View Single Post
Jan3-06, 02:09 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
SpaceTiger's Avatar
P: 2,977
Quote Quote by Garth
Yes, I have always said the model requires dark matter, the difference though between SCC and GR is that this is baryonic dark matter.


The third part, your last link for me, answered that latter question; the IMBH formation rate need not be 100%; 50% IMBH and the remainder as WHIM was consistent with observation. Also a 50/50 IMBH/ejected-gas model makes good sense in a 'hand waving' sort of way. (My arms are going like windmills at the present!)
Fair enough, but I'm not sure you've answered my question. Why is this less ad hoc than non-baryonic dark matter? It's much easier for mainstream physics to explain a weakly interacting and abundant particle species than a population of intermediate mass black holes that makes up 10% of the closure density. How do you envision them being formed?

The false vacuum energy density is predicted by SCC in the local vicinity and is discovered in the laboratory as the Casimir force.
Two things. First, I don't understand how you're distinguishing this from the traditional quantum explanation for the cