<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Stuart LaForge </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:avant@sollegro.com" target="_blank">avant@sollegro.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><i>> </i></div><i>The QFT calculated vacuum energy density is correct with regards to the<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>time just after the Big Bang or our past-singularity as I prefer to call<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>it.</i></blockquote><div><br></div>I think it would be difficult to find a single physicists who has much confidence in the<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>QFT calculated vacuum energy density<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>that produces a value 10^120 joules per kilometer of space when the observed value is about 1 joule<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>per kilometer of space. This discrepancy should make us humble.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>The calculated value would be even larger, infinite in fact, if certain assumptions were not made, assumptions that don't have a scrap of experimental evidence of support, such as distances can't get smaller than 1.63*10^-35 meters and time can't get shorter than 5.39*10^-44 seconds. Our current theories produce nonsense at smaller distances and times than these, so does that mean there is nothing there? Maybe. But maybe not because we know our current theories are incomplete. What we need to figure this out is a quantum theory of gravity and we don't have one<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> yet</div>.<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><i><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>My number which, you have correctly deduced can't actually be a<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>constant, but is instead a function of time is simply a scaling factor.</i></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font color="#500050" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px">If the scaling factor for deterring the amount of Dark Energy is </span></font></div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">S= </div>H^2*h*G/c^5</span> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">then if should be changing, but the general consensus is that the Dark Energy density has remained constant since the big bang, although I admit that could change when more precise measurements are made. </div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">But there is another more serious problem, it seems to me there is circularity in your argument. You say the density</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> of Dark Energy depends on your scaling factor, and the scaling factor depends on the Hubble "constant", and the Hubble "constant" depends on the rate of expansion of the universe, and the </div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">rate of expansion of the universe<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> depends on the density of</div></span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> Dark Energy; but the density</div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> of Dark Energy depends on your scaling factor<div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">. And round and round we go.</div></span></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>It is dimensionless because of the way wave harmonics work although to be<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>honest, I started out looking for a dimensionless constant of the<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>appropriate magnitude.</blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">That explains why c^5 </div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">showed up, something that doesn't come around very often in physics. But a good theory shouldn't be made to fit the facts it should emerge organically for physical and not just mathematical reasons, and it should predict things that haven't yet been observed. </div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> John K Clark</div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail-m_2375061518270483477gmail-m_-7951953902288135078m_-5017536453824059428HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-m_2375061518270483477gmail-m_-7951953902288135078m_-5017536453824059428h5"><br></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div>