Jump to content

The solution of the Cosmological constant problem ?


stephaneww

Recommended Posts

Recommendation on steps apply the FLRW metric without the cosmological constant.

Then apply the changes to the expansion rate due to the constant.

Specifically describe which of the cosmological constant problems you are describing.

Show previous other person solutions to the problem  as reference such as the Unruh paper for comparison 

Then describe your solution in comparison to the solutions you discussed in this thread.

Treat this as a full paper.

!

Moderator Note

Request has been sent.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
2 hours ago, swansont said:

Does that help?

Like I said, it looks like you have roundoff error, and you've shown that 1 = 1

yes, that help me, thank you 👍

after simplication the equality is correct

 

and ...

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I’m not sure why Fp made an appearance, but yes.

...about of the doubt of the interest of the physical meaning of equality :

I had note before that Fp = Coulomb's force with Planck's units  ([math]q_1=q_2=q_p[/math] and [math]r=l_p[/math])

 

But I don't know if that equality can make physical sense with the problem of the cosmological constant with or whitout an electromagnetic framework .

Do you have any idea ?

4 hours ago, stephaneww said:

About the Coulomb's force, there was a particular problem with the sign of the charges. . Can this "equality" help solve or am I going to fall back on circular reasoning...  ? 

 

 

Edited by stephaneww
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

1 hour ago, stephaneww said:

About the Coulomb's force, there was a particular problem with the sign of the charges. . Can this "equality" help solve or am I going to fall back on circular reasoning...  ? 

The signs of the charges are opposite (electrically neutral universe), the Coulomb force is negative but its square is positive for example

Edited by stephaneww
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simplicity of your argument had eluded me. Thank you.

Edit :

 

12 hours ago, stephaneww said:

But I don't know if that equality can make physical sense with the problem of the cosmological constant with or whitout an electromagnetic framework .

Do you have any idea ?

In the cosmological constant problem, there are no gravitational terms in the simplified formulas either, right ?

Edited by stephaneww
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope the cosmological constant has no gravitational force or Coulomb force term.

A force is a vector it has a magnitude and direction. 

The cosmological constant is a scalar quantity. It's value only has a magnitude.

 This is one critical detail you have to learn to seperate. The two types of fields will have different dynamics.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take an example.

Take two stars at some distance apart 

Now surround those stars with a uniform mass/energy density. The pressure is uniform so there is no pressure gradient.

On all sides of those stars equal pressure is exerted.  So no net force exists to give the star movement into a particular direction.

Yet the stars do seperate due to expansion. The cosmological constant affects the uniform distribution contributing to added volume. Yet it does not exert a force or pressure term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stephaneww said:

The simplicity of your argument had eluded me. Thank you.

Edit :

 

In the cosmological constant problem, there are no gravitational terms in the simplified formulas either, right ?

If you were to determine the cosmological constant from experiment, what formula(s) would you use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Nope the cosmological constant has no gravitational force or Coulomb force term.

A force is a vector it has a magnitude and direction. 

The cosmological constant is a scalar quantity. It's value only has a magnitude.

 

The fine structure constant is a scalar as well, and yet it depends on other terms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Let's take an example.

Take two stars at some distance apart 

Now surround those stars with a uniform mass/energy density. The pressure is uniform so there is no pressure gradient.

On all sides of those stars equal pressure is exerted.  So no net force exists to give the star movement into a particular direction.

Yet the stars do seperate due to expansion. The cosmological constant affects the uniform distribution contributing to added volume. Yet it does not exert a force or pressure term.

Yes, okay, but the pressure should decrease as the volume increases. But the pressure of the cosmological constant is constant as the volume increases.

And I don't know what a square force is physically speaking to know if my "equality" can have a physical meaning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, stephaneww said:

Yes, we've already talked about it, but for a force squared, what about it?

If this is in reference to Fp, you need to realize the planck units are those of scale. The Planck force is not an actual force. It simply a value of force under certain assumptions. 

It’s no different than saying 1 Newton is the force exerted on 1 kg that makes it accelerate at 1 m/s^2. It’s not a new category of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, swansont said:

If you were to determine the cosmological constant from experiment, what formula(s) would you use?

I don't know if it's really from an experiment, but I use and datas from the Planck satellite from Wikipedia :

[math] \Lambda=1,1056*10^{-52}.m^{-2}[/math]
[math]\rho_{\Lambda}c^2=\frac{c^4 \Lambda}{8 \pi G}[/math] (2)

and :

[math]\frac{m_p.l_p^2}{t_p^2}[/math] (1)

vaccum catastrophe = (1)/(2)

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

If this is in reference to Fp, you need to realize the planck units are those of scale. The Planck force is not an actual force. It simply a value of force under certain assumptions. 

