An article I posted March 5, 2020 is called The Theory of constant cosmic expansion. The idea is that there is a general and universal law of dimensional capacity. In particular the ratio of dimensions 4 (space plus moving light) compared to dimension 3 (empty space) occurs in a variety of Earth-bound phenomena and provides a simple explanation for space stretching 4:3 in 3 dim space.
Via RG, I noticed (thank you RG) today an article Dark energy without fine tuning by José Eliel Camargo Molina Tommi Markkanen Pat Scott. The abstract says they present a two field model, which almost, kind of, seems possibly connected to the two reference frame model in The Theory of constant cosmic expansion.
Even more intriguingly, just after their equation 4.4 they mention two cases for energy density of the quintessence field, one where e has exponent -3N and one where e has exponent -4N (subject to a constant b^2 in the denominator of the exponent).
Their reasoning is based on a connection they notice between electro-weak theory and inflation, and knowledge about the Higgs boson, about which I am at sea (among other physics regrets). The likeliest scenario is that 3 and 4 as exponents in their paper has no relation at all to the ideas in The theory of constant cosmic expansion. Still, the ideas of two alternative reference frames and 3 and 4 in the exponents of the scale factors are curious coincidences. Do you know the physics enough to see if there is a connection?
Constant expansion means a scale factor that doesn't accelerate; dark energy implies a scale factor that does. A positive cosmological constant is one way of describing dark energy and, for the moment, assigning a value to the cosmological constant is sufficient to describe all measurements. It isn't possible to predict the value of the cosmological constant any more than it is possible to predict the value of Newton's constant. Both are necessary to describe spacetime and how matter affects it and is affected by it.
Fine-tuning for the value of the cosmological constant was an issue, before it was known that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, so mechanisms were sought to describe the expectation that the cosmological constant should vanish. This isn't any longer relevant. Within classical gravity it simply isn't possible to define any way for selecting a particular ratio of the cosmological constant to Newton's constant.
The reality is, we live in three D-world. It is okay to assume anything and create a theory, but also theory should be based on reality. To give 4-D to light, by just assuming is not real. We all forgot that the GR is not theory for a billions of galaxies' universe, it designed for one galaxy universe, and GR is not even working with our small solar system. GR theory is just fiction game in mathematical form, it is not a science that we should follow. It is time to look up and start to know the real universe, and observe each evidence and work surround it.
https://www.academia.edu/38373675/Creation_of_a_Quantum_Mechanic_Universe_and_its_Rotation.doc
- Badges
- Science topic