stephaneww

Hello. Just a small comment about the title of your thread : It seems to me that wanting to combine determinism with indeterminism is without issue,. even if both are exact in their own domain. Starting from the strength of Planck (entirely deterministic) could, in my humble opinion, be more productive; for the gravity you can try to adapt my speculation of the vacuum catastrophe ??? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/109635-the-end-of-the-quantum-vacuum-catastrophe/ in particular starting from the Planck force : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_force#Planck_force_as_a_tension_constant_of_the_space_time_fabric

I'm really not sure of myself, but I think it looks very much like the definition of [latex]l_p ^ 2[/latex] What is different if [latex] \Delta t = t_p [/latex] ? edit : oops I don't saw that you have mentionned it

oops, it arises from the Planck length squared. but it seems possible to not use the QFT Remains to be confirmed if the approach (demonstration?) of the problem of the vacuum catastrophe approached by the pulsation of the cosmological constant is acceptable. I would not make any hypothesis considering the incompleteness of my basic knowledge

Hello I found something new and pleasing I think :.... [latex] \frac{\hbar.t_p}{l_p^3.8.\pi}* \Lambda (\text{ en }s^{-2})= [/latex] [latex] \frac{\hbar}{c.l_p^2.8.\pi}* \Lambda (\text{ en }s^{-2})= \frac{\hbar.c^2}{l_p^2.8.\pi}* \frac{\Lambda (\text{ en }m^{-2})}{c} =[/latex] [latex]\frac{\hbar.c}{l_p^2}*\frac{ \Lambda (\text{ en }m^{-2})}{8.\pi}=[/latex] [latex](I)[/latex] we have : [latex]\frac{c^4 \Lambda (\text{ en }m^{-2}) }{8\pi G}[/latex] [latex](II)[/latex] [latex](I)=(II)[/latex] so [latex]\frac{\hbar}{l_p^2}=\frac{c^3}{G} \text{ in kg/s }[/latex] which seems to be an interesting unit for quantum mechanics in astrophysics and relativistic quantum mechanics. so we have : [latex]G=\frac{c^3.l_p^2}{\hbar}[/latex] Is it an important data for quantum gravity ??? You can note, if as I think it is a correct approach to quantum gravity, this one is entirely deterministic ... ... And that approach of the catastrophe of the vacuum by decomposing the cosmological constant with a pulsation seems correct. Thanks in advance for your specialist looks.

Oooh, what a surprise ... I thought it was very simple. lol Begin by the link Wikipedia, it's seems to be easier : Planck force turn out to be actually "a tension constant of the space time fabric"

no I confim Professor said "in circles". He thought that the perfect egality was suspect. Or my english is not enought good for the translation I use Google A person on a French forum spoke to me about the rotation of Wick. I understood the principle and its usefulness in QFT but I was not able to go much further in my understanding of these rotations.

In fact, the professor was referring to a calculation that runs in circles. I think I take the FWR metric ( sorry for not mentioning it before ), Hubble constant = 67,74 km*s^-1/Mpc, for the critical density, and a rate of the cosmological constant = 69,11%. There is no problem, you can change the values a little, the formulas should remain correct. I know that : [latex] \rho_\Lambda * c^2 [/latex] are two constant in this model What we have to validate is whether we can extract a pulsation from the cosmological constant and use this pulsation in quantum mechanics. And also find the origin of this [latex] 8 * \pi [/latex] . Is the wikipedia link, about Planck force, interesting for [latex] 8 * \pi [/latex] ?

Hello A university professor objected that there might be a problem of equality being perfect. So I pushed a little more my work to see if he was right. I use this value of cosmological constant [latex] : \Lambda= 9,992 *10^{-36} s^{-2}[/latex] for the following calculations. [latex]\left( \frac{\hbar*\omega_{\Lambda}}{l_p^3}\right)^2 / \left( \frac{m_p*c^2}{l_p^3}\right) /(8*\pi)= [/latex] [latex]\left( \frac{\hbar*\omega_{\Lambda}}{l_p^3}\right)^2 * \left( \frac{l_p^3}{m_p*c^2}\right) /(8*\pi)= [/latex] [latex] \frac{\hbar^2*\Lambda}{l_p^3*(m_p*c^2)} /(8*\pi)= [/latex] [latex] \frac{\hbar*t_p*\Lambda}{l_p^3} /(8*\pi)= [/latex] [latex]5,354*10^{-10}\text{ Joules / }m^3=[/latex] [latex] \rho_\Lambda.c^2 = \frac{c^4 \Lambda }{8\pi G} = \frac{F_P \Lambda}{8\pi}[/latex] , for the latter formula, [latex]\Lambda[/latex] is in [latex]m^{-2}[/latex]. [latex]F_P[/latex] : Planck force. The conversion to [latex] m ^ {- 2}[/latex] is obtained by [latex]\Lambda\text{ in } m^{-2}=\Lambda\text{ in }s^{-2}/c^2[/latex] These simplifications show that[latex] \Lambda[/latex] is on both sides of the equality. It seems normal that equality is perfect. Am I right? wrong ? It remains to verify that we do not turn in circles and this [latex]8\pi[/latex] (it comes from this ? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_force#Planck_force_as_a_tension_constant_of_the_space_time_fabric

