[ExI] Dark Energy and Causal Cells
johnkclark at gmail.com
Fri Feb 23 21:54:45 UTC 2018
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:
> *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
I think it would be difficult to find a single physicists who has much
confidence in the
QFT calculated vacuum energy density
that produces a value 10^120 joules per kilometer of space when the
observed value is about 1 joule
per kilometer of space. This discrepancy should make us humble.
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
*> 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.*
If the scaling factor for deterring the amount of Dark Energy is
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.
But there is another more serious problem, it seems to me there is
circularity in your argument. You say the density
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
rate of expansion of the universe
depends on the density of
Dark Energy; but the density
of Dark Energy depends on your scaling factor
. And round and round we go.
> 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.
That explains why c^5
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.
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat