cosmologic constant

[nstansbury]

Sure

 

[math]G=\frac{Lp^3}{Mp.Tp^2}[/math]

 

[math]Lp[/math]=Planck Length (m)

 

[math]Mp[/math]=Planck Mass (Kg)

 

[math]Tp[/math]=Planck Time (s)

 

 

Gravity=[math]\frac{d^{3}}{m.t^{2}}[/math]

[Norman Albers]

Nice, now I can read further and shall.

[nstansbury]

I wouldn't focus too much on my original thread, although my broad thoughts remain much the same, there are errors and unsatisfactory assumptions in that thread that I can no longer edit out, specifically involving the Bohr Radius & Rydberg constant et al.

 

Additionally the waves I describe would no longer need to be "magically" superluminal - as by interacting as per above, their group velocities would only need to be - for which there already is experimental data with photons.

Edited July 21, 2008 by nstansbury

[Norman Albers]

I am intrigued by your two floating and bobbing corks. Maybe four years ago I tried this, considering mass as being a VERY high-frequency polar wave, and whether there would be such cancellation of net field energy. You think so, huh?

[Icemelt]

Hey Neil

You've certainly made some amazing progress over the past three months.

I'm fairly blown away with your ideas, which have developed so much since our initial discussions.

Well done mate, certainly a huge step from NetWare & GroupWise eh

Great intuition and I love the diagrams which make it so much easier to follow your thoughts.

Keep up the good work !

[Norman Albers]

We should move this part of the discussion to nstansbury's thread. I do appreciate the approach to mass and gravitation but this is a broad topic.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Norman Albers

[Icemelt]

Hi Norman

Ah, I thought your name rang a bell.

I remember you from absolute zero, if you know what mean

Very interesting down there with becs

Best wishes

[Norman Albers]

I think you are mistaken.

[Icemelt]

Oh sorry !

Not you then

http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-3503.html

[Norman Albers]

Ok, unlike the 60's-70's, I was there and I do remember! This does not mean it is relevant here, though I am seeing humor.

[blike]

I can move part of this discussion to another thread, if you guys would prefer. Just let me know via PM.

[Norman Albers]

Now that read the whole page, Icemelt, I am laughing. How wonderful to see a cherished gedanken surviving both the ravages of time and of the Evil King. ("The prizes have already been awarded...")

Edited July 22, 2008 by Norman Albers

[Norman Albers]

I have written a two-page paper on the meeting of the Friedman and DeSitter metrics, given an assumption of negative energy and positive pressure. It will soon be available to read at the cache cited below.

 

I have no new equations to offer, I have merely learned how to solve the two metrics and distinguish between them. What I question is the relation between the three 'constants': [math] 8\pi G \epsilon = c^2 \Lambda - 3 H_0^2 [/math], where [math]\epsilon[/math] is the vacuum pressure energy.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Norman Albers
multiple post merged

[Norman Albers]

If you Google on 'cosmologic constant', the first listing is by 'Wolram' (another forum in a distant galaxy). His paper is excellent and a far-reaching coverage of the subject. I am comfortable with this author's company and conclusions.

 

Dear Norman,

 

The trouble with trying to interpret the cosmological constant, is that, if it exists it is probably a gravitational effect - nothing else.

 

It seems to me that all other explanations e.g. zero point energy are quesswork, and are mixing up quantum theory with gravity. As yet there is no proper theory of quantum gravity, so this approach is likely to be wrong.

 

The value of the cosmological constant is zero as explained here: http://www.rescalingsymmetry.com , but the physics/cosmological community are being very slow to accept it.

 

Evidence is from WMAP5 - which gives 0.249 for the value of omega(matter) whereas the theory in the website predicts 0.25 very naturally.

 

John Hunter

JOHN. Do you think this value is shelved here, that it stays at 0.25?

 

I am particularly (pardon the pun) fond of 'wolrams' second sentence in the conclusion.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Norman Albers
multiple post merged

[Norman Albers]

My calculations lead me to think that Gravity & mass is caused by these monochromatic quanta interacting and refracting each other into a propagating algorithmic spiral.

 

Interesting, following the equations through, both the Planck Constant and Planck length fall out - Lp to within [math]1.4^{-38}[/math]

 

My current issue is it implies these quanta have a negative refractive index with each other, and I am as yet unsure of these implications. However, it would indeed expect energy to "expand adiabatically with light"

 

Do you have any thoughts on how your quanta might propagate, and whether they indeed might interact with each other?

Read in my paper on Gravitation. Study the graph of [math] K_{trans}[/math] in particular (draw it out for yourself). If there are event horizons with a describable interior, this component of the permittivity is negative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .On a different note, here is wolram's conclusion: "However, even if convincing evidence for this should be established, we will not be able to predict the distant future of the Universe. Eventually, the quintessence energy density may perhaps become negative. This illustrates that we may never be able to predict the asymptotic behavior of the most grandiose of all dynamical systems. Other conclusions are left to the reader." YUP.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Norman Albers

[Norman Albers]

Here is a link to Wolram's paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0203330 You can find my cache just below in the signature. John Hunter, I welcome discussion about your rescaling hypothesis on the first page. In what sense are things static: "For a rescaling universe which also appears static..."? The expression for H(t) is the same exponential as the DeSitter assumption, yah?

 

By gosh, my brother comforts me by finding they have a name for my condition: the anti-DeSitter metric space case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-de_Sitter_space

 

John Hunter, I apologize for confusion about notations, and retract a question from a short while ago. We do write [math]8\pi G/c^2[/math], with G a positive quantity. The [math] {G^a}_a [/math] diagonals are all [math] -3H^2/c^2 [/math], as you correctly wrote. I am trying to figure out how your interpretation is different from the DeSitter form usually considered? You set [math]\Lambda[/math] to zero, and I am thinking that most people assume it is "small".