I can not go beyond what I already posted as I said: ... I do not have enough skills Although I am impatient, I have been working on the issue long enough to wait over a month if you still want to assist me Help from other people is also welcome

Hello Mordred I searched a little for the "canonical treatment Einstein Hilbert" on Google and found this document : http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~chirata/ph236/2011-12/lec33.pdf I have found a "[latex]8 \pi [/latex] ", and even a" [latex] -8 \pi [/latex] "on page 4 and page 6, which gives me hope for a favorable result for your w = - 1 test, and for bypass the problem of rotation Wick... Enjoy your weekend, although I am looking forward to reading you.

Your help, expertise and assist is more than welcome. For my part I can not go beyond my first post: I do not have sufficient skills. But I would gladly read all your remarks and your final opinion

read : ...I know this paper and even have notice that the pulsation [latex]\omega_{\Lambda}[/latex] of cosmological constant was interesting for the vacuum catastrophe on a french forum (here) the 17 December 2016 ... i try latex (and succed ), thanks for your explaination

Hello Modred I know this paper and even have notice that the pulse of cosmological constant was interesting for the vacuum catastrophe on a french forum (here) the 17 December 2016 ... but I'm not enought qualified to understand the QFT, so the Unruh paper Thank tou for your +1 edit : can you please indicate me the correct latext example for \omega please, i don't succed again...

Hello I do not succed to use the latex on this version of the forum, I opted for a text image. Excuse my English too, please;)

Hello, I would like to known if this is exact : if Cosmological constant = [LaTex]\Lambda = 1,111*10^{-52}* m^{-2}[/LaTex] we have with this document, the last values of Plank mission and codata values : Vacuum energy density of cosmological constant = [LaTex]5,354**10^{-10} Joules*m^{-3}[/LaTex] Planck force = [LaTex]F_p = \frac{c^4}{G}[/LaTex] [LaTex]\frac{F_p*\Lambda}{8*\pi} =5,354**10^{-10} Joules*m^{-3}[/LaTex]=Vacuum energy density of cosmological constant. is the relationship exact and new ? Thank you in advance

hello Uh, I have a doubt : is what you call an "area" have for unit meters2 ? because in french it's the unit for a "surface" and an "aire". so what is the unit, in english, for an area ? thank you in advance. edit : I think I had found. An area have for unit the meters2 edit 2 : ... and above all, an area multiplied by an energy, is it dimensionless from the viewpoint of the physical interpretation ?

Hello Thank you swansont and Mordred, it's what I have.

oops ... read : Indeed : . [LaTex]l_p^2\Lambda[/LaTex] (4) is a surface multiplied by an energy. So can we say that (4) is "physically dimensionless" and, if no, is it a possible explanation of the vacuum catastrophe? please Mordred what is your answer for this question (a surface multiplied by an energy) ? I have ask a french physical Dr. and he anwsers me that a surface multiplied by an energy is unknow and a nosense in physics.

uh, I have a lot of work to learn FLRW metric. I know that, they are competing

Hello Mordred As I said, I do not know the QFT, so I did not understand anything sorry. The only thing I know is that QFT as the string theory are currently speculative. Thank you very much for your efforts of explanation, I hope that other people will understand. Have a good day

lol, thanks you lol good night what is "VP" please ? virtual particles ?.

Uh, I do not use the Higgs field, but the definition that raised the question for the first time. After that, if we do not find an explanation for this "first error", we will look elsewhere with the Higgs field or something else. But I'm ready for your explanations, I will do my best

oops I have not the time to answer after your edit I will try to understand if it's simplified ,)

Ok, but, again, I think I do not have the level to understand.

I don't understand the QFT