stephaneww

What is the IOW, please? Otherwise, very quickly, I didn't really deal with the problem of the cosmological constant but another point that shows a ratio in 10^122

file attached , the English version. I can't get the translation: the PDF is an image file. source : https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ I'll get back to you on the rest later. article_20160.pdf

Which one? Thank you, I did my best but I didn't realize the importance of the contribution of all frequencies. I will try to go deeper with what I find on the web. Of course ! Because it was the one who was consistent with [math]t_p[/math]. -1.- being wrong I don't know if it's still relevant. Indeed, they are'nt derived from the QM, but by dimensional analysis (which I have sometimes been reproached for using in this thread, unless I'm mistaken) and in their formula, [math]\hbar[/math], the minimum energy value of a quanta appears each time. But that doesn't take away from the fact that they are conceptually linked to a fundamental physical level : edit : that's why I thought that the energy density of Planck could be used to make an approach to the problem of the cosmological constant as in the document I used as a reference. But this is not going to stop my research with the zero point energy approach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Significance edit 2 : click on "show" of Table 5: Interpretations of the Planck units [21] and take a look at the interpretation of "density". It does seem to have a physical meaning, doesn't it? Now that you have put your finger on the question of the contribution of all frequencies to zero-point energy, this constancy becomes much less obvious now for me As far as the constancy of the energy density of the cosmological constant you will find plenty of references that assert this within the framework of the standard cosmological model.

The numerical value of the vacuum catastrphe X is dimensionless and must be a ratio in SI units, for example : [math]X=\frac{t_p^{-2}}{\Lambda_{s^{-2}}}=\frac{l_p^{-2}}{\Lambda_{m^{-2}}}=\frac{\text{quantum energy density} (J/m^3)}{\text{cosmological constant energy density} (J/m^3)}[/math] I have sketched in this jumble of thread a physical meaning with the meaning of a square root of an energy density. I put it back if necessary if what follows makes sense, otherwise there's no point in looking at it. Question : 1. Is [math]1/t_p[/math] the value of [math]\nu[/math] for calculating zero-point energy? 2. And divide it by [math]l_p^3[/math] to get its energy density? - If yes, my solution remains valid to within one constant and not only with numbers but with formulas. - If it is not the case, I remain in the unknown for the moment. The values [math]t_p[/math] and [math]l_p[/math] are not only a system of units in my approach but minimum physical values that make sense (smallest possible time value for known physics, smallest possible length value in QM). That's why I don't understand the criticism about the unit system. Not at all; I hadn't paid attention to it. Vacuum energy (quantum and cosmological) is a constant. The problem is that we expect a ratio of 1 and that it is in 10^122 or 10^123. Moreover the energy density of the cosmological constant is fixed while the age of the universe varies. The link made and the two seem more than suspicious

I wonder if you're not looking for lice in my head : Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#In_cosmology) we have: Cosmological constant 5.6 × 10^-122 tp^ -2 which is just another way of presenting the cosmological constant problem with a numerical factor (which depends among other things on the precision of the data) and a factor pi close to my presentation of the problem

I was trying to express that there "existed" a frequency [math]\nu[/math] associated with [math]t_p[/math] in the Big Bang model (value of MQ and not just as a unit). i.e. below [math]t_p[/math], we would need to have a new physics other than the QM (but this is not my point). I also don't know if after this minimum value in the Big Bang model ([math]t_p[/math]), which has a physical meaning, time should be considered as a continuous function or if it is and should be considered by quantas.

I understand better. Thank you And how about this, what do you think, please ? Nonsense or not ?

read on french wikipedia : Raison https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effet_Casimir but I'm not quite sure what that means. edit : and we need "two parallel, conductive, uncharged plates"... so matter. It's not exactly a vacuum..

... moreover, if I'm not mistaken, the Casimir effect involves photons, and, if I understood correctly, this is also partly the case for the QED. It seems to me that this is a vacuum with a minimum of radiations, a "false vacuum"? So I wonder if the "theoretical vacuum" in QM can be treated with Planck's time for the frequency of zero-point energy since the theory (the Big Bang model) cannot go below Planck's time.

No response to my request at this time. Let's try to get back to the physical sense: - Planck's time is the smallest possible value in the Big Bang model. Is it acceptable to say that between t=0 and tp it is the smallest possible quantum oscillation that applies to zero-point energy ? ... or is it again nonsense ?

I may have a reference on the French web : a deterministic approach of quantum mechanics recovers the formula of zero-point energy for n=1. I will contact the author to try to know what would be its value in J/m^3 from his work. Who tries nothing has nothing.

Sobs, references 3 and 4 are books.

The number might be. But the QED example comes from QED, not manipulating physical constants. Where is the QED analysis? How else than dividing E= 6,1 *10^9 J by lp^3 to get 10^114 J/m^3 then ?

For the Casimir effect, I vaguely know that it's a force of attraction of two plates very close together in a vacuum. It's experimentally observed. I confess I don't understand what you're asking.. When I want to compare values, I put them in the same system of units, the SI. I don't understand what the problem is with that. If I don't make a mistake : [math]E=\frac{1}{2}\frac{h}{t_p}=6.1 * 10^9 J[/math] is, in Joules the theoretical vacuum of the Quantum field theory . It's the vacuum energy theoretically expected. [math]E_p=E/\pi=1,96* 10^9 J [/math] is, in Joules the Planck energy [math]E_p/l_p^3 = 4.6* 10^{113 }J/m^3[/math] is Planck's density energy. I don't know,.

