stephaneww

.not to another day but later and remplace s-2 et m2 in Joules kg m2 s-2 by Λs-2 and Λm-2 correction :

no, precisely I take into account the dimensions: originally I have an equality which in a form is in Joules and in a second form it gives a numerical value close to the value of Λ in m-2. I justify this difference because of a difference in degrees of freedom. edit : I tried to explain the process clearly but I can't. I'll put it off for another day. I never use this : for me ρvac = Λ FPl /8 pi and ρvac from QFT = lPl2 FPl (FPl =c4/G) it is not in the standard physics. it comes from my model derived from the ΛCDM model and which approaches it under a new angle. but I find the essential of the results of the standard model. (mass at the Hubble radius and critical energy density of the universe in a certain way). other points are still speculative including this one

Uh m-2 is the dimension of the cosmological constant. for lPl-2 of the QFT I have only one reference in French : https://www.unige.ch/communication/communiques/2019/cosmologie-une-solution-a-la-pire-prediction-en-physique/ This equality comes from a speculation published in French on my blog. I can't put in latex a clean way to reach the equality that I have a problem with here.

lPl-2 is the vacuum energy from QFT in m-2 on the right I have 1(kg s-2) or 1(N/m) inverse of a surface tension. Is my problem insolvent or do you see a solution please?

precisions for the above diagram : - time = 1/H , It can exist before tPl. - the distances of the 3D flat space increase with time. l = c t and t = l / c -each of the 3 axes of the 3D flat space merges with the time axis and vice versa let's try to go forward with the correspondence of the critical density of my model with the one of the standard cosmological model :

Well no, this scheme is not consistent either. Let's see if the next one gives satisfaction or permit to progress:

corrected diagram

hello swansont thank you for your relevant criticism this formula is indeed incorrect RH = (1+2+3+...+tH) lp the sigma summation : RH = (1 tp/tp+2 tp/tp+3 tp/tp+...+tH/tp) lp if I am not mistaken, corresponds to the diagram

hi we forget the last two messages and try to move on MH=(1+2+3+4+5+...+tH) 1/2mpl RH=(1+2+3+4+5+...+tH) lpl Expansion and acceleration of the expansion of the visible universe. time = 1/H , It can exist before tPl or t = 0. The distances of the 3D flat space increase with time.

The problem is that your proposal, as interesting as it could be, is not supported by equations. This is more philosophy, not science....

sorry again for an error. correction below

Hi, what do you think about this figure please ? in my opinion it is closely related to the equality introduced at the beginning of this tread. it lacks a caption for the moment, I will do my best to explain what i think it means according to your possible questions. time = 1/H , It can exist before tPl. The distances of the 3D flat space increase with time.

Hi swansont I'm not the author of this arxiv paper. Mine is on viXra

why exponentially ? Indeed it is excessive. If you want to do maths look here https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.11953.pdf, with length = time c. This formula is valid in QM and in general relativity. It is acceptable it seems to me: at the Hubble radius, the visible universe, we can consider that the universe can be assimilated to a black hole (ingredients: mass of the universe, Hubble radius, Schwarzchild radius formula, critical density) For the moment this physics does not exist. I started a topic on this subject which has little echo for the moment. This is normal because it is still full of errors. My model is under construction, I'm just starting to tame it Which radius ? The observable radius ? The Hubble radius ? expand exponentially ,why not an infinite power? You need formulas and values that correspond with the data that comes from what you observe. Try to put more math and dimensional values to clarify your thinking. Your "fundamental laws of physics" remain to be defined and they must be compatible with relativity and QM, just as classical mechanics is included in general relativity. I have more difficulty understanding the rest of the message... I agreed I think I found an answer to this question beecee . Give me a little more time: I need drawings and I'm slow to make them. ... and have a look here https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.11953.pdf,

You have to prove it with a theory, mathematics and numbers. Especially mathematics so that it is verifiable and therefore scientific. For the moment I only read words, which is not enough to convince on this forum. Moreover your words are not well arranged to have a real physical meaning. Do you have any knowledge in mathematics? If so, offer them with relations as I try to do here. Otherwise, this discussion will not be productive here. For the moment we don't know how to deal with infinities in physics. There has been a recent arxiv paper on this subject and I'm watching what might come of it.