3 ms·
The biggest issue - based on your explanation - seems to be the need for negative energy... I might have a non-educated theory that could explain negative ener
by ToJans 5y ago
The biggest issue - based on your explanation - seems to be the need for negative energy...
I might have a non-educated theory that could explain negative energy; could you tell me if this is potentially correct or am I completely wrong here?
Disclaimer: I haven't read the article (it doesn't load), and I am (probably) lacking even the basics of the required knowledge.
Let's assume the law of energy conservation applies to the universe: if you assume the total energy in the universe is constant, the negative energy is a relative imbalance instead of an absolute one, caused by the universe expanding at a different speed relative to the "things" it contains.
As the universe is "expanding" constantly, the "energy amount per expanding area" gets "less dense", so the "things" that are not "expanding" at the same speed get "more dense" in comparison. This imbalance creates different types of energy perturbation. From the point of view of the things that do not expand as fast, the energy levels relative to yours seem to evolve in a "negative way".
It's like looking at a stationary train from a train that is moving: from the point of view of the moving train, the train standing still seems to go backwards.
Does this make any sense at all, or am I completely missing the mark here?
Updated: reworded some things and provided extra context.
- MaxikCZ 5y agoAs another complete layman just pooling my intuition: Relatively more or less dense "things" (to each other) will always generate positive curvature of spacetime. What you want is relatively less dense area than vacuum in another region of space, since vacuum is (for now) what we constitute as (somewhat) flat. That's what Casimir effect tries to accomplish: define a small enough region of spacetime where some larger quantum fluctuations don't have enough space to happen, thus lowering its energy below vacuum. Since the idea is to define small enough space-like interval in spacetime to curb some energies off, could defining small enough time-like interval help the same purpose, multiplying the former?
- ToJans 5y agoThanks, this makes a bit more sense to me now, but let's figure out if I understood it correctly: The Casimir effect is about creating a spacetime "corset" so to speak, that is so tight that even the regular quantum fluctuations don't have "enough room to pass", so they "almost freeze", and when they "come out on the other end", they could for example break or delay entanglement? On the other hand I think your assumption about the time aspect might be correct as we are talking about spacetime after all. The biggest issue might be that measuring time deltas might be harder than space deltas?
- MaxikCZ 5y agoI don't think the Casimir effect is utilizing some medium flowing between the plates. Its not about a quantum fluctuation freezing as it passes trough the passage between the plates. Its rather that the quantum fluctuation comes into existence and disappears at random point in a vacuum, how often depends on the energy of the vacuum. When you put two plates really close together, there is not enough space for the quantum fluctuation to materialize, as it's wavelength is bigger than the gap. That way you limit the amount of those fluctuations materializing between the plates, and because there's less of them, there should be less energy than in unobstructed space, even vacuum. Thus negative energy, because its less than the 0 we assume for vacuum. Regarding working with time-interval, it might as well just be the opposite: minimize space-interval and maximize time-interval for maximum effect. It's just wild guesses at my side. But minimizing time-interval should be trivially doable by just slinging the plates past each other at high speed.
- pa7x1 5y agoEnergy conservation follows from Noether's theorem and time translational symmetry. This doesn't hold in general for an arbitrary space-time. In fact, it holds for a very specific subset (static spacetimes) of which our universe is not one of them.
- tzs 5y agoRelated: "Energy is Not Conserved" by Sean Carroll [1]. [1] https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-...
- ToJans 5y agoLOL, looks like one gets seriously downvoted for mental freewheeling on HN... I did not see that coming, especially since I added a disclaimer. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to try to explain this to a total layman, but I'll defer engaging into subject matters that I never heard about before; lesson learned...