Did they solve the cosmological constant problem? https://j

>>8920080
Actual major scientific breakthrough and /sci/ doesn't care.

>>8920316
I care, I just don't have the knowledge right now to understand that :(.

>>8920080
Can a physicist here explain this in layman's language?

>>8920354
Basically they're saying empty space is curved more than they thought. Pteviously, empty space was supposed to be flat because the instaneous energy measurement was thought to be small.
What this means is that quantum fluctuations of the vacuum produce energy at a constant enough rate to curve the space its in. This had not been taken seriously because it could produce a feedback loop.

>>8920080
cool paywall bro

>>8920397

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00543.pdf

>>8920080
>2 chinks + Unruh
Hmmmm.

>>8920080
Its only 35 pages so I'll try and read it this weekend.

>>8920080
Ok so I am hearing from some people who have read this that there are no obvious flaws.

>>8921751
>I am hearing
Thanks, you're of no help.

>>8920080
>remember that mysterious energy we didn't understand
>turns out it's this other mysterious energy we don't understand
science

>>8922443
Actually I don't think it is replacing dark energy with something else, it is getting rid of it entirely.

>>8922467
It's identifying it with something we already don't understand.

>>8922486
It is saying the cosmological constant isn't necessary and thus we don't need the concept of dark energy.

>>8922489
We still need the energy, it's just coming from somewhere else.

Lol it's so simple, wth. Too bad it doesn't really predict anything new at first glance. Although the fact that in their model the hubble expansion goes to 0 as the cutoff goes to infinity is really neat. Gives credence to a natural cutoff since the expansion rate exists.

>>8922631
Yeah it doesn't predict anything new, but it removes a previous prediction that was really annoying to physicists.

>>8920080
does this mean einstein was wrong? LMAOO this scruffy jew cuck that (((they))) keep shilling never stops being wrong

Does this imply that imaginary numbers is just a hoax, or am I missing something?

>>8922924
it means he was right the first time

>>8920080
this paper seems like one of those "weirdly obvious in retrospect" things.

>>8924415
>this paper seems like one of those "weirdly obvious in retrospect" things.
you mean like one of those things that amateurs suggest and "experts" laugh off dismissively

I was thinking if maybe this has any implications for the inflationary period. I wonder if these guys are working on a paper. Might find something about quantum gravity there.

Also why is no science forum is talking about this? Seems like solid logic to me.

>>8925730
>you mean like one of those things that amateurs suggest and "experts" laugh off dismissively
Hate that shit when engineers do it; can't imagine how much innovation was stalled because of ego.

>>8920384
>This had not been taken seriously because it could produce a feedback loop.
layman here, could you explain this part further? I want to know the flaws in this theory

>>8922490
No you dunce, this is quantum mechanical phenomenon. The energy is due to zero-point oscillations, just as in the case of the QHO.

>>8925789
You're actually retarded.

The energy is needed to explain the expansion of the universe. Whether we identify this energy with quantum voodoo or with GR voodoo is beside that point. We still need to account for it.

So we went from
>GR is incomplete because we need a mysterious lambda
to
>GR is incomplete because we need a mysterious vacuum energy

If it checks out in the long run then it's a step forward for parsimony and cool for that, since we already had this vacuum energy just lying around anyway. But whether we decide that the expansion of the universe is guided by one form of magic or the other we still lack a resolution between GR and QM, so this is just accounting.

>>8925811
...The hell? We don't need anything else. If this theory is correct it wraps up the dark energy/cosmological expansion problem nicely. The vacuum energy is not mysterious, it was derived from black body radiation theories a long time ago. The problem was we didn't know why the vacuum energy wasn't causing the universe to expand outrageously or cause it to only have the radius of a distance smaller than from the Earth to the Moon. If this theory is right, it turns out every theoretical physicist was calculating how the vacuum energy affected space-time wrong.

We don't need a new kind of energy. The energy is from the vacuum energy (zero point energy) of the many different fields in QFT. Which we already knew about.

>>8925827
Nice summary of accounting, do you do taxes?