Please, look for my supposed numerical error in SI units. Here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy#Origin ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy#Quantum_field_theory ) [math]E=\frac{1}{2}h\nu=\frac{1}{2}\frac{h}{t_p ?}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{6,626070 *10{-34} \text{ } kg. m^2/ s}{5,391247* 10^{-44} s}=6,1452116 * 10^9 \text{ }kg .m^2/s^2=E_p*\pi=m_p*c^2*\pi=m_p\frac{l_p^2}{t_p^2}*\pi[/math] unit : [math]J = kg .m^2/s^2[/math] to have something around 10^133 J/m^3 = kg / (m s^2) you have to take the value [math]l_p^3[/math] with [math]m_p\frac{l_p^2}{t_p^2}\frac{1}{l_p^3}=\frac{m_p}{l_p t_p^2}[/math] = 4.6*10^113 J/m^3 [math]E\frac{1}{l_p^3}=\frac{1}{2}h\nu\frac{1}{l_p^3}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{h}{t_p ?}\frac{1}{l_p^3}[/math] = 1.5*10^114 J/m^3 near 10^114, (not 10^113) if [math]\nu=1/t_p[/math] I have a connection to QED within a Pi factor ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

The problem goes beyond that for all I understand. But first of all, there may be a Pi factor missing from my proposal, or it needs to be added for it to be correct: [math]E_\text{Vacuum Energy}=1/2 h\nu=???? =E_p=m_pc^2[/math] I think so, but I have a doubt about the value of [math]\nu[/math] that I don't know. Can you tell me the value, formula, and unit of [math]\nu[/math] please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy In wikipedia link you also find the definition of the problem : and : ____________________________________ You can change the value of [math]h[/math] and [math]\nu[/math] if you want, you'll have always a spread (that you'll call cosmologycal constant problem with another value) between (I) and (II), excepted in rare cases. The problem is that (I) don't match (II) I have checked, indeed, my proposal works in all cases as long as the values given to Planck's units are consistent with the formulas that govern them. It makes sense when my proposal is formulated in terms of fundamental constants as I do in this quote below : [math]C=\sqrt{A}\sqrt{B}[/math] = value of density energy of cosmological constant. (note hbar disappears with the multiplication A B square root) it's what I've always done.

It is indeed this latter question that I am trying to answer. I don't know what DM and DE is (edit: Dark Matter and Dark Ernergy ?), probably, it doesn't matter in the context of what I'm trying to address. The paper I have linked is not trying to solve it, he's just stating it in simple terms with equality (1). That's what I thought. Can the problem be approached in this way, which also poses the terms of the problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy with [math]E =\frac{1}{2} h \nu = E_p=m_p c^2[/math] if I don't make a mistake (I'm not sure about these equalities) and [math] E_p/l_p^3=m_p c^2/l_p^3[/math] to obtain the value of [math]10^{113} J/m^3[/math] That's what I was trying to say before. I hope it will be clearer

which article are you referring to, please? https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611115.pdf https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspa.2007.0370 are the same paper I understand the definition of mathematical coincidence. It's not the question of numbers in 10^120 wich interrested me but the way to calculate the cosmolgical constant problem do by the equalty (1) The definition of wikipedia being too vague, I looked for a more precise definition. Besides, I couldn't find any scientific discussion on the rest of the paper. (the coincidence between these numbers) a priori this is probably not relevant while the subject of the cosmological constant problem remains open

Same answer as for Mordred : (Ep=mp c^2)

sorry DeepL gave me a mistranslation for "Uh-huh:", I meant "Uh... (Clears throat)"

Uh-huh: εp=mp c^2/lp^3 c^2=lp^2/tp^2 so mp c^2/lp^3 = mp/ (lp tp^2) , right? thank you for your requests, it obliges me to bring clarifications that should have been made from the start Yes, I use multiplication. Sorry I didn't say it before. I'll avoid the "." in the future so there won't be any confusion.

I relied on the equality (1) of this document: https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611115.pdf https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspa.2007.0370 is that a nonsense?

Hi Mordred, Apart from the dimensional problems encountered and attempts to introduce the notions of force or electromagnetism (I'll come back to that later) , we can be satisfied with this reminder: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1115799 [math]c^7[/math] appears naturally when we rewrite mp/(lp.tp^2) with the fundamental constants ______________________________________________ [math]l_p^2=\frac{G\hbar}{c^3}[/math] [math]m_p^2=\frac{c\hbar}{G}[/math] [math]t_p^2=\frac{G\hbar}{c^5}[/math] ( mp/(lp.tp^2) )^2 = [math]\frac{c^{14}}{G^4.\hbar^2}[/math] _______________________________________________ I have a begining of idea : in [math] A=\frac{ m_p}{l_p.t_p^2}=\frac{c^7}{G^2.\hbar}[/math] we have [math]G^2[/math], a QM approch of energy density with value of gravitation ? in [math]B=\frac{\hbar.\Lambda_{m^{-2}}^2.c}{(8\pi)^2}[/math] we have [math]\Lambda^2[/math], a QM approch of energy density with value of dark energy ? [math]B[/math] came from the same message where I suggest a mathematic solution of the cosmological constant problem https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1115799 or is ot only a circular raisonnement ?

It is the energy density per volume in Planck units (Ep/lp^3 , J/m^3) in the QM This is a theoretical vacuum energy in QM [math]\frac{c^4 \Lambda}{8\pi .G}[/math] is the observed value, The cosmological constant problem is the mismatch between the two with a ratio of 10^122. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem

Since you say it doesn’t exist, I’d guess the answer is that it’s not. Okay, but what is your point of view about : [math]\frac{m_p}{l_p t_p^2}=\frac{c^7}{G^2 \hbar}[/math] in this case ? specifically what is G^2 or c^7 physically ? .. then the cosmological constant problem can be write as : [math]\frac{8\pi.c^3.G}{\Lambda. \hbar}=8.73*10^{122}[/math] Thank you for questioning me. It stimulates me.