Jump to content

stephaneww

Senior Members
  • Posts

    497
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by stephaneww

  1. There was a bit of irony in my question: I don't see how one can invoke 2 plates to talk about the Casimir effect in cosmology. So it must be something else. Λ and lPl-2 are energies expressed in m-2. You don't need to know complex QM terms, nor QM to understand this.
  2. ok this is beyond what I know and understand uh, does he use two plates or a space geometry in this approach?
  3. ok question : do they need 2 plates for this calculational approach ? I
  4. it's not a problem. it is indeed an excessive shortcut on my part. i haven't found any sources in my proposition, cosmologycal constant and zero-point energy of quantum fields are linked to obtain the Casimir effect
  5. here : https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2019.0229 you can read the whole article, I didn't take the time to translate it al either it was badly said or it is a problem of automatic translation I refer you to the whole article quoted above here too but I haven't access : https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-vacuum-energy%3A-Casimir-effect-and-the-constant-Elizalde/e0d922a743ae3c2c5ef7cb61cfb391f1fab7fcb3
  6. it is simply the interaction of the cosmological constant at the quantum scale (lPl-2). It does not "become" the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is already in the equality. It is the identification of (1) to (2) that allows to say that we are in the framework of the Casimir effect https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effet_Casimir#Expression_de_la_force_par_unité_de_surface traduction : Moreover, it is more than likely that the effect also depends on the distance L between the plates. "Probable" does not prohibit another way of presenting L-4 edit : moreover I would be curious to know what L4 represents in nature
  7. oops yes indeed it is a pressure or J/m3 i.e. an energy density the units of (1) and (2) of the first post indicate it and are correct they
  8. the separation distance is not important in my identification of the equalities: 1/L^4 becomes the cosmological constant multiplied by the QFT quantum vacuum energy (lPl^2) to obtain the Casimir effect
  9. tradution : It is further assumed that the plates are perfect conductors of infinite electrical conductivity, and that they are not charged. if I understand correctly the vacuum is conductive we have to combine the cosmological constant with the QFT quantum vacuum energy (=lPl-2) to obtain the Casimir effect ... and dF/dS is an energy, not a force
  10. I identify the cosmological and quantum vacuum energy with the Casimir effect to confirm that the cosmological constant of general relativity is the cosmological vacuum energy. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effet_Casimir#Expression_de_la_force_par_unité_de_surface The Casimir effect having been proved experimentally as effect of the vacuum energy
  11. Hi I think it's okay. That's why I didn't post it in Speculations first. Thanks for your opinions casimir eng(1).pdf
  12. .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 :
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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?
  16. 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 :
  17. Well no, this scheme is not consistent either. Let's see if the next one gives satisfaction or permit to progress:
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. The problem is that your proposal, as interesting as it could be, is not supported by equations. This is more philosophy, not science....
  21. sorry again for an error. correction below
  22. 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.
  23. Hi swansont I'm not the author of this arxiv paper. Mine is on viXra
  24. 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,
×
×
  • 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.