stephaneww

Hello joignus. Thank you for your feedback. It's a pleasure to read you again. I will try. Excuse me, I'm very brouillo. You are not alone and I try to be educational by moving slowly for all novice readers in cosmology .Plus I'm not good when it goes too fast. 😉 so : Our summations seems well equivalent to each other now (if your n is well egal to tH/tp) note : tH = 1/H where H is Hubble constant ...and you can check out my viXra pdf to get more complements to get advance more quickly if you want. In another attempt to be pedagogical and make physical sense of the summation, consider this: - In Figure 2, your present time tp of your observable universe is the first point in the graphical representation. But before you lived 2 times tp and again before 3 times tp etc... it is the same for your visible universe (=universe at Hubbe radius): it lives its first time tp at the same time as you and started at tH. To each point of time tp, of the figure 2, of your current universe is associated its mass mp/2 of the summation in the system of Planck's unit. (it still misses some tinkerings but the main idea is there and is verifiable in agreement with our current knowledge and measurements) This explains how for us the visible universe started with 1 nucleon and counts today about 1080 Is that understandable? I will all ears. Regards

yes I don't understand what you mean here but I have an intuition of what it means and especially of the consequence. and the consequence is that I think : yes we are Please note that my english is poor. I realise all my tranlations with DeepL.com so sometime it can be be a problem for understaning I am now waiting for your return to know if we are on the same page. Then, if it's good, we'll go to the next step. 😊 Of course, everyone is welcome to ask questions about this passage if they feel there are things to improve or challenge. (reference figure 1 and 2 of this document arxiv)

about this detail I am only a passionate and messy amateur who did not wish to abuse his fame. We agreed on that about this one good job 😊 ...but there are other things to do with in the ΛCDM model next. 😉

It seems that the names and representations are not unified. Moreover I referred to a French site which may be wrong . It seems that for you it is, if I am not mistaken, this divergent series which stops at tH if I am not mistaken: (1+2+3+4+5+....+tH) * (1/2 mp/tp) where mp/tp is the Planck mass flow rate (please look at my 3 sources on this line) you well did an error because you find hbar/c2 =mp * tp instead c3/G for Planck mass flow rate =mp / tp I have finished my edits on this short message, I await a feedback with pleaser. oops I did 2 more edit sorry ☺️

Hello joignus thank you for your comments - I think you are making a mistake on the of the notion of sigma arithmetic summation: look at the help of the French version. With the formula that I propose we have : 1 mp/2 + 2 mp/2 + 3 mp/2 + 4 mp/2 + 5 mp/2 ... it reflects the figure 2 of this document quoted before with 1/2 mp by point I hope this will be enough for you to see where you are making additional mistakes on this point and that not porpotional to tH - If I understand you correctly I agree with you on this point. I deal with it in my viXar document unless I am mistaken. I want to come back to it later in this thread yes except that it is the exact value that can be write tH/2 * c3/G and that you made a small error : you did mp * tp instead mp / tp

let's see if we can do without the disgressions that followed this post : Is this question solved for you?

pause this is going too fast for me. i need to take it easy. please give me some time between each answer so i can edit to clarify or correct my mistakes this large disparity is the Cosmological constant problem this is a whole other topic that I have recently covered in the speculation section and on viXra

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Température_de_l'Univers I only found this reference in French. but I know that in Planck's unit system 'all values can be set equal to 1' or something close to it. for a Planck time, you have a Planck mass, in relation with a Planck temperature etc... .

pause this is going too fast for me. i need to take it easy. please give me some time between each answer so i can edit to clarify or correct my mistakes

Sorry, it's in the standard cosmological model. edit so also in the big bang theory My source is a French researcher of the cnrs who doesn't want to be quoted that I say his name. he told me : "it is inevitable that at Planck time, the temperature (in units k_B T) is equal to the Planck mass (multiplied by the speed of light squared), and that the horizon contains at that time only of the order of a single particle. This is simply a consequence of the dimensional analysis feasible with the quantities c, hbar and G."

Hello to try to be simple and educational : - the big bang theory tells us that in Plank's time, the mass of the universe is 1 Planck mass - the figure 1 starts with two units (two circles). To have 1 Planck mass at the beginning, each sphere should weigh 1/2 Planck mass ... hence the 1/2 in the formula of the summation. - figure 2 starts with an empty set according to the authors. however following the same logic as above it starts with 1/2 Planck mass. - the summation adds 1 unit of 1/2 mPl per unit of Planck time to the previous summation. this is a formula that explains how we go from a universe that weighs one Planck mass at the origin to a universe that weighs 10^54 kg today my pdf says the same thing with mass or energy densities after my toy cosmological model gives also the explanation of the homogeneity of the universe. but each thing in its time

if I well undersetand the summation sigma should be an identity bit of information = nucleon an equality and each point = unit of volume of Planck sphere with its associated mass (mp/2) per unit of time (tp) in the figures an equality too if I'm not mistaken, does this help you make sense in case ?

