[ExI] Dark Energy and Causal Cells
Stuart LaForge
avant at sollegro.com
Tue Feb 20 18:45:39 UTC 2018
John Clark wrote:
> Whatever its size I admit its sorta neat that your equation produces a pure
> dimensionless number, but what reason is there to think it has any physical
> significance?
My equation arises naturally from considerations of the finite nature of
our causal reality. What you choose to call the "observable universe" is a
misnomer. It should be rightly called the *observed universe* as in the
past tense. You can't see a single galaxy that has left our Hubble radius
in any other state than what it was in when it crossed the Hubble horizon.
Any such galaxy could have been instantly annihilated in the mother of all
gamma ray bursts, and we would never be the wiser let alone have cause to
fear. The reason is because it became causally disconnected from us the
moment it crossed the causal horizon as you prefer me calling it and that
GRB would never reach us.
Now assuming that this Hubble volume is causally separate from what could
be deem the universe-at-large or multiverse or what have you, you have an
additional boundary condition to the equations of the Standard Model and
QFT in general. There is no point in integrating all the way to infinity
because you can never observe an infinite wavelength of anything.
The QFT calculated vacuum energy density is correct with regards to the
time just after the Big Bang or our past-singularity as I prefer to call
it. My number which, you have correctly deduced can't actually be a
constant, but is instead a function of time is simply a scaling factor. It
represents the fraction of the vacuum energy density today to that of the
big bang.
I have decided to rename my function Z to avoid confusing it with entropy
in my calculations. Z:= (H(t)*Tp)^2 or Z=H(t)^2*h*G/c^5 where h is indeed
hbar or h/(2*Pi. This is equivalent to Z = (k/Tmax)^2 where k is a
constant pretty close to one. So Z can be further approximated as Z~
1/Tmax^2, where Tmax is the age of our causal cell in ticks of its fastest
possible clock, the Planck interval.
My equation stems from the fundamental nature of wave harmonics. Just like
a the finite size of a pond define the fundamental harmonic and all
possible harmonics of the waves in that pond, so too does the Hubble
radius and Planck length govern the fundamental harmonic and all possible
wavelengths of the vacuum energy in our causal cell.
All, I've done is limit the calculated values of the vacuum energy density
to those values which are actually observable i.e. those quantum harmonic
oscillators that vibrate between once per age of the universe and once per
Planck time. My number represents the square of the ratio of the maximum
frequency possible in our causal cell to the minimum frequency possible.
Or equivalently, the square of ratio of the shortest possible to the
longest time interval of any observable phenomenon in our causal cell.
It is dimensionless because of the way wave harmonics work although to be
honest, I started out looking for a dimensionless constant of the
appropriate magnitude. I wanted it to be a dimensionless constant so that
it could be used as a patch for the QFT integrals because of the way
constants and units propagate through integral signs.
And so yes, I found it through dimensional analysis before I understood
exactly what it meant. But I don't see how that matters.
Stuart LaForge
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list