A Possible Explanation for the Vacuum Catastrophe

Author(s)
Michael A. Persinger

ABSTRACT

The discrepancy of 120 orders of magnitude between the observed energy density of the vacuum and that predicted from manipulations of quantum assumptions has been considered as the “worst prediction in physics”. By employing abbreviated quantum “natural units” the predicted density is 2.9 × 10^{120 }greater than the ~10^{-}^{9} J/m^{3} estimated by current measurements. However a comparable order of magnitude discrepancy for energy, 6 × 10^{120}, emerges when the total calculated force within the universe is distributed across its width. The energy density within the vacuum should be ~10^{111} J/m^{3}. Because the emergence of the total force value required the square of the cut off frequency for Zero Point Fluctuations, the discrepancy could be considered as an artifact of temporal sampling, that is, the implicit temporal increments from which the estimates were derived. The identity of the predicted vacuum energy density from counting modes and energy density from quantum theory and that obtained from Newtonian Force applied across the universe could be a considered example of ∑n = n, which is one condition for a holographic state.

The discrepancy of 120 orders of magnitude between the observed energy density of the vacuum and that predicted from manipulations of quantum assumptions has been considered as the “worst prediction in physics”. By employing abbreviated quantum “natural units” the predicted density is 2.9 × 10

KEYWORDS

Vacuum Catastrophe; Energy Density of Vacuum; Quantum Field Theory; Total Force; Boundary Conditions

Vacuum Catastrophe; Energy Density of Vacuum; Quantum Field Theory; Total Force; Boundary Conditions

Cite this paper

Persinger, M. (2014) A Possible Explanation for the Vacuum Catastrophe.*International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics*, **4**, 178-180. doi: 10.4236/ijaa.2014.41016.

Persinger, M. (2014) A Possible Explanation for the Vacuum Catastrophe.

References

[1] Adler, R.J., Casey, B. and Jacob, O.C. (1995) Vacuum Catastrophe: An Elementary Exposition of the Cosmological Constant. American Journal of Physics, 63, 620-626.

[2] Persinger, M.A. (2009) A Simple Estimate of the Mass of the Universe: Dimensionless Parameter A and the Construct of Pressure. Journal of Physics, Astrophysics and Physical Cosmology, 3, 1-3.

[3] Persinger, M.A. (2013) Support for Eddington’s Number and His Approach to Astronomy: Recent Developments in the Physics and Chemistry of the Human Brain. International Letters of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy, 8, 8-19.

[4] Puthoff, H.E. (1989) Gravity as Zero-Point-Fluctuation Force. Physical Review A, 39, 2333-2342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.39.2333

[1] Adler, R.J., Casey, B. and Jacob, O.C. (1995) Vacuum Catastrophe: An Elementary Exposition of the Cosmological Constant. American Journal of Physics, 63, 620-626.

[2] Persinger, M.A. (2009) A Simple Estimate of the Mass of the Universe: Dimensionless Parameter A and the Construct of Pressure. Journal of Physics, Astrophysics and Physical Cosmology, 3, 1-3.

[3] Persinger, M.A. (2013) Support for Eddington’s Number and His Approach to Astronomy: Recent Developments in the Physics and Chemistry of the Human Brain. International Letters of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy, 8, 8-19.

[4] Puthoff, H.E. (1989) Gravity as Zero-Point-Fluctuation Force. Physical Review A, 39, 2333-2342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.39.2333