Talk:Cosmological constant problem

Speculation

Its Possible that the vacuum effect is reduced as the dark matter effect on the possible variable of the quantum field theory is that the dark matter the main compustory of the universe has adverse effects and makes the quantum field theory irreverent to the collection of zero-point energy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaik9a (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My Hypothesis is that E = M*C^2 should rule. So M - E =0 at the time just previous to the Big Bang: Zero point theorema. So the Energy at time of Big Bang is in the order of 10^120 J. There is a huge Energy Potential that is only released in special occassions like a Big Bang.

This energy is converted into Matter (max 5% of all Energy now). Energy that wasnt caught by Protons (nucleuses) became dark energy (70% of all Energy now) or in Dark Matter (ca. 25%). Dark energy leaves a very thin energy trail: which was measured by the Voyager.

References http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091019194836AAxLM0E

Jagmulder1972 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

comparison is wrong

"For instance, the statement "the universe consists of exactly one elementary particle" is closer to being true, by at least ten orders of magnitude, than the incorrect vacuum-catastrophe prediction."

Consider that the Standard Model of Cosmology assumes that the size of the universe is infinite. Thus, the statement must necessarily be changed to "the observable universe [...]" --213.144.3.86 (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Article unclear

measured values of the vacuum energy density

There isn't enough detail in this phrase to give it a clear meaning. How are the measurements made? What effects would the vacuum point energy have that could be measured in a conventional way? Are the measurements lab measurements or astrophysical ones? 76.118.180.76 (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Cosmological Constant Problem

I'm not an expert, but I'm thinking that the cosmological constant problem is the same issue as the vacuum catastrophe. If that's true, I recommend having cosmological constant problem redirect to this article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.174.22 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions not mentioned here

1. there is a sort of equilibrium that cancels the excessive energy
2. an old dying universe reaches temperatures close to the absolute zero thus somehow that equilibrium breaks off — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4112:2300:D002:1EA0:421E:EE98 (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There's probably nothing there

No vacuum, no fields, even space itself is not a thing to be measured because it's definitively not a thing. "space bends" when interactions happen and if there's nothing going on there is no void to fill either — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:449:8200:A430:483F:9DB0:E740:6D4F (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect grammar

The following sentence in this article does not make grammatical sense: "Light front quantization is a rigorous alternative due to Paul Dirac to the usual second quantization method (instant-form method)." It appears that there should be additional words between "Dirac" and "to". Any ideas?

96.245.40.142 (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

miller.ti.ja@gmail.com

Would this make more sense?

(I'm just giving it a shot. I have some insight on the topic at hand, but not an expert, so bear with me.)

Light front quantization provides a rigorous alternate solution(/explanation?) to the cosmological constant problem. Given Paul Dirac's theory on the topic of the usual second quantization method (instant-form method). Rettetasten (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Tagged Incomprehensible

Section has multiple grammatical problems combined with a highly technical subject matter explained like a research paper. Perhaps written by English second language author. Not currently suitable for encyclopedic reference. Tagged with incomprehensible because I didn't want to tag it with multiple tags. It needs to be thoroughly reworded by a specialized expert. (and perhaps have multiple tags) Nemesis75 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"Quantum field theory prediction based on light front quantization" section

What is the issue with this section? Please discuss here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the IPs are socks of a community-banned user whose CV is found at WP:LTA/BKFIP. This article is one of his favorite obsessions so I have semi-protected it again, this time for three months. Favonian (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Coming in from WikiProject Physics... I doubt the removed text actually belongs, especially at that length. It appears to be a legitimate proposal, but not one that has swept the field away, so spending that many words on it might be giving it undue weight. Without investigating the page history too deeply, I suspect it was significantly shaped by self-promotion. I was also mildly surprised to find some proposals missing, e.g., that of Bill Unruh and collaborators [1], or the idea that in unimodular gravity the troublesome contributions simply do not gravitate [2][3]. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is a recent-ish review that might be helpful in overhauling the "proposed solutions" section. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I did a quick re-write to address due-weight concerns. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Your rewrite is an understandable summary and looks like appropriate weight to me. Nice work. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 01:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A Perturbation Expansion of the EFE

