[ExI] Dark Energy and Causal Cells
Stuart LaForge
avant at sollegro.com
Sat Feb 17 15:42:33 UTC 2018
John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com>
> wrote:
>> *But John by your own logic, all the matter in universe cannot possibly
>> have a non-zero average velocity*
>
>
> You need a reference point to set to zero, it could be anything but
> average velocity would be convenient , its the reference frame that shows
> zero dipole moment in the Cosmic Microwave Background.
The average velocity of everything you can see being set to zero is less
convenient and less sensible than setting your own velocity to zero. Being
at the center of our own coordinate system is the privilege that
Einstein's relativity gave us.
>
> *> unless there was something *else* out there for the all the matter in
>
>> our universe to be moving toward or away from. *
>
>
> I don?t see how that follows. Suppose there were only 3 objects in the
> universe X,Y and Z, Y has 98% of the mass and X and Z have 1%, X is
> moving relative to Y due east at speed v and Z is moving due west
> relative to Y at speed v. In that situation observers at both X and Z
> would conclude that there were moving relative to most of the mass in its
> universe (or most of the mass of the universe was moving relative to them,
> take your pick) while a observer at Y would conclude that he was not
> moving relative to most of the mass in the universe. In a similar way when
> we observe CMB dipole anisotropy we can conclude that the Solar System is
> moving at a speed of 368 km/sec relative to most of the mass in the
> universe in the direction of galactic longitude 263.85 degrees and
> latitude 48.25 degrees. So we're not moving the exact same way as most of
> the matter in the universe, oh well, if movement is allowed at all then
> everything can't be moving in the same direction at the same speed
> because it would make no sense to say the entire universe just moved 3
> feet to the left.
Damn it, John. You keep thinking in terms of the entire universe. It's
pointless to do so. You are causally disconnected from near entirety of
the universe by an event horizon located at the Hubble radius. The entire
universe did not just move three feet to the left. Only your finite causal
cell did.
>> The big CMB hot spot, the Shapely super-cluster, and Dark Flow are all
>> in the same octant of the sky in the direction of the constellation
>> Centaurus. What could be out there pulling the Laniakea super-cluster
>> and even the Great Attractor toward itself if not another causal cell?*
>
> Nobody thinks that the entire universe consists of a sphere with a 13.8
> billion light year radius with the earth at the center, which is what we
> actually observe, so if earth is not the center of the universe then
> there must be stuff we can't see. So if we observe large scale movement
> 10
> billion light years away its probably because something more distant than
> 13.8 billion light years that we can never see is attracting it
> gravitationally.
Let me get this straight. You concede the existence of stuff you can't see
gravitationally attracting you but you don't concede the existence of an
event horizon at the Hubble radius when that event horizon is precisely
the reason you can't see the stuff that is attracting you?
> *> What is surprising is that the observable universe has a non-zero
>
>> average velocity for the earth's velocity to differ from.*
>
>
> You set the universe's average velocity at zero and compare things to
> that because, as I said before, it would make no sense to say the entire
> universe just moved 3 feet to the left.
You *can't* set the universe's average velocity to zero. You don't know
how big it is. An infinite universe moves at every possible velocity.
> A statistical analysis of the biggest CMB cold spot shows it's probably
> just caused by random variation produced by quantum uncertainty before
> inflation started when the universe was about 10^-43 seconds old; the
> evidence to support the theory its more than just random noise only has a
> 2.2 sigma; that's pretty lousy, you need 5 sigma to claim to have made a
> discovery.
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07894
Awesome! I'll accept a 2.2 sigma significance of the hot spot as
observational evidence for Causal Cell Theory any day. Thanks, John. :-)
Now 2 sigma is my Bayesian prior for future observations.
>
>
> *> Or better yet, try to get infinity to cancel itself out like
>
>> renormalization does in QFT.*
>
>
> That would be nice but the discovery of Dark Energy made the canceling
> out trick like Feynman used in Quantum Chromodynamics much harder. Quantum
> Field Theory predicts something like Dark Energy will exist but it
> predicts a value that is 10^120 times larger than what we observe, its
> been called the worst prediction in the history of science. If the value
> of Dark Energy were precisely zero you could hope that some very smart
> person could find a way for 10^120 to cancel out, but now they must find a
> way to cancel everything out EXCEPT for one part in 10^120. And that would
> be about 10^120 times harder to figure out how to do.
No. You don't have to renormalize all over again. All the heavy lifting
has already been done by guys like John Baez.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html
You just have to use Causal Cell Theory and a little logic.
Now assume an event horizon at the Hubble radius. QFT predicts that
virtual particles and antiparticles pairs are popping into and out of
existence all the time. In order to exert any kind of force upon one
another or any more permanent particles, they have to emit a boson of one
sort or another to be absorbed by the affected particle.
That means that Hubble horizon is a barrier to any virtual particles
beyond it affecting our causal cell's spacetime. And the Hubble radius is
the largest wavelength any quantum fluctuation can have within our causal
cell.
The Hubble parameter itself can be thought of as a minimum frequency of
any quantum harmonic oscillator. If it hasn't vibrated at least once since
the big bang, it is not vibrating fast enough to be maningful. Likewise,
it makes no sense for something to vibrate faster than once a Planck time.
Coupling that with the fact that both of those conditions have to be met
for any quantum fluctuation to cause a force between any two particles in
a given causal cell and one derives a dimensionless constant, I shall call
S.
S:= H^2*Tp^2 = H^2*h*G/c^5 or approximately 1.4*10^-122 where H is the
Hubble parameter and Tp is the Planck time, h is the reduced Planck's
constant, G is the gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light.
S can be interpreted as the joint probability that any two particles
within our causal cell will feel a force upon themselves as the result of
a quantum fluctuation that is both within our causal cell P(H) and lasts
for at least one Plank interval P(h). S then equals P(H)^2*P(h)^2
Now we are ready to predict the density of dark energy (De) based on
causal cell theory. Ready for it? De = S*Dp That's it. See how simple
causal cells make calculations?
By setting the lower bound of wavelength at the Planck scale and
integrating to infinite wavelengths, John Baez got 10^96 kg/m^3 for the
vacuum energy density. That is 9*10^112 J/m^3 by E=mc^2. Let's call that
Dp for the QFT predicted value for the vacuum energy energy.
So substituting, we get (9*10^112 J/m^3)(1.4*10^-122) = 1.26 * 10^-9
J/m^3. Pretty darn close to the observed density of dark energy right?
Stuart LaForge
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list