stephaneww

Hello Mordred Does my mathematical solution match the suggestion at the end of this paper's conclusion, please? I'm not sure masses distribution corresponds to energy density. source : https://file.scirp.org/Html/5-7503727_93134.htm#ref1 edit : my question is essentially about the low/high energy cutoff as a physical interpretation of my solution.

I still don't understand. It's too complicated. Is there a relationship between the electromagnetic field of light in vacuum and the cosmological constant finally ? edit : We can't claim that, I think. One is a vector , the other is a scalar. except perhaps by looking at the origin side of the cross product norm (an area) and the dimension of the cosmological constant (the inverse of an area)???? 🙄 that's ok for that, I already understand

..... I think I won't have all the knowledge necessary to reach the above conclusion. Two questions about it : 1. How do you go from the cross product of E through B to what appears to be a numerical value, please ? 2. what exactly does g represent and how is its value determined ? edit : I have found for g = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential 2. is that Λ⋅g is simple multiplication?

I just noticed this with [math]A[/math] and [math]B[/math] from this message (mathematic solution of the cosmological constant problem) : [math]\sqrt{A}. \sqrt{B}=C= \text{ energy density of cosmological constant}[/math] [math]{\Large{\frac{\sqrt{A}}{\sqrt{B}}}}=8.73*10^{122}=\text{ exact value of vaccum catastrophe}[/math] does anyone have any idea what it means physically ? is it moving forward or are we going in circles ?

thank you very much can I have links (wiki ideally) that detail this please (the French notations seem different from the English notations) ? take a look at the French notation of the vector product (=cross product): https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Produit_vectoriel (notation and understanding of the 2 notions acquired) what is the latex for dot please ? links for the next step, please ?

ok thank you, so we must speak in terms of electric and magnetic fields (instead of charges)? edit : sorry , it was a stupid question. the answer is Yes, of course

Thank you but we'll have to proceed slowly, it's too much to learn at once... Let's start with this, please: can I have links (wiki ideally) that detail this please (the French notations seem different from the English notations) ? and edit : can we go faster by noticing that the electric charge and the magnetic charge are of the same sign at the summits of their respective quantum waves ?

um, thank you, you make me doubt, maybe I didn't transcribe correctly what I was told: and with this case of electromagnetic waves, is it better?

Hello, New question: can the reasoning of this post be used for charges of a plane electromagnetic wave that vibrates in phase, using the classical conventions for the plane/axis (?) of electrical charges and then for the plane/axis of magnetic charges. If I understood well in this case the sign of the electric charge would be identical to the sign of the magnetic charge. With these assumptions and it would seem, in my opinion, that we can apply the reasoning of the post cited above. What is not correct this time or needs clarification? Intuitively I would add that it could have something to do with the speed of light and the power density of the relation seen here which gives the energy density of the cosmological constant

Um, I'm not sure I got it all figured out. Here's what I'm getting at: Thank you both.

about this: who can explain to me why Dirac's "sea" of negative-energy electrons is false? In other words, what are the facts that make it incorrect and cannot be applied to my quotation above? source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle#Dirac_hole_theory Thank you in advance edit I don't fully understand this paragraph and its implications.

or not, of course...

To be honest, I am unable to argue alone with my knowledge of the two posts above. I note however that the author of this document (first version already seen diagonally [and approved(?)] by Mordred here) has known developments, notably eq(XI-34) page 73 in V3 which claims as me that Fc=Fg (making the same mistake on the sign of the charges as the viXra document) ie by adopting my "new personal convention" on the signs of the charges. I am not able to understand what allows the author to arrive at eq(XI-34) page 73. Only a diagonal or in-depth examination, by one or both of you, will be able to say that the author's detailed argument is consistent in responding to your objections.

if it's wobbly it's not pure science like QM or Relativity, it's still at the research stage for the moment

unless I'm mistaken, they're incomplete or speculative for some part Both Academia and viXra are not very reliable sources.