Talk:Vacuum energy

Energy as a capacity to do work

Surely the concept of vacuum energy is nonsense because a vacuum by itself cannot do work. Yes there are effects like Casimir quantum effects etc but those things are only observed when something is in the vacuum, eg two plates coming close together feel an attraction etc due to uncertainty principles etc. What would be more useful to know is a conversion factor from general relativity. In other words: how much energy is required to compress or stretch space? we know from GR that the sun or massive body will curve space by a certain amount. that would be a lot of energy/mass. But is this always the case? For example what about the Higgs field, that confers mass on objects. But at quantum scales it seems gravitational forces may be higher due to symmetry breaking. For example the formation of mini black holes as a result of beam collisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.239.98 (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Vacuum energy vs. Dark energy

There should be a comparison between vacuum energy and dark energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastertek (talk • contribs) 09:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Dark energy and Vacuum energy are not the same thing. Dark energy is the stuff in the universe that accelerates its expansion. Vacuum energy is the energy that you can't get rid of no matter how empty a region is because if the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This entire article is about vacuum energy. The one line in the introduction conflating it with dark energy is incorrect. 74.104.16.130 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

2005 edits

I removed But this raises the question of why the cosmological constant is many orders of magnitude smaller than even the electroweak scale (much less the GUT or Planck scale) — and if the the cosmological constant is so small, why is it not zero. Observations that the expanding Universe appears to be accelerating seem to support the cosmic inflation theory first proposed by Alan Guth (1981) — in which the nascent Universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion driven by a negative vacuum energy density (positive vacuum pressure).

-as it seems to have little to do with vacuum energy, and reads like original research, with no references. Dan100 09:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

"considers the vacuum ground state not to be completely empty, but to consist of a seething mass of virtual particles and fields"

Perhaps the term 'seething mass' is not ideal here? 'Seething plethora' or just a 'plethora' or something that does not involve the word mass may be more suitable.

Maybe add seething matter, using Einstein's definition of matter.

Merge to Zero-point energy

It seems that much of this article is in fact about Zero-point energy and duplicates the content of that article. I have proposed a merge. Sections about Zero-point energy should be removed and the material merged into Zero-point energy. (I do not know if we will have much more left than a disambiguation page.)

Petri Krohn 02:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Zero-point energy for a possible undisclosed conflict of interest in edits by Haisch (talk · contribs) as the pltn13.pacbell.net anon. These might represent a newbie who didn't realize how this would appear, but the situation bears monitoring. ---CH 08:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

134.193.168.236 (talk · contribs), aka the Kansas City library anon, has removed without comment the merge proposal. I have reverted this. I kept the change from Van der Vaals to Van der Waals. ---CH 00:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My post on The ZPE talk page is as follows: "I'm going to assume that this argument is over (as the last message was in April, it's now July) - I'm going to remove the merge tag as the majority of posts disagree with the proposal. Furthermore, it's just plain silly!" ... so be it. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 09:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC).

Introductory paragraph

As of 6 Jul 2006: The vacuum energy results in existence of most (if not all) fundamental forces - and thus in all effects involving these forces too - and is observed in various experiments (like spontaneous emission of light or gamma radiation, Casimir effect, Van-Der Waals bonds, Lamb shift, etc) and has consequences for the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales.

This doesn't make any sense (gramatically or scientifically):

• results n existence of - do you mean "causes" or "is caused by"? I guess the latter.
• most (if not all) - incredibly woolly for a scientific note. If we assume GUT, then the three observed fundamental forces (gravity, electroweak, strong) are just different aspects of the same force. So just say "all".
• observed - we don't observe the vacuum energy directly (or we could make it do work and get a free lunch).
• spontaneous emission of light or gamma radiation - I guess you mean emission of photons from excited atomic states. "Light" to a layman is visible light, so that's a very narrow band of the spectrum. "Gamma" refers to electromagnetic radiation with energy above 10 keV that originates from nuclear processes (ie, not atomic transitions). Just say "spontaneous emission" then you cover everything from microwaves to hard K-shell X-rays.
• etc - Only use "etc." if it should be obvious to the reader how to continue the list, eg. the fruit salad contained apples, pears, grapes, etc. I don't think the average reader can guess the next experiment on this list, so just use "eg" at the front to indicate that these are just a few examples from many.

