Jump to content

stephaneww

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

stephaneww last won the day on September 15 2019

stephaneww had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

18 Neutral

About stephaneww

  • Rank
    Atom
  • Birthday 10/02/1968

Profile Information

  • Location
    France
  • Favorite Area of Science
    cosmology

Recent Profile Visitors

4221 profile views
  1. Hi Modred. About that : what do you think about this opinion please ? source : http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-five-most-promising-ways-to.html
  2. ok (you omitted a c^2: [math]\rho_{\Lambda}=\frac{c^2 \Lambda}{8 \pi G_n}[/math] ) for the "quantum energy density of the vacuum" (B), if a temperature TB/m^3 = EB/kB/m^3 can be made to correspond, we have TB/m^3 = about 10^-110 K/m^3. There would be no absolute zero due again to the fluctuations of the quantum vacuum. (E=kB T) for the quantum mass density (A=10^96 kg/m^3) the mass of the current universe being 10^54 kg would be the index of a possible physical nonsense of this presentation, without it being a sufficient argument to prefer its value in K/m^3. as you suspect, the rest of your explanation escapes me, and in particular the reject of the use of the statistical mechanics of the mix edit : for the record, can you remind me what [math]U[/math] is, please?
  3. Actually, I didn't understand the argument above...😓 what is [math]G_n[/math] please ? and I'm not sure I understand it any better...
  4. Thank you, too complex for me again indeed. (edit: It seems to me as if I use (96) page 23, but I guess it's more complicated) [math]m_p[/math] can't be considered the macro expression of the components you're quoting? Because that would be okay for the values and the dimension. and for this please ? :
  5. If I'm not misinterpreting: the universe being an isolated system in the thermodynamic sense, this would mean that at the quantum level, for 1/2 m^3 of A + 1/2 m^3 of B, we find in a 1 m^3, by thermal equilibrium of A and B (thermodynamics?), a pressure C which is numerically equal to the energy density of the relativistic vacuum (= at the macro level). Could this be correct please ? Edit : we have the Relationship [math] E=k_B T[/math] where [math] E[/math] is Energy, [math] k_B [/math] is Boltzmann constant and [math] T[/math] temperature for an ideal gaz
  6. I'm an idiot sometimes: the unit J/m^3 corresponds to 1 Pa. It fits in terms of units (1kg.m^-1.s^-2 ) in S.I. but I don't know if the expected sign (the "-") is the one obtained. I don't know the sign conventions Um, I'm not sure about my handwriting in In. You might want to use this one for verification: [math]\Large{exp^{\frac{\ln(A)}{2}+\frac{\ln(B)}{2}}}=\rho_{\Lambda}.c^2[/math] [math]ln[/math] comes from statistical physics, thermodynamic and entropy But these fields are new to me. It's more than likely poorly formulated.
  7. Well, I'm gonna try to make some physical sense out of this message: Classically we say that the energy density of the quantum vacuum is: [math] A=m_pc^2/l_p^3=\hbar.(l_p^{-2})^2.c[/math] I, for one, found this unknown quantum energy density: [math] B=\hbar.\Lambda_{m^{-2}}^2.c[/math] We can note that in [math] A[/math] we have [math]m_pc^2[/math] which is a mass energy while in [math] B[/math] we have [math]\Lambda[/math] which is the vacuum energy of the cosmology constant. We have [math]\rho_ {\Lambda}.c^2=\sqrt{A.B}[/math] energy density of the cosmological constant I think it can be said that the problem of the cosmological constant contains a formulation error: Indeed [math] B[/math] would be more logically suited to a quantum vacuum energy density, while [math] A[/math] would be more logically suited to a mass quantum energy density in terms of definition. Please tell me what you think of this opinion edit: we can also note that the values of A and B correspond to a thermal equilibrium such as [math]exp^{((lnA)/2+(lnB)/2)}=\rho_{\Lambda}.c^2[/math] by posing [math]k_B=1[/math]. but I don't know how to calculate what that's like in terms of pressure for [math]1m^3[/math].
  8. read on a French forum I think that it is in this sense that Aurélien Barrau talks about sound waves : ... not in a crystal lattice ? but here I'm entering territory I know nothing about.🙄 edit : and the holographic principle (and entropic gravity) are phenomena coming from thermodynamics, so ??? Which quantum information theory, please ?
  9. It seems we can do without this quantification: source : https://blogs.futura-sciences.com/barrau/2017/03/13/la-gravitation-est-elle-emergente/ (Deepl.com traduction) further on : traduction : from which further more the emerging gravity in the blog
  10. is it possible ? I'm not sure because we have [math]G[/math] in [math]l_p^2[/math] in holographic approach ?
  11. ok ,thank you edti : Is the novelty with entropic gravity that it gives meaning to the value of the vacuum catastrophe =N "=number of 'bits' of information"?
  12. Um, I don't know what to think: the paper is from 2010 (https://philpapers.org/rec/GAOWGI) before the successful cosmological test of 2016. I don't get the argument, How is E.VERLINDE wrong ?
  13. already done: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785.pdf the simplified transcription is on Wikipedia here edit I'm interested if you can find some more, of course.
  14. Hi Mordred, MOND is only one application. there is also these one : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity where I need to dig for the last case please ? Edit : source from sciencepost.fr : https://www.sciencealert.com/a-controversial-new-gravity-hypothesis-has-passed-its-first-test
  15. Question: What interpretation can be made from this demonstration please ?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.