stephaneww

Oops. I knew it was the base, but we have to divide by 8 in more. . Do [math]c.F_p.\Lambda/8=0.50144.kg/s^3[/math] value of posts 2 and 3 page 5 : https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1117499 https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1117557

Simply by the power surface power density where the cosmological constant of dimension L-2 acts as a division by a area.

All right. Much simpler approach: Planck power = c .Fp source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Derived_units Is that okay? … and thank you for all your counter arguments that force me to look for valid scientific arguments for my model

If you follow me back on the subject... Planck's force (which can be highlighted in the energy density of the cosmological constant) can be considered as a tension: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_force#Planck_force_as_a_tension_constant_of_the_space_time_fabric on French wiki we have also : translation : link 4 is : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.1820.pdf where you will find an attempt to define power associated with Planck's force. [math]A[/math] and [math]B[/math] on page 2 (formulation of the geometric mean) are they associable with "dipole boundaries"? c*pi, could it be associated with "electrical current"? note: the formulas and values of posts 2 and 3 on page 5 are correct contrary to what I said earlier. (post 3 use [math]h[/math] instead [math]\hbar[/math] the whole question for me is how to interpret W/m^2 equivalent to kg/s^3. ...for the moment I don't have an answer

In fact the 2nd and 3rd post (+ errors in the 3rd) on page 5 are most probably strictly irrelevant..... At least I would have learned a lot of things +1 to last post of Mordred

You didn't see a geometric mean as a solution to the problem of the cosmological constant either. I may have to rework the presentation (one equivalent to energy density * speed of light) to make it more obvious. But, this equality of 1/1,994 W/m^2 is not a coincidence in my opinion. The equivalence is too exact. edit : Um, It is very easy to show that [math]\frac{\hbar\Lambda}{8\pi t_p^2}.c = \frac{c^4\Lambda}{8\pi G}[/math] just replace [math]t_p[/math] by [math]\sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^5}}[/math]

Intuitively I would say that, over time, the transfer of energy from the cosmological constant goes into increasing the volume of the vacuum of the universe with ultimately an increase in the total energy of the vacuum. It should be considered that the vacuum is the source and the receiver at the same time. But I don't know if that's an acceptable answer. I wrote this before your last post Can you specify the energies involved, please, I don't understand everything Edit, I understand I'll have to scratch my head for a moment. I have a lot of notions to learn or review. Without any guarantee of results... … and thanks a lot for this link : and the definition of a dot

Um, actually, there's a problem with your whole explanation: Indeed, you are dealing with power / volume unit [math]W/m^3[/math] ( everything you say in this frame is OK) whereas I am talking about surface power density (power /area surface unit) [math]W/m^2[/math] cf: or in French : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Densité_surfacique_de_puissance ok but what happens to the surface power density ? correction: read [math]\hbar[/math] [math]\frac{1}{2} \frac{\hbar}{t^2}\frac{Λ}{8\pi}=0.50144.kg/s^3=1/1.994.kg/s^3[/math]

+1 for this of course

The votes are sympathetic but I prefer positive or opposition written reactions. It's clearer for me In addition, it reinforces me on the validity of the formulation of [math]B[/math] in this message : https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1115799 edit : It is also a good basis for popularizing Unruh's paper

Agree for my understanding currently in cosmology. Finally we have succeeded!

On this point we agree

Um, not even transferred to vacuum temperature? (CMB's) for the above in your message it is being studied in detail but we agree in a first approach

I understand this 2 points very well I don't know but I understand the principle for having represented it on a sheet of paper This is due to the fact that roughly speaking the quantity of material is conserved while for vacuum, it is the density of the vacuum that is conserved in an expanding space.

Arf I didn't pay attention that you edited to add this: so the consequence escapes me. I don't understand what that implies for what I propose post 2 and 3 on page 5... Sorry I edited this after your next message but it comforts me on this point:

This time, it's definitive. I have understood that you are right on this issue.

Thank you. I disconnect after"the energy equation becomes". ... because I don't remember what [math]\dot a[/math] means. On the other hand, I believe I understood that I managed to convince you that we had a "repulsive force" for the cosmological constant. Therefore, is that enough for you to go back on your counter-argument quoted below ? Thanks in advance for your answer

To add to the current confusion, this new measure: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6458/1134

On this forum, you are my only interlocutor so all the credit for my progress goes to you

I use an excellent translator (DeepL.com) who gives very relevant translations and allows alternatives if there is a problem of meaning. I also manage to understand thanks to my basic knowledge of English, even if my translations into English are not always perfect. The problem lies more in my incompetence in the tensors in general relativity and the understanding of some notations in the equations. I only have a 30-year-old bachelor's degree.

That's because I don't master this important part of cosmology. The link you gave does not display the equations correctly in my browser. edit : it's ok in another browser (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ir.isas.ac.jp/~cpp/teaching/cosmology/documents/cosmology01-05.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi0pdiqk9LkAhWxJjQIHRrZCW4QFjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw37DQF5eUpSBEoC_QefsvGg) And you reassure me of my current knowledge of cosmology. Thank you. But I don't have a clear enough answer in my field of understanding to this question: can we say we have a vector quantity that applies a force?

Well, once again, your explanation is beyond my competence. I just have to admit, I said one more nonsense. Thank you for your patience and time. I will wait patiently for you to validate or not the series of posts linked above if you have some time to devote to it

Um, sorry to insist once again. I have one more point to clarify. The cosmological constant is sometimes presented as "a repulsive gravity". In other words, we have an acceleration speed of the expansion that depends on the distance in a given direction. The simplified version I was given is [math]a=d. \Omega_\Lambda H_0^2.m/s^{-2}[/math] with [math]d[/math] =distance. The greater the distance from the "centre" (equivalent to the centre of gravity in classical mechanics) the greater the acceleration speed. So, by making the analogy with this quote: can we say we have a vector quantity that applies a force? But it is also possible that I didn't understand this correctly :

All right, thank you again.

Ok, it's a dead end, so I'm starting to doubt everything... When you have a moment, could you confirm that my posts or parts of posts listed below are, in your opinion, of a scientific nature or not, please ? 1. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1115799 2. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1115805 3. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1116338 4.https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1116658 (+ spéculatives posts related to 4. ) 5. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1116906 6. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1116978 ( I have a very big doubt about 6., you didn't say anything about it… ) Now, only my first post page 5 is ok in my opinion. Edit : I hadn't seen your next edit: But I wonder: So It'is true also for the value of the cosmological constant ? It depend of your location also, if I well understand ? Indeed, I thought it had the same value everywhere, no? Its value is independent of H0, so.... I have to admit, I'm missing something.