stephaneww

Actually, I didn't understand the argument above...😓 what is [math]G_n[/math] please ? and I'm not sure I understand it any better...

Thank you, too complex for me again indeed. (edit: It seems to me as if I use (96) page 23, but I guess it's more complicated) [math]m_p[/math] can't be considered the macro expression of the components you're quoting? Because that would be okay for the values and the dimension. and for this please ? :

If I'm not misinterpreting: the universe being an isolated system in the thermodynamic sense, this would mean that at the quantum level, for 1/2 m^3 of A + 1/2 m^3 of B, we find in a 1 m^3, by thermal equilibrium of A and B (thermodynamics?), a pressure C which is numerically equal to the energy density of the relativistic vacuum (= at the macro level). Could this be correct please ? Edit : we have the Relationship [math] E=k_B T[/math] where [math] E[/math] is Energy, [math] k_B [/math] is Boltzmann constant and [math] T[/math] temperature for an ideal gaz

I'm an idiot sometimes: the unit J/m^3 corresponds to 1 Pa. It fits in terms of units (1kg.m^-1.s^-2 ) in S.I. but I don't know if the expected sign (the "-") is the one obtained. I don't know the sign conventions Um, I'm not sure about my handwriting in In. You might want to use this one for verification: [math]\Large{exp^{\frac{\ln(A)}{2}+\frac{\ln(B)}{2}}}=\rho_{\Lambda}.c^2[/math] [math]ln[/math] comes from statistical physics, thermodynamic and entropy But these fields are new to me. It's more than likely poorly formulated.

Well, I'm gonna try to make some physical sense out of this message: Classically we say that the energy density of the quantum vacuum is: [math] A=m_pc^2/l_p^3=\hbar.(l_p^{-2})^2.c[/math] I, for one, found this unknown quantum energy density: [math] B=\hbar.\Lambda_{m^{-2}}^2.c[/math] We can note that in [math] A[/math] we have [math]m_pc^2[/math] which is a mass energy while in [math] B[/math] we have [math]\Lambda[/math] which is the vacuum energy of the cosmology constant. We have [math]\rho_ {\Lambda}.c^2=\sqrt{A.B}[/math] energy density of the cosmological constant I think it can be said that the problem of the cosmological constant contains a formulation error: Indeed [math] B[/math] would be more logically suited to a quantum vacuum energy density, while [math] A[/math] would be more logically suited to a mass quantum energy density in terms of definition. Please tell me what you think of this opinion edit: we can also note that the values of A and B correspond to a thermal equilibrium such as [math]exp^{((lnA)/2+(lnB)/2)}=\rho_{\Lambda}.c^2[/math] by posing [math]k_B=1[/math]. but I don't know how to calculate what that's like in terms of pressure for [math]1m^3[/math].

read on a French forum I think that it is in this sense that Aurélien Barrau talks about sound waves : ... not in a crystal lattice ? but here I'm entering territory I know nothing about.🙄 edit : and the holographic principle (and entropic gravity) are phenomena coming from thermodynamics, so ??? Which quantum information theory, please ?

It seems we can do without this quantification: source : https://blogs.futura-sciences.com/barrau/2017/03/13/la-gravitation-est-elle-emergente/ (Deepl.com traduction) further on : traduction : from which further more the emerging gravity in the blog

is it possible ? I'm not sure because we have [math]G[/math] in [math]l_p^2[/math] in holographic approach ?

ok ,thank you edti : Is the novelty with entropic gravity that it gives meaning to the value of the vacuum catastrophe =N "=number of 'bits' of information"?

Um, I don't know what to think: the paper is from 2010 (https://philpapers.org/rec/GAOWGI) before the successful cosmological test of 2016. I don't get the argument, How is E.VERLINDE wrong ?

already done: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785.pdf the simplified transcription is on Wikipedia here edit I'm interested if you can find some more, of course.

Hi Mordred, MOND is only one application. there is also these one : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity where I need to dig for the last case please ? Edit : source from sciencepost.fr : https://www.sciencealert.com/a-controversial-new-gravity-hypothesis-has-passed-its-first-test

Question: What interpretation can be made from this demonstration please ?

