Nothing more, nothing less. It's hardly some shameful secret that we haven't explained everything yet; that's half the fun of science to begin with.