Lumping all that together, I'd propose the following rewrite:

The vaccuum energy arises from the field associated with all fundamental forces. Its effects can be observed in various phenomena (eg, spontaneous emission, Casimir effect, Van der Waals force, Lamb shift) and has consequences for the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales. --Oscar Bravo 06:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In a state

Don't know if this is the place to ask, but... I've heard about a scientist who, according to news reports, produced a "below ground state" state in hydrogen. Anybody know more? Trekphiler 20:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Extracting of Energy Impossible

The article suggests that extracting energy from the vacuum energy is principally impossible. This is not true as the following quote reveals:

"There is growing interest concerning the possibility of tapping zero-point energy and many claims exist of over unity devices (gadgets yielding a greater output than the required input for operation) driven by zero-point energy. In spite of the dubious nature of these claims (to date no such device has passed a rigorous, objective test), the concept of converting some amount of zero-point energy to usable energy cannot be ruled out in principle. Zero-point energy is not a thermal reservoir, and therefore does not suffer from the thermodynamic injunction against extracting energy from a lower temperature reservoir. ..." http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.243.113.250 (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, last "perpetual motion" deletion was mine while unsigned. But at least since Tesla you will hardly find perpetual motion claims from these inventors. They do not claim overcoming the law of conservation of energy, but tapping energy from the vacuum as an external source. Using their devices one would have energy free from paying, like someone having a well at home would save his paying for water. Lacerda (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been theoretically and practically demonstrated by Prof. Dr. Claus Turtur, that such an energy is indeed usable: http://ostfalia.de/cms/de/pws/turtur/FundE 10.nov.2011 22:59 ECT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.12.214 (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

So he claims - but to my knowledge, the Physics world has not been set on fire by his 'findings.' HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Take two large masses that are isolated far away from the rest of the Universe and orbiting each other at exactly the distance were the decay of their orbits due to Gravitational wave energy is exactly matched by the expansion of the universe driven by dark energy between them. These objects will continue to orbit and radiate energy at a constant level forever until disturbed. Real world energy extracted purely from dark energy. Hcobb (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That is an intriguing thought experiment, but dark energy actually would mess it up. If matter or radiation dominate, the expansion decelerates. If dark energy dominates, the expansion accelerates. In either case, the nice equilibrium you want to set up with your two orbiting masses will be ruined. (Vacuum energy is not the ultimate source of cosmic expansion.) You only maintain the equilibrium if the expansion is steady, which only can be maintained stably in an empty universe with no vacuum energy nor any other kind of energy (except possibly for spacetime curvature). In that case, since the total gravitational potential energy of the universe is increasing with the expansion, the energy content of the gravitational radiation would derive from that.50.174.178.168 (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Time Quanta

Hang on a second:

The net energy of the universe remains zero so long as the particle pairs annihilate each other within Planck time.

I read somewhere that the Planck time is the quantum of time. Something's wrong. If this is true then how can the particle pairs annihilate each other within the Planck time? Please will someone explain.Quaver92 (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That the Planck time is a quantum of time is not an accepted theory yet. In fact right now we still have to establish whether such a quantum exists. But you are right, if that theory were to be correct then processes won't be able to happen within that quantum and that will thus answer age old problems such as quantum decoherence. a 05:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoorv khurasia (talk • contribs)

Vacuum Gravity and Inertial Forces

Open Source Inertia Project: http://www.wiki1.net/groups/pmwiki.php?n=BigCrash.Inertia