Cornwall is suggesting, in provisional research released on preprint servers, that an expansion of the Einstein Field Equations to the 2nd order in the Stress-Energy Tensor (and 3rd order in the Einstein/Newton constant) is the way to solve the Cosmological Constant problem (Cornwall does consider the Pauli theory on attempted cancellation of Bosonic and Fermionic contributions and notes that this cannot be done). His rationale is that zeropoint energy is a fluctuation at zero particle count (it has a variance but no average) and so it shouldn't properly be included at zeroth order in the SET. It is properly included at 2nd order in a Taylor Expansion of the SET in frequency, where (Δω)² makes sense in describing the fluctuation by its variance. Interestingly what results is some 10^-9 times down on the Cosmological Constant (10^-9 J/m³) as compared to the currently accepted magnitude of the Zeropoint (some 10¹²⁰ J/m³), so Cornwall suggests that there is interaction energy between the modes of the zeropoint to make it some 10⁹ times bigger (i.e. 10¹²⁹ J/m³) in a reasonable model (the electric fields of fluctuation of the modes must interact with one another). He has left a comment (on vixra) that he believe that the radiation damping in the model may fix and limit increase at around 10⁹ and may have something to do with the fine structure constant, which describes the coupling in Electromagnetic theory. It is of note that it is extremely sensitive to this parameter and may explain Cosmic Inflation, if it varied in the past.

References

Elucidation

Hi @Krb19: thanks for the edits. However, I think this edit [4] may not be solving the elucidation part completely, just rephrasing what is already said on the article. What is suggested is to add more details on the inconsistency/incompatibility found in the calculations.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hossenfelder's opinion

Sabine Hossenfelder argues in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl_wGRfbc3w (from 05:43 to 07:10) that there is no such thing as a "cosmological constant problem", because quantum theory does not make a prediction regarding the cosmological constant. Professor Tournesol (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Her interpretation of the matter confuses me. Is she saying that the 10¹²⁰ discrepancy is fabricated or inexistent? Or is she just saying that the discrepancy is just not a prediction because it cannot be measured? .--ReyHahn (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Multiple issues in paragraph

in the paragraph that starts with

"According to the cosmologist Niayesh Afshordi... "

if there is a coherent assertion here it is not apparent The relevance of the assertion also seems to be non existent 2405:201:C030:681E:68A5:4177:A60C:9289 (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Good Article

This article is much better now that the above comments have been addressed. It is a balanced overview with the essential references.

Aoosten (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed better. However it is still a bit clunky. I think was is mostly missing is absolutes. As it is, it does not give any values to compare with, so expected discrepancy remains unclear.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Who took out the structures in the universe that prove the cosmological constant is wrong?

First, Edwin Hubbles page and now this? I once came to this page to easily access "Bootes Void" and the "Great Sloan Wall" I think it's called. Where did they go? Who took them off? Someone who is enamored with the worst theory in scientific history? Whatever happens must happen to make sure the education every person on this planet stays correct forever and that includes erasing valuable information that could actually help answer the neverending questions that people love to never answer.

I guess I have to get Wiki to start a page for me so everyone can see the real truth. All these "peer reviewers" shuffling all the info around don't even think about the fact that they don't know any of the answers either. It's all about keeping that education alive. No wonder paradigm shifts are so hard to come by. This insane "expanding universe" crap could go on another 300 years with people manipulating everything. I sure hope no atheists believe in the Big Bang theory. Georges Lamaître is in heaven laughing the hardest at them. 173.95.132.165 (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Theoretical values?

Could somebody provide theoretical values (with their respective hypotheses) for the Estimated values section? Without a proper source the tension between experiment and theory remains unclear. ReyHahn (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I filled in the main modern theoretical estimate. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, moved to the respective section. Do you have any sources on the value given that has 120 orders of discrepancy ? The article that you used does not cite the original calculation that provides such difference.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove Anthropic Solution

I propose that we delete that anthropic solutions altogether.

As mentioned in the paragraph itself, it is largely derided by the scientific community, and for good reasaon. There is no way to verify it, there's 0 evidence to support it, and to me at least, it seems laughable to include anything related to creationism in a physics article.

Never actually edited wiki pages myself though so I'm not sure if deleting a large chunk of text as my first action would be proper. 59.115.175.211 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)