Yeah, the idea that Dark energy is something we know today, more than 17 years
ago, doesn't seem accurate. We have has several astronomical surveys that
indicate a range of things, and nothing for certain. One survey has indicated
that because the universe is now guesstimated to have 10-20 times more
galaxies, then estimated 25 years ago, this would wipe out dark matter as a
source of mass. Normal matter in the form of a galaxy would thus, exclude the
need to postulate, an unknown dark source. Or, dark matter and energy could
exist, but as what? Axions? Some flavor of Higgs? I am thinking that until we
get off-planet in a big way, with space-borne radio telescopes, LIGO's, and
Neutrino tasters, we will be always shut away from the facts about what the
dark is??
-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list
Sent: Sat, Feb 18, 2017 7:04 pm
Subject: Re: From Atheism to Islam
On 2/18/2017 3:14 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at5:07 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:
>
he
[Einstein]
didn't notice that it was an unstable
equilibrium - a very elementary mistake.
I would humbly submit that when trying to figure out
what 4-dimensional non-Euclidean
Tensor calculus
istelling you about physics
nothing
is very elementary, especially not in 1917.
>
But the holographic principle can yield a value close
the the observed.
How close? In science if your theory predicts something that
differs from the observed value by a factor of 2 that's
generally considered to be pretty damn bad, and we're talking
about 10^120. They may have come up with something closer than
10^ 120, but close? I don't think so;at least not unless
they worked backward and invented a 120 digit number
and inserted it ad hoc into the theory so things come out
right.
It's not a matter of working backward; it's discarding the idea that
quantum fields zero-point energy fills volumes of space. FromHsu's paper;
Note that Lambda_qm is the value that has been calculated as off bya
factor of 1e120. Lambda_0 is a purely geometrical term -Einstein's
constant of integration. The current estimate is 1e-12eV^4. So Hsu is off
by two orders of magnitude on the negativeenergy density.
Brent
But that would be cheating because if you can't get more out
of a theory than you put in it has no use, and a 120 digit
number is a lot to put in. I don't think we're going to have a
good explanation for Dark Energy anytime soon, but I hope I'm
wrong.
>
Sean Carroll has considered this in his review article
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004075v2
That article is 17 years old, and Dark Energy is as big a
mystery now as it was then.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-l