I think so I think I reversed the 2 notions in my previous posts if I understood correctly thanks hum isn't are two identity ? I'm not sure

Hello I can do it for the mass of the observable universe I added a personal hypothesis for the Hubble radius. It's here : https://vixra.org/abs/2110.0108 sorry I don't have an entry on arxiv and for the observable universe it's a démonstration , not a spéculation

Hello I am not sure to understand what you put under the term identity. if I understand correctly the notion of identity, it can be each point = unit of volume of Planck sphere with its associated mass (mp/2) per unit of time (tp) in the figures quoted above note that each point can also be a bit of information = nucleon ( identity here) I am affirmative for the equality of the formula on the other hand. the notion of summation can be simplified with the help of this calculator for those who do not know this notion the summation becomes tH/tp x mp/2 we only need the Hubble time value (see on wikipedia) chosen to make the calculation.

oops i forget this in your edit,sorry replace the "empty set" at the begining in the figure 2, by mp/2 in a unit of Planck sphere volume (for t1 = tp) at t = 2 tp you begin the figure 1 with two units of Planck sphere volume the formula explains how, in the cosmological standard model, we go from 1 nucleon at Planck time to about 1080 nucleons today at hubble radius.

The formula follows from figure 2 of this article arxiv with a correction on one of the data. If you test the formula with 2 or 3 values, it matches with exatitude each time after the recombination. It is indeed a micro macro link,as it is proposed in the arxiv document figure 1. It is a formula that expresses the growth of the observable universe and why its energy is not conserved.

Hello MU Hubble at tH : mass of universe at Hubble radius tH : Hubble time tP : Planck time mPl : Planck mass

[math]\Large{ M_{\text{U Hubble at }t_H} = \sum_{1}^{t_H / t_p} \frac{ m_{Pl}}{2}} [/math] I have an idea but I need confirmation thanks in advance

hello I add a more complete pdf on this question of Planck mass flow following the arxiv article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.11953.pdf "Essay written for the Gravity Research Foundation 2021 Awards for Essays on Gravitation If time had no beginning" by Bruno Valeixo Bento and Stav Zalel for the role of time in the evolution of universes reminder you must be logged in to read the PDF originV5.pdf

um, I don't understand theses arguments. The problem cames from me. My toy cosmological model may also explain the large-structure of the universe and other problems solved by inflation (I am not sure) and has the advantage of being compatible (I think) with the Lamda-CDM model up to Planck time.

I don't take inflation as completely useless. It solves a lot of problems My extension of the Lambda-CDM model, going back to Planck time, would be just virtual to provide an interpretation to the cosmological constant problem. (I hear your argument: the theory says it doesn't work, we can't go back that far in time in GR) Note: One needs to set a value to Lambda (but you don't need to take mine) to have the radius of the observable universe for my toy cosmological model. A thousand apologies.

um, cosmic inflation is more than speculative I have a very simple cosmological model that allows to calculate the total mass of the universe since Planck's time until today, and that is consistent with the Lambda-CDM model. It does without the inflation theory even if it knows a close phenomenon in its young age. M (total,universe)= 1/2 mp/tp * tH * ( Observational universe radius / Hubble radius)3 tH = Hubble time radius at Hubble time considered mp : Planck mass tp : Planck time edit : to have an exact value, I use Λ = 1.10241 10-52 m-2 edit 2 : we don't need Λ

hello what do you think of this interpretation please ? It is sufficient to calculate the dark energy density parameter ΩΛ at Planck time, origin of our universe : ΩΛ= Λ c2 / ( 3 H2 ). Source : Page 4 ΩΛ,tp = 1/3 Λ c2 tp2 with tH = 1/H, where tH is Hubble time and H is Hubble constant The vacuum catastrophe = Λ / lp-2 = Λ lp2 as lp = c tp lp2 = c2 tp2 The vacuum catastrophe = Λ c2 tp2 The vacuum catastrophe = 3 ΩΛ,tp Conclusion The vacuum catastrophe would be the energy density parameter of cosmological constant at Planck time in the ΛCDM model with a factor of 3 (and with a divisor of 8 pi if we express the problem in J/m³ instead of m-2) , and it would no longer be a problem. For the value lp-2 = 3,83 * 1069 m-2 from the QFT Lucas Lombriser, université de Genève, communiqué de presse , https://www.unige.ch/communication/communiques/2019/cosmologie-une-solution-a-la-pire-prediction-en-physique you must login to read the pdf which is more complete vacuumV3.pdf

ooops big error sorry and it's why I think have no anwsers : read : ΩΛ,tH = 1/3 Λ c2 tH2 and not ΩΛ,tH = 3 Λ c2 tH2 , tH= 1/H Hubble's constant with tH= Planck time : 5,391247*10^(-44) s c = 299792458 m/s and Λ = 1,102 * 10^(-52) m-2 ΩΛ,tp= 9,60 * 10-123 we make: (1 / ΩΛ,tp)* 8 π / 3 = 8,73 * 10122 to have the value of the vacuum catastrophe: (with vacuum energy value in QFT = lp^(-2) = 3,83 *10^(69) m-2) lp =1,616255*10^(-35) m and this small one error too : 8 π * 3,83 *10^(69) / 1,102 * 10^(-52) = 8,73 * 10^(122) and not : 8 π * 3.83 *10^(69) / 1.105 * 10^(-52) = 8,73 * 10^(122) so now are you agree with : "basically the vacuum catastrophe would be the density parameter of dark energy at Planck time in the ΛCDM model and that would be no problem." Please ? EDIT : more easy : ΩΛ,tp = 1/3 Λ c2 tp2 vacuum catastrophe = Λ / lp-2 = Λ lp2 lp = c tp so vacuum catastrophe = Λ c2 tp2 vacuum catastrophe = 3 ΩΛ,tp