Edited August 10, 2008 by Norman Albers
multiple post merged

[scalbers]

Yes, interesting to see this treatment of negative energy in the context of an Anti-De Sitter space. I'm wondering a bit however how this might relate to the "actual" universe, where we see an apparent accelerating expansion. Supposedly the convention is that a positive pressure (as mentioned in the AdS Wikipedia page) corresponds to an attractive force that would slow the expansion. Is there a context you are considering where a positive pressure accelerates the expansion?

 

On the other hand - here is a connection of negative energy with the Higgs field in this other forum thread:

 

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=170030

Edited August 10, 2008 by scalbers

[Norman Albers]

It may be so, scalbers, and the best logic I can offer at the moment is that we construct the metric with the assumption of constant H, then solve the simple exponential relation with time. Note that all derivatives of the exponential are also positive if the argument is. Then, look at the remaining equation: [math] (4\pi G / c^2)2P/c^2 = \Lambda - 3H^2 / c^2 [/math]. The other equation said the sum of energy and pressure is zero, and I used that to get the "2P". Maybe now you can see the sign of assumed late-stage pressure depends on the difference of two "small" quantities. Our job is to tie physics of the vacuum and the universe in the large to these quantities. As long as we do not contravene the assumptions, we are in the solution space. One day we'll talk about equations of state of the vacuum... not today.

Edited August 10, 2008 by Norman Albers

[Norman Albers]

CAPTAIN, Good evenin'. I am confused about the construction of the

Robertson-Walker metric. It is the assumption of locally isotropic

metric development changing over time, and also the entire space in

the large sharing the same parametric development. The isotropy

mirrors the observed evenness of the distribution of 'stuff'. I guess

this all works out when you do it, and I am just really apprehending

what we do. Is it not so that it is a very different thing to

determine Hubble 'constant' locally than from looking further back?

It seems weird that we feel the summation of all these different

contributions, and they work out to an even sort of field at any time,

the solution we derived. It's like a very large SPACELIKE STATEMENT,

no? N'WA

[Norman Albers]

It would be excellent if in the midst of the construction of GR, there was an implication of quantum field analysis.

 

I just listened to Anthony Lisi on TED.com, and I recommend it.

[scalbers]

Sounds good - a link to this talk might be of interest.

[Norman Albers]

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.html ...I hunger to know this level of mathematics, to see what he (and my friend solidspin) see in the rotations of this E8 space. . . . . . . . . . . .On a different tack, I just read June '08 Sci.Am. by Sean Carroll on "Cosmic Origins of Time". This is exciting and touches on some of the things I have mentioned, like the meaning of time flow in the large, cosmologic sense. Looking at BH event horizons, I wondered aloud, why don't we admit the sign of [math]d\tau /dt [/math] reverses inside? If you transform to isotropic coordinates and also if you consider only proper frames, this can escape your notice. Edited October 27, 2008 by Norman Albers

[solidspin]

you and me both, brother!

 

I do know that Gell-Mann's F4 (describing all of QCD) is precisely subsumed by E8 and Lisi's paper shows it flawlessly. if we humans as a whole don't end up slaughtering ourselves, then some of us w/ slightly less feeble brains will continue to enjoy the immense beauty offered by Lisi, Smolin, Cartan and others. Quickly, now!!

[Norman Albers]

The magic term seems to be symmetry groups. When I started all this eight years ago I went into a used bookstore and one book I picked up was "Algebraic Geometry" by E. Artin, Princeton U., 1957. Now I look at it and weep. In Chap. 1 we read of iso- and homomorphisms, Abelian groups, and Archimedean fields. In Chap. 5 we read of Clifford algebra. This book is the last of a series: TOPOLOGICAL TRANSFORMATION GROUPS, by D. Montgomery and L. Zippin; and PLANE WAVES AND SPHERICAL MEANS Applied to Partial Differential Equations, by Fritz John. Are there Cliff notes on Clifford algebra??? solidspin, can you tell me in twenty-five words what is F4? . . . . . . . In Wiki, on 'symmetry groups', we get right to it...

Edited October 30, 2008 by Norman Albers

[john hunter]

Dear Norman,

 

Sorry for the delay. About http://www.rescalingsymmetry.com the value of omega(matter) is fixed at 1 in the model, (so omega(lambda)=0). Cosmologists are concluding that omega(matter) is 0.25. They have measured omega(m)h^2 where h is the Hubble constant in units of 100km/s/Mpc to be about 0.136....but since their value for h is twice the real rescaling constant, they conclude omega(m) to be 1/4 of the true value...0.25

 

Its been made into a paper and sent off to journals, but they are very slow, and a few have rejected it already...but it still seems a worthy candidate for the answer to the dark energy problem, to me anyway!, mainly because of its simplicity.

 

 

 

The equations are the same as the De Sitter model, true, but the interpretation is different. The rescaling is constant in this model, and the rescaling causes gravity, with the right strength to conserve energy (hence omega(m)=1). Gravity dosn't slow the rescaling in this model and the universe dosn't have to be empty.

 

From a Newtonian point of view: consider each mass m. The total energy due to it is mc^2 - GMm/R , where the second term represents the sum due to all other masses. At a later time, due to rescaling it would be (mc^2 - GMm/R)exp2Ht, where H is the rescaling constant.

 

For energy to be conserved the term in brackets must be 0. Hence gravity is caused by the rescaling to conserve energy, with G=Rc^2/M, the value to give omega(m)~1, with the proper analysis from Einsteins equations.

 

John Hunter.

Edited November 1, 2008 by john hunter