stephaneww
Senior Members
Content Count
336 
Joined

Last visited

Days Won
1
stephaneww last won the day on September 15 2019
stephaneww had the most liked content!
Community Reputation
17 NeutralAbout stephaneww

Rank
Atom
 Birthday 10/02/1968
Profile Information

Location
France

Favorite Area of Science
cosmology
Recent Profile Visitors

The solution of the Cosmological constant problem ?
stephaneww replied to stephaneww's topic in Speculations
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/57503727_93134.htm#ref1 edit : my question is essentially about the low/high energy cutoff as a physical interpretation of my solution. 
The solution of the Cosmological constant problem ?
stephaneww replied to stephaneww's topic in Speculations
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)???? ðŸ™„ that's ok for that, I already understand 
The solution of the Cosmological constant problem ?
stephaneww replied to stephaneww's topic in Speculations
..... 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 Î›â‹…g is simple multiplication? 
The solution of the Cosmological constant problem ?
stephaneww replied to stephaneww's topic in Speculations
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 ? 
The solution of the Cosmological constant problem ?
stephaneww replied to stephaneww's topic in Speculations
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 ? 
The solution of the Cosmological constant problem ?
stephaneww replied to stephaneww's topic in Speculations
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 
The solution of the Cosmological constant problem ?
stephaneww replied to stephaneww's topic in Speculations
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 ? 
The solution of the Cosmological constant problem ?
stephaneww replied to stephaneww's topic in Speculations
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? 
The solution of the Cosmological constant problem ?
stephaneww replied to stephaneww's topic in Speculations
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 
The solution of the Cosmological constant problem ?
stephaneww replied to stephaneww's topic in Speculations
Um, I'm not sure I got it all figured out. Here's what I'm getting at: Thank you both. 
The solution of the Cosmological constant problem ?
stephaneww replied to stephaneww's topic in Speculations
about this: who can explain to me why Dirac's "sea" of negativeenergy 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. 
The solution of the Cosmological constant problem ?
stephaneww replied to stephaneww's topic in Speculations
or not, of course... 
The solution of the Cosmological constant problem ?
stephaneww replied to stephaneww's topic in Speculations
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(XI34) 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(XI34) page 73. Only a diagonal or indepth 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.