Well, for greater clarity, with : value of the vacuum catastrophe = Energy Density of quantum mechanics / Energy Density of the comological constant = [math]\Large {\frac {\frac{m_p c^2}{l_p^3}} {\frac{c^4 \Lambda}{8 \pi G}}}=[/math] (1) [math]\Large {\frac {\frac{m_p}{l_p^2 l_p}} {\frac{c^2 \Lambda}{8 \pi G}}}=[/math] (2) [math]\Large {\frac{m_p G}{l_p c^2}.\frac{8 \pi}{l_p^2 \Lambda}}=[/math] (3) that can be simplified (with [math]m_p=\Large {\sqrt{\frac{c \hbar} {G}}}[/math] and [math]l_p=\Large {\sqrt{\frac{G \hbar} {c^3}}}[/math] )(4) in [math]\Large {\frac{8 \pi} {l_p^2 \Lambda}}[/math] (5) in the entropic gravity where the area [math]A=\Large {\frac{1} {\Lambda}}[/math] we have value of the vacuum catastrophe = [math]N. 8 \pi=\Large {\frac{8 \pi} {l_p^2 \Lambda}}[/math], cqfd

oops, read : [math]8.73*10^{122}[/math] sorry

It's actually okay whatever the value of [math]A=\Large{\frac{1}{\Lambda}}[/math].

Hello If we take [math]\Large{\frac{1}{\Lambda}}[/math] for the "entropic surface" [math]A[/math] with this value of [math]\Lambda=1.10242*10^{-52}m^{-2}[/math] (https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1118201) The value of [math]N*8\pi[/math] from entropic gravity is exactly the value of the vacuum catastrophe (about [math]8.73^{122}[/math]) when [math]\Lambda=1.10242*10^{-52}m^{-2}[/math] Is that right and what physical meaning can it have please ?

Hello Mordred Does my mathematical solution match the suggestion at the end of this paper's conclusion, please? I'm not sure masses distribution corresponds to energy density. source : https://file.scirp.org/Html/5-7503727_93134.htm#ref1 edit : my question is essentially about the low/high energy cutoff as a physical interpretation of my solution.

I still don't understand. It's too complicated. Is there a relationship between the electromagnetic field of light in vacuum and the cosmological constant finally ? edit : We can't claim that, I think. One is a vector , the other is a scalar. except perhaps by looking at the origin side of the cross product norm (an area) and the dimension of the cosmological constant (the inverse of an area)???? 🙄 that's ok for that, I already understand

..... I think I won't have all the knowledge necessary to reach the above conclusion. Two questions about it : 1. How do you go from the cross product of E through B to what appears to be a numerical value, please ? 2. what exactly does g represent and how is its value determined ? edit : I have found for g = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential 2. is that Λ⋅g is simple multiplication?

I just noticed this with [math]A[/math] and [math]B[/math] from this message (mathematic solution of the cosmological constant problem) : [math]\sqrt{A}. \sqrt{B}=C= \text{ energy density of cosmological constant}[/math] [math]{\Large{\frac{\sqrt{A}}{\sqrt{B}}}}=8.73*10^{122}=\text{ exact value of vaccum catastrophe}[/math] does anyone have any idea what it means physically ? is it moving forward or are we going in circles ?

thank you very much can I have links (wiki ideally) that detail this please (the French notations seem different from the English notations) ? take a look at the French notation of the vector product (=cross product): https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Produit_vectoriel (notation and understanding of the 2 notions acquired) what is the latex for dot please ? links for the next step, please ?

ok thank you, so we must speak in terms of electric and magnetic fields (instead of charges)? edit : sorry , it was a stupid question. the answer is Yes, of course

Thank you but we'll have to proceed slowly, it's too much to learn at once... Let's start with this, please: can I have links (wiki ideally) that detail this please (the French notations seem different from the English notations) ? and edit : can we go faster by noticing that the electric charge and the magnetic charge are of the same sign at the summits of their respective quantum waves ?

um, thank you, you make me doubt, maybe I didn't transcribe correctly what I was told: and with this case of electromagnetic waves, is it better?