If you that gravity around massive objects is a curvature of space accelerating matter toward the massive object, and you accept vacuum energy, then very dense vacuum energy might be expected to generate the same curvature of space accelerating matter toward the dense energy (accelerate elemental particles outward in all directions, felt as resistance to change in motion, see proposed mechanics and math at BigCrash.org > Inertia) --Jtankers (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

... Because (astronomical) vacuum gravity force would only act on the smallest particles of matter, possibly quarks, ... seems to indicate that the force may be repulsive with respect to particles/fluctuations that are energy only and only travel at the speed of light. (A fluctuation is strongly pushed by vacuum energy... such a force might require light speed of massless particles. This push force on energy may also push strongly on vibrating strings of energy, possibly folding them into ... every possible bit of empty space. The pull force on matter particles should have the effect of giving the matter particle its size, pulling the quark to the radius that a quark is measured to be, and resisting change in motion, causing inertial forces. --Jtankers (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mass-energy of vitual particles

The calculation of infinite vacuum energy assumes the mass-energy of virtual particles is the same as that of real particles. That seems like an unwarranted assumption, real and virtual particles are not identical, and vacuum has little or no mass. Of course there is the possibility of something cancelling the mass-energy out, which the article mentions. I would add the alternative of the mass-energy of virtual particles being improperly assumed to this and the zero-point energy article, but I do not yet have a source. Perhaps my point is already there, buried in the term renormalization. ~Paul V. Keller 17:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvkeller (talk • contribs)

Causality Loops

Is vacuum energy a Causality Loop. It seems like our current Interpretation of it implies that it is. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Conservation of energy and "Free energy machines"

Hi.

I saw this bit:

"The existence of vacuum energy is also sometimes used, outside of mainstream physics, as controversial theoretical justification for the possibility of free energy machines. It has been argued that due to the broken symmetry (in QED), free energy does not violate conservation of energy, since the laws of thermodynamics only apply to equilibrium systems. However, consensus among particle physicists is that this is incorrect and that vacuum energy cannot be harnessed to do usable work. In particular, the second law of thermodynamics is unaffected by the existence of vacuum energy."

However I didn't think "extracting" vacuum energy would break conservation of energy anyway, because the energy is already there and you're just tapping it, whereas breaching conservation of energy would mean literally creating energy out of nothing. If such a tap is not possible it would seem to have to be due to something else preventing the extraction of the energy. 74.45.72.4 (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 Ansewr:

 It is typically claimed that vacuum energy is a minimal possible state of energy. So, you cannot reduce it even lower because no energy state even lower than vacuum energy could ever exist.

Not derived from uncertainty relation

I haven't been taking Field Theory for very long, so someone smarter than me should address this. However, we have been using canonical quantization, and vacuum graphs for some time, and yet we have never mentioned the uncertainty principle. In fact one of my professors said that justifying virtual particles on the basis of the uncertainty principle is bad physics (despite the fact that it is tempting due to its simplicity). 128.252.173.35 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the uncertainty principle is applied in that a vacuum that is completely empty would have a constant and thus perfectly known set of states, but it shouldn't be possible to know the different states to such precision simultaneously, thus necessitating a constant fluctuation. This certainly is bad physics, since the uncertainty principle isn't about the actual value of a state, but the precision to which one can measure that value; just because measurements can't be precise in the location or speed of a particle does not on its own mean the particle doesn't have a precise location and speed. One thing I want to know is how scientists claim to be able to test this, since the only way to test it is to take measurements on a vacuum, which is not possible without destroying the vacuum state by applying matter or energy. Also, since matter, energy and force are all manifestations of the same thing, the very concept of a "vacuum" is impossible, isn't it? However small, there's always some amount of energy or force at any location, so it isn't really a "vacuum". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Casimir effect

The casimir effect actually generates a weak force from the vacuum energy, so it could theoretically be used to "generate" free energy out of vacuum energy, which is contrary to what is now stated in the article. It is only impossible to generate infinte amounts of free energy and build a perpetuum mobile. The description of the whole problem is much better described under Zero-point_energy#Proposed_free_energy_devices. It would however proabbaly not be economicall feasible to use the casimir effect for generating free energy, because the density of vacuum energy useable for the casimir effect is very low, but it is possible. --MrBurns (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this a little. Currently, there are these two sentences in the article: "However, consensus amongst physicists is that this is incorrect and that vacuum energy cannot be harnessed to generate free energy.[5][not in citation given] In particular, the second law of thermodynamics is unaffected by the existence of vacuum energy.[citation needed]" These also appear to be an attempt to argue that free energy does not result from Casimir. However, besides the lack of citation, I'd like to point out that the two sentences don't make sense. The first sentence says that it can't be used to generate free energy. The second says that "in particular" (that is, reinforcing the first sentence) it won't violate entropy. But violation of entropy and violation of conservation of energy are completely different things. Reverend Zapanaz (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Discordant scientists

I removed a sentence added by some wag: "; and breakthroughs in physics are not usually achieved by groups of physicists which are in equilibrium, i.e. a "consensus"" Cerowyn (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you do THAT? I thought it was a useful insight that physicists ought to keep in mind. "four tildes" :^) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.181.244 (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

energy geometrical engineering and vacuum energy

WP:NOTFORUM - 2/0 (cont.) 22:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

the energy geometrical engineering of vacuum and vacuum's virtual elements would have the highest impact on a unit and a unit's characters with time (i.e. changes) consideration.--e:Y,?:G 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E:Y,?:G (talk • contribs) Vacuum energy should create a vacuum pressure or a universec pressure on a mass (or membrane) --e:Y,?:G 05:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E:Y,?:G (talk • contribs) --e:Y,?:G 05:21, 7 September --e:Y,?:G 05:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I am surprised to find out that The "theater of all physical phenomenas" i.e. the Vacuum, is not studied enough. I think if we understand Vacuum and Vacuum Energy enough we would be able to explain all phenomenas of the physical world. what is the limit where a quanta of energy becomes separated form vacuum and vacuum energy to become mass. Where mass could "role smoothly" on Vacuum surface (vacuum energy 10^107 joules per cubic centimeter would create surface tension). In which instant, surface tension studies would be play an important part in understanding the motion of mass in Vacuum. If we compare the Vacuum energy (in order of 10^107 joules per cc) to the next smallest mass (confirmed, for now)we should be able to draw some important physical conclusions. and if we could find the ratio of the smallest mass known to the vacuum energy and then find similar ratios of the rest of the elementary particles to vacuum energy that would give probably an idea of how matter is created and may be we would be able to draw some important conclusions similar, in nature, to the periodic table. I do not think enough could be said about Vacuum and Vacuum energy.I think gravitational forces origins lays strictly in the vacuum and vacuum energy--e:Y,?:G 05:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E:Y,?:G (talk • contribs) Vacuum and Vacuum energy must be at a "certain" state before it can support, carry electromagnetic waves, and vacuum energy waves reflection off a mass i.e. gravitational forces. or two different states of vacuum and vacuum energy could produce different physical phenomenas: the inability of vacuum and vacuum energy to reflects electromagnetic waves within the event horizon of a black hole to the outside of the black hole event's horizon.--e:Y,?:G 04:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E:Y,?:G (talk • contribs)

I would not want to go out of Wikipedia policies

to help me put things into prospective at what volume would matter and vacuum (or vacuum energy) would occupy the same space volume. what I am trying to say if we define physical entities by there energy contents, then my question is at what energy value would matter and vacuum become equal with the same volume.--99.109.130.141 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)--e:Y,?:G 03:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Big Bang

Doesn't this relate to theories about the big bang? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.192.111 (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Vacuum, Void or No'thing..

To refer to a "Pure Vacuum","Vacuum", "Void" or "Nothing" as Energetic is ridiculous, may I suggest one refers to NEAR-Vacuum, or at least provide information on this point.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter J Schoen (talk • contribs) 06:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC) --Peter J Schoen (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Not understanding it does not make it "ridiculous". A true vacuum is without excitations, not without fields, else it would be nothing (electromagnetism and gravity would not exist in it).82.248.37.116 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Implications needs clarification

"Quantum theory of the vacuum further stipulates that the pressure of the zero-state vacuum energy is always negative and equal to ρ. Thus, the total of ρ-3p becomes -2ρ: A negative value. This calculation implies a repulsive gravitational field, giving rise to expansion, if indeed the vacuum ground state has non-zero energy."

I'm no physicist, but if vacuum energy pressure is always -ρ, then ρ-3p becomes ρ+3ρ = 4ρ. I would like to see this clarified.

63.240.143.147 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)madmax

Done. I also changed the "expansion" to refer to "acceleration of expansion". George Dishman (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Unit consistency

The current lead includes a comparison of 10^-15 joules per cubic centimetre (vacuum energy density from upper limit of the cosmological constant) against 10^113 joules per cubic metre (vacuum energy density from QED). That's likely to cause confusion. It'd be nice if the two quantities could be converted into the same units, which would involve multiplying or dividing one of them by a million; but I'm not going to do that myself because I don't know enough of the subject matter to know which units make more sense, or whether it's actually an error and the numbers are really already in the same units but one of them is described incorrectly. 130.179.29.61 (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction with 'Dark Energy' article

In Dark energy, it says that Dark energy makes up 73% of the universe's mass energy, whereas in this article, it says Vacuum energy does and Dark energy is only 23%, can someone either remove or clarify this and add a reference? - 86.42.245.119 (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This article should make clear that the links between Vacuum energy, Dark energy and the Accelerating universe are not 100% confirmed, mostly because the math is way off. Hcobb (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"The quantization of a simple harmonic oscillator requires the lowest possible energy, or zero-point energy of such an oscillator to be:

Failed to parse (unknown function\V): {E} =\frac{1}{2}\hbar \V." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.102.229 (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Van der Waals

I am having a hard time seeing how van der Waals bonds is related to vacuum energy. Van der Waals forces are forces between molecules in chemistry, in the order of 0.1 J for a pair of molecules (Intermolecular force). Vacuum energy meanwhile is a concept used in astronomy in the order of < 10^-9 J per m^2 (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html) (m^2 is usually millions of molecules), that influences entirely galaxies only by virtue of the enormous volume involved. The order of magnitude, field of application and lack of sources make it seen unlikely that they are related. And if they are as unrelated as I think, no one will probably publish a source saying they are not: it's not even the same group of people working with them. The reason I did not remove it is is that it has been up since May 1st, 2006 and in over 6 years only SmackBot has questioned it by asking a 'citation needed'... Can we remove it until someone finds a citation that supports it? Mverleg (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

The "upper limit of the cosmological constant" is given as 10^-9 Joules or 100 ergs per m³. These are not equivalent. The only reference that I found (probably searching with the wrong terms) is 100x10^-6 ergs per cm³ (100 ergs per m³) from a blacklisted site: www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/10/04/dark-energy-faq/. Would someone who is familiar with this please resolve this? (btw not coi) Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting to this a month later, but I'm now seeing the term as 10^-9 Joules or 10^-2 ergs, which do appear to be identical values. I'm going to close this on the assumption that the problem has been correctly resolved, but it would be nice if the source used here was more easily verified. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Mass Equivalent and Disambiguation

Hi Everyone,

Having studied the subject for some time now, I think the article should be amended for clarity (unfortunately no complete insight):

1: It might be useful to add the mass equivalent of the vacuum energy, which is of the order of 10^96 kg/m³. To put this into perspective, it is about 60 to 70 orders of magnitude higher than a typical stellar black hole. Both values, the energy as well as the mass equivalent, reflect upper limits, derived from the Planck world. So far, there is no physical evidence (observation or experiment) for either value.

2: The vacuum energy is supposed to be effective on the quantum scale, while the dark energy (or cosmological constant) has been derived from observations on cosmic scales. Hence it is questionable to directly relate these energies, bringing forward a "catastrophe" (sometimes just called a cosmic problem) where there is none. I suggest a corresponding disambiguation in the article.

3: As Prof Max Tegmark only recently mentioned (see the World Science U Master Class), it is of vital importance to get some evidence for the constancy of the energy density, predominantly of the dark energy. So far, the dark energy is supposed to have a constant value both per volume and per time, causing the exponential and ongoing expansion of the universe. One proposal has been made, taking gravitational lensing into account. On the other hand, close observation of the galactic voids might be more appropriate; at least, the scales of the largest voids are larger than the proposed scenario and should yield results comparatively easy and sooner.

4: The question on the origin and magnitude of the vacuum energy, however, might remain a problem, which probably will not even be solvable by the LHC, as the detection capability still remains significantly below necessary limits.

Regards K. Cormann Germany 80.136.28.181 (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.28.181 (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Light on Mathematics

This is simply to express my appreciation for the discussion of this topic without heavy mathematics. Most of the physics topics in Wikipedia leave me in the dust after the first paragraph. Thanks! JFistere (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Vacuum Energy Measurement Problem

The zero-point energy of the vacuum is cancelled out by the vacuum energy penetrating any measurement apparatus attempting to remove the vacuum pressure. This should make the vacuum catastrophe problem moot and questions about the cosmological constant. It has been calculated that the actual matter inside a hydrogen atom is Percent Full = 4 × 10-13 %. See http://education.jlab.org/qa/how-much-of-an-atom-is-empty-space.html. (Len loker (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hypothesis, 'accepted hypothesis', or demonstrated fact?

This article (especially the lede) has tones that vacuum energy is an actual, domonstrated 'thing'. I understand that physicists may understand that it is not (if it is indeed is not), but to the layman (to who this article should be accessible, I presume) this may be misleading. Many other physics-related articles have this problem as well (especially when it comes to differentiating between scientific theory, math theory and hypothesis). Just thought I should point this out for someeone better versed in this field than I, cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

ETER

As descrived by MAXWELL, Lorentz, Tesla, Poincare,... 2A02:8108:8A80:37D8:153C:CAF6:E4D2:ACA (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

TV ENERGY

WHAT IS ENERGY THAT COMES OUT OF A TV? WHAT GOES IN?

Hossenfelder's opinion

Regarding the introduction: Sabine Hossenfelder argues in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl_wGRfbc3w (from 05:43 to 07:10) that there is no such thing as a "cosmological constant problem", because quantum theory does not make a prediction regarding the cosmological constant. The sentence "... suggest a much larger value of 10^113 joules per cubic meter" would thus just be plain wrong. Professor Tournesol (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Dark energy

There's a result in the news[1] claiming that vacuum energy is bound up in black holes in ancient galaxies, and that this may explain the missing mass in the universe that has also led to postulation of dark matter. I don't understand this (I hoped this article would help explain) so I'm parking the link here for possible use. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:756C (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Warning: References of dubious nature

Only the fifth reference (Jaffe) has scientific relevance. 2A02:A463:2848:0:DDE9:83E5:6364:D9AB (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain a bit more about what you mean? AntiDionysius (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Writing about a scientific topic and then refering to commercial sites is the worst thing you can do from a science perspective. But I know, this is only Wikipedia. It really has nothing to do with science. 2A02:A463:2848:0:DDE9:83E5:6364:D9AB (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

OK AntiDionysius (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Origin section

This section is entirely un-sourced as far as I can tell (nearly every line ends with citation needed). Why were these paragraphs added without any documentation to support them? Allison Kaas (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)