It’s no different than saying 1 Newton is the force exerted on 1 kg that makes it accelerate at 1 m/s^2. It’s not a new category of force.

Thank you, it was about Fp indeed.
So a priori there's no physical sense of force squared... right ?

In the same vein: does a squared pulse have a physical meaning in QM ? I ask the question because I've already seen it in an unpublished research work.

 

 

Edit

The origin of the last messages after May comes from this thread: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/122287-puzzle-for-the-week-mystery-and-gum-ball-around-a-fine-structure-constant-in-planck-units-dimensioned-with-the-coulomb/

 

..  where I try to propose a link between the fine structure constant and the cosmological constant problem with this formula: 

[math]\Large{\alpha=\frac {F_p^2}{e^2}. \frac {t_p^3}{m_p.2.\pi} . \frac {8.\pi^2}{c} .\frac {1}{\mu_0} }[/math]

 

- [math]\alpha[/math]fine constant structure

FpPlanck's force  

e : elementary charge

tp3/(mp.2.pi) : inverse of Planck's surface power density * 1/(2pi) 

note 1 : units of surface power density = W/m^2 = kg/s^3

note 2 : possible link with the problem of the cosmological constant ?

speed of light

μ0 vacuum permeability

Edited by stephaneww
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. If it's not too much trouble, I really want to understand your argument. The way I see it, there are two problems related to the cosmological constant. Or, if you wish, a problem in two steps. One is: 1) Why is it that QFT predicts such a large value (about 10120 times its measured value.)? And then: 2) Why is it that its actual value is so small and why that particular value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest that QM is not of the same nature as relativity:
I put the comological constant in a context of MQ by dimensional analysis. Here we find an extremely low energy density by volume
 

The multiplication of the two square roots of the energy volume densities of the QM gives the value of the cosmological constant in relativity

To my knowledge, there is no theory that includes square roots of energy volume density in QM, relativity or cosmology. (I know very little about QM and relativity)

The only context in which I could find this dimension (J/m^3)^1/2 is with the Hildebrand solubility parameter

41 minutes ago, joigus said:

1) Why is it that QFT predicts such a large value (about 10120 times its measured value.)?

I suggest that QM is not of the same nature as relativity:
I put the comological constant in a context of MQ by dimensional analysis. Here we find an extremely low energy density by volume
 

The multiplication of the two square roots of the energy volume densities of the QM gives the value of the cosmological constant in relativity

To my knowledge, there is no theory that includes square roots of energy volume density in QM, relativity or cosmology. (I know very little about QM and relativity)

The only context in which I could find this dimension (J/m^3)^1/2 is with the Hildebrand solubility parameter

 

42 minutes ago, joigus said:

2) Why is it that its actual value is so small and why that particular value?

I don't know

ooops error

2 hours ago, stephaneww said:

[math]\frac{m_p.l_p^2}{t^3}[/math]   (1)

vaccum catastrophe = (1)/(2)

(1)=[math]\frac{m_p}{l_p.t^2}[/math] is right

Edited by stephaneww
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Sorry. If it's not too much trouble, I really want to understand your argument. The way I see it, there are two problems related to the cosmological constant. Or, if you wish, a problem in two steps. One is: 1) Why is it that QFT predicts such a large value (about 10120 times its measured value.)? And then: 2) Why is it that its actual value is so small and why that particular value?

This link is earlier in this thread.

Unruh came up with an interesting solution. Just thought I would post here for you Joigus.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00543.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, stephaneww said:

I don't know if it's really from an experiment, but I use and datas from the Planck satellite from Wikipedia :

Λ=1,10561052.m2
ρΛc2=c4Λ8πG (2)

and :

mp.l2pt2p (1)

 

And there’s G, in equation 2. It’s related to gravity.

Equation 1 has no physical significance, AFAIK

Quote

 

 Thank you, it was about Fp indeed.
So a priori there's no physical sense of force squared... right ?

Show an equation that has F^2 in it, and include the derivation.

 

4 hours ago, stephaneww said:

I

The origin of the last messages after May comes from this thread: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/122287-puzzle-for-the-week-mystery-and-gum-ball-around-a-fine-structure-constant-in-planck-units-dimensioned-with-the-coulomb/

 

..  where I try to propose a link between the fine structure constant and the cosmological constant problem with this formula: 

α=F2pe2.t3pmp.2.π.8.π2c.1μ0

 

Where did the equation come from?

 

You have to be careful assigning physical relevance when all you’re doing is rewriting constants.

If you replace all terms of c with the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow (times some unitless number, of course), it does not mean your equation suddenly  has a connection to bird flight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • 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.