MigL

Mordred is much more qualified to answer, but there is a difference between vacuum energy , and vacuum expectation value. My ( limited ) understanding is that while the concept of the VEV is a property of the vacuum which in Quantum field theory ( QED, QCD, Higgs ) governs virtual particles and condensation of fundamental masses, vacuum energy ( zero point or false zero ) is a property of the universe, and encompasses contributions made by virtual particles. The one place where the two 'meet up' is in regards to spontaneous symmetry breaking. Physicists are not like chemists ( no offence meant ). We are much more anal, and hate plugging numbers ( constants, fundamental or otherwise ) into equations. These numbers have to have a 'reason', otherwise we ask "Why that number ?", or have to invoke the observation selection effect ( anthropic principle ). So we try to derive these such numbers from 'first principles'. The usual method for vacuum energy is treating each point in space as a harmonic oscillator, summing over all such points and renormalizing the resultant infinity, usually with a suitable cut off, or ( as Sabine mentions ) that energy is a gauge condition where only differences are measurable. I believe there has been some research into using vacuum energy as 'effective mass' of the vacuum, or a field strength that 'resists' global curvature ( in GR ), to derive G from first principles ( like I said, we are anal 😄 ).

And a more, shall we say, controversial ( as always ) interpretation of vacuum energy

Really ? Sometimes they seem very appropriate for any geopolitics.

Here is a simple to follow calculation of the expected vacuum energy, and comparison to the observationally estimated vacuum energy which results in the 124 orders of magnitude 'vacuum catastrophe'. It also provides clarification about Cosmology, universal expansion and the Cosmological Principle.

There are different kinds of nuclear weapons; strategic, in the form of ICBMs and SLBMs, and tactical battlefield weapons of much smaller ( or single warhead ) yield. But all are weapons ( of a possible much larger scale ), so you may as well ask what would happen if say, NATO gave up its weapons ? I think V Putin's armies would be at the Atlantic European coast in a year ( assuming they can get their logistics in order ). If Taiwan dismantled their defenses, and the US wasn't willing to provide military support, China would start building a land bridge to Taiwan, to make them part of the mainland. How long would Israel last as if they discarded their weapons and relied on the good will of Syria, Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah and Hamas ? Because that is what you are proposing. And arguing that you don't mean conventional weapons, just nukes, is pointless. An army ( including tanks ) of 100 000 can be wiped out by a single hi-yield battlefield nuke, if your rogue opponent chooses to disregard the 'treaty' and keep their nukes. @MSC You may have misunderstood ( must be ADD at such a young age 😄 ) It is not that we are extorting and blackmailing these rogue states like N Korea and Iran not to develop nukes, rather, they are extorting/blackmailing ( usually ) the US, and demanding economic support as a condition of not developing nukes ( which they do anyway ). The reality is, in a 'perfect' world there are no bad actors, people who covet other's possessions/property/land, or people who crave wealth/power, and that is the only place where unilateral disarmament would work. That is not the world we live in. I wonder, if your child is being bullied at school, do you tell him/her " just go ahead and give the bully your lunch money, he/she will learn from your selfless act, and become a 'good' person too". How do you think that would work out, considering we now have punitive laws against bullying?

You guys are too old to be that naive; well intentioned, but naive. You ban handguns, yet criminals still get them. You ban nuclear weapons, yet rogue states still get them. Some people just don't abide by laws, that's why we call them criminals. Is V Putin abiding by international laws ? How about N Korea and Iran ? ( even Israel, Pakistan and India; not actually criminal, simply not signing on to any nuke banning treaty ) At best, you propose a system which ensures continued extortion/blackmail to keep them from developing nuclear weapons ( all the while continuing their development ).

The genie is out of the bottle, and it's too late for wishful thinking. The states that do have such weapons have a history of being provoked to the brink, and haven't used them since 1945. Even new nuclear powers like India, Pakistan and Israel. They are an almost known quantity. It's the unknown quantities like Iran and N Korea that make the equation hard to calculate.

What can I say ? I'm a complicated person. You mention Israel dropping a nuke on Iran, yet Israel has had nuclear weapons for about 30 years. They haven't used them yet. Would you be so confident that the same would hold true if Iran had them ?

Exactly. Even nuclear deterrence doesn't work with madmen dictators. Deterrence only works when both sides have something of value to lose. V Putin is arguably the richest man in the world; do you think he is 'mad' enough to lose that? Even KJU lives in the lap of luxury in N Korea; do you think he'd want to give that up ? The only ones I fear are the religious delusional nutbars running Iran, if they get nukes. They will use them, and Israel will respond; not proportionately either

There is a vast difference between what I have the stomach to do, and what should be done. Were I suddenly transported into President Truman's body, I may not have dropped nuclear weapons; but if I had lived his life, and experienced the horrors of that war, being responsible for all the people lost in the Pacific theater ( and those yet to come ), I certainly may have. I'll give you an ounce of T-Nitro-Toluene and an ounce of radioactive Cesium, and task you with transporting both, in your car, to the next city. With a little knowledge, you can provide shielding for the radiation; that's always been the biggest fear most people have, they can't see it and they don't understand it. Most people understand TNT perfectly well yet they don't know enough to be more afraid of it. Which do you think you should be more afraid of ? The danger is in how it is used.

Proportional response is highly over-rated. Deterrence of any particular action depends on the realization that the consequences could far outweigh any benefit. If I steal $100, and my only punishment is a $100 fine, I'm no worse off than I initially was, so I may as well attempt it.

Some people just see other people's ideas as damaging, and wish to silence them. Lesson learned ... stay off social media. That's where all the idiots are to be found.

Most people recognize the difference between an unprovoked action, and a re-action to it. If you walk up to me and punch me in the face, no one will fault me for breaking your arm in response. ( not implying you would; you seem a nice enough person 🙂 ) It's brutal, but it's reality; if you don't want the consequences, don't do any harm to others.

The reason you can 'picture' the 2dimensional surface of the sphere/world is because you ;ive in three dimensions. To see a volume loop back on itself, you would need to live in 4 dimensions. The volume is effectively embedded in a higher dimensional manifold. You cannot picture it, however, you can demonstrate it mathematically. Space-time is a 4dimensional manifold, however, we have no need ( nor can they have any effect ) for embedding dimensions, so we call any topological curvature intrinsic, whereas an embedded topology would be extrinsic. I think you've hit the nail on the head; failure to elevate your thinking is leading to your confusion.

I'm not very familiar with him or his work, and frankly, I've never seen any validity in tilting at windmills like Religion; you cannot disprove a belief. But after Eise's glowing review of his life/works I will try to educate myself. I probably wouldn't understand his Philosophical leanings, but I like red wine ( a little too much ) also, and have pictures of myself on a tractor.