Axiomatic approach to the cosmological constant
Authors: Christian Beck
arXiv:0810.0752v1 [gr-qc]

He claims to get the actual value of the cosmological constant within error bars. How importat do you feel this finding is?

thanks,

P.I.

Cheers,
T.

1. The acceleration expansion “appeared out of nowhere” some billions of years ago.
2. The Tajmar results show that a strong gravitomagnetic effect is observed in spinning superconductors – orders of magnitude larger than current quantum models suggest.
3. Neutron stars are hypothesized to take billions of years to form.
4. Neutron stars are hypothesized to contain superconducting layers.
5. Neutron stars spin really fast.

Putting all of this together I’d take a stab at a hypothesis and say that perhaps the cosmological constant is *caused* by the accumulation of spinning neutron stars at some point after the big bang.

Thank you for encouraging me to express my views and for your repeated requests that a theorist might comment.. As I briefly explained in this older posting, that doesn’t happen. It’s kind of hard for anybody to shoot down the physics, since they should already know that this mechanism is valid in inflationary models, not to mention how simple it is (study this), to understand this physics.

The problem is that nobody wants to hear it, and that’s the bottom line until the bottom falls out of particle theory as has been predicted will happen if you guys don’t find the higgs or new physics, so that’s why finding nothig is equally valuable, as far as I’m concerned, even thought that is understably not the hope of so many that have worked so hard, and I am sorry about that.

I could say more, but I am so frustrated by all of this that I probably wouldn’t be comprehensible, so I’m just going to say that I’ve never been in a position before where I can win every battle, yet still lose the war, due only to completely non-scientific willful denial. I know what it’s like, and how to recognize when I’ve been shot down, (which is the difference between a crackpot and an honest scientist, if you ask me), but that hasn’t happened since I stumbled onto all this crap that has caused me to hate the people that I used to respect the most for exactly that reason!

What kills me is the fact that there is obviously an theory of quantum gravity that’s embeded in this physics, which nobody likes because the background changes every time that you take more mass-energy out of the vacuum to make real, massive particles with, but that’s also why Dirac’s ideas about large natural numbers weren’t just “numerology”.

With all the flack flying on both sides about how wrong “either side” is, you’d think that the observation that maybe they’re both hopelessly lost wouldn’t be such a great heresy to their world-view. Ha!

Thanks again, Tomasso, very much, and I’ll try not to hijack another thread in my futile attempts rattle somebody into sanity.

So, first principle physics that accomplishes that which others rely on multiverses to accomplish, necessarily takes theoretical precedence per the scientific method for choosing the preferred theory, while strongly supporting the assertion that the universe is about 13.7 years finite.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512148

The only thing that Sean Carroll ever did for me…

But that should not stop you from discussing your ideas here, of course – I trust this blog attracts more knowledgeable readers than myself.

Cheers,
T.

I love first principles, but, as Groucho used to say,

“Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… Well, I have others!”.

Meaning that, nothing wrong in using the principle of minimum action to try and justify the structure of the Universe, by making a few assumptions (such as your questionable claim that a uniform universe corresponds to low entropy).

However, one might object that by starting off with a different first principle, plus a different set of additional assumptions, one would get another model consistent with the data… Groucho rulez.

Cheers,
T.

T.

I’ve been kicking this around, Tommaso, and I think that might be incorrect, since it can be argued that the near-perfect balanced structure of the observed universe maximizes work via the uniform dissemination of energy that this “low-entropy” configuration produces.

That’s an energy conservation law if the quantum oscillator is finite, since energy gets wasted in any other configuration and energy can’t be conserved if work isn’t maximized.

That’s fine-tuning from FIRST PRINCIPLES!

Thanks,

Smoky

“what a crackpot” -> lol…

The issue was not mature to be resolved back then… It in fact is not mature even now. Maybe in 10 years. I only hope I will have understood all the details when that happens

Cheers,
T.

It becomes obvious that a “positron” isn’t going to have negative mass once you condense or gravitationally compress vacuum energy down enough to attain the matter density, (before feynman takes over), and this process will necessarily increase the vacuum if it is finite, because you can’t rip out a huge volumous chunk of its energy without leaving a real hole in it!

It isn’t fair to say:

“The simplest approach is to resurrect an old idea by none other than Albert Einstein. In 1917, he introduced a new term in his general relativity field equations.”

… without considering the finite cosmological model for which it was intended, which was dismissed only becauses it was thought to be unstable, (which it is obviously not, if what I said above has any merrit whatsoever).

If Einstein doesn’t conceed this point, then he wins in Copenhagen, because this model is strictly deterministic, and General Relativity is a much, MUCH stronger theory which naturally demands closure of the geometry in space as a boundary condition on the initial value equations if they are to yield a well determined and unique 4-geometry.

He also recognized “higher” structuring in nature.

What a crackpot…