[ExI] Dark Energy and Causal Cells

Stuart LaForge avant at sollegro.com
Sat Feb 24 05:11:24 UTC 2018

John Clark wrote:

> 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 discrepancy is evidence that we live in a causally closed aquarium. An
aquarium that's 28 billion light years across is none-the-less an
aquarium. That's pretty humbling, at least in my opinion. We like to tell
our kids the possibilities are endless when in reality, they are not. Not
even in theory.
​ ​
> 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.

Lol. Last time we had *this* discussion, it was you who was trying to
convince me that space-time was pixelated while I was arguing for the
continuum. Ironic eh?

> 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
​> yet.

Quantum gravity is really hard. The super-long wavelength of gravitational
waves observed by LIGO make quantum mechanics predict gigantic particles
for gravity that span light years across but have little to no mass. At
least if you use the Planck constant. It could be that gravity is
quantitized to a different constant, but I don't know what that constant
might be.

Although a case could be made that a causal cell behaves as a single
particle in some respects. So maybe my theory is a step in the right

>> ​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 [determining] the amount of Dark Energy is
> S= ​H^2*h*G/c^5 then it 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 Dark Energy supposedly caused inflation. If the Dark Energy density
has been constant over time, why did inflation ever end? My equation
predicts it to be constant over space, but changing over time.

> 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.​

The same criticism could be made of Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism.
A changing electric field generates a changing magnetic field that creates
a changing electric field that creates a changing magnetic field. And
round and round we go. The key is that both theories are about
time-dependent phenomena that manifest as waves and waves and circles are
mathematically related.
>> 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.

A theory that predicts things that haven't yet been observed is worthless
if it doesn't also predict the known facts. Which is why SR and QM both
predict Newtonian physics at the appropriate scales and physical
conditions. I think they call that the correspondence principle or

Look, John, I am just an amateur no longer affiliated with any university
and my background is in microbiology not physics. I am kind of out of my
depth here. So what would you suggest I do to improve my theory? What do
you think I should do with it?

Stuart LaForge

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list