>>8925850
https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/260867

>this is huge
>/sci/ not even talking about it

>>8920384
can you explain this for someone who only has a BS in physics?

>>8927787
If you have a BS in physics you really should be able to get a half decent grasp of the paper.

File: doesn't get it at all.png (209KB, 510x346px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 510x346px

>>8920080
Nice post OP, really wish I knew anything about physics.

christcucks btfo

File: 1467100476077.jpg (36KB, 241x403px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 241x403px

>>8920080
I thought the autists on here denied the fact the universe is fine tuned?

>>8927829
I was never offered courses in General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory. A great deal of this paper goes way over my head. The fuck is Λ?

>>8927889
C'mon man, I don't have any background in physics and even I know that. Lambda is the cosmological constant

>>8927889
>>8927892
See: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/22663

The lambda the paper puts in Hubble's constant is the high frequency/energy cutoff from the vacuum energy calculation; it's not the cosmological constant (which is also lambda, confusingly). Despite what the above link says, it's not the Planck length, but a really big number. Though, the integral is how they use to calculate the supposed vacuum energy density, the "worst prediction in physics". The big lambda implies a high frequency if I understand it right, which would imply a very small wavelength. That cutoff is possibly something that could give clues to an actual minimum distance in a quantized space-time model, or perhaps a limit to the energy density a small amount of space can hold. The problem is in this paper's results, lambda is coupled with two other unknown constants, so we can't determine what lambda actually is without assuming what those constants are. Their results actually imply there is a cutoff because if there wasn't, by their model, the Hubble rate (universal expansion rate) would be zero as lambda goes to infinity.

Maybe an inflation model incorporating this model would shed some light into what alpha and beta are.

>>8920316
You think /sci/ is anything more than high schoolers and undergrads larping?

>>8922467
It was about time, good riddance.

>>8927537
We know GR can't be complete because of QM. We know QM can't be complete because of gravity. That we moved one fudge factor from GM over to QM is nice in terms of reducing the number of explanatory entities but that's it.

I really don't see how this is "huge."

>>8928402
>I really don't see how this is "huge."
Because Dark Energy RIP

>>8929612
It's still there. We're just calling it something else now.

>>8929699
No it isn't. Read the paper.

>>8929750
>the expansion of the universe just disappeared
I can tell which one of us read the paper.

>>8920080

It's actually a little depressing. The mystery of the cosmological constant hinted that there was a whole branch of physics yet to be discovered, but if it can be explained using what we already know, then that's one less potential new physics gone.

>>8929801
You're retarded as hell or bait or both. The vacuum energy causes the expansion of the universe, like any physicist would have thought but couldn't calculate it correctly. These guys did.

>>8929850
So the energy needed is still there.... RIGHT. I mean it didn't vanish, RIGHT. It's still needed, RIGHT.

Right.

Now the theory would be, if this paper bears out, that it is the vacuum energy rather than some new kind of energy. Which is basically, saying, "Oh, GR was wrong, but in a totally different way than we thought." We always knew GR was wrong because of QM. We always knew QM was wrong because of GR.

We've just done some accounting and moved a deficit in one place to another.

If you think anything more has happened you watch too much science fan shows.

>>8929871
As far as I can tell, we moved the deficit to a better place. Surely that's worth something.

File: TrueStory.png (17KB, 629x309px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 629x309px

>>8929871
>>8929999
They say science progresses in baby steps until the new genius pops up with a long stride.

>>8920080
Holy shit this thread

do any of you people even now the first thing about QM/GR? At least there are a couple of people who understand this, but the rest? I started typing up responses trying to correct this shit but after the third post I gave up because its not even wrong.

Or is it just one guy shitposting about his inability to understand this by posting shit like >>8922443?

>>8929871
You don't need any new energy. It is conserved, even with a cosmological constant. Read the link: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/259759/conservation-of-energy-vs-expansion-of-space/260867#260867

>>8929999
It is worth something. I just don't think it, by itself, is "huge."

>>8930373
You might as well link to the new york times I ain't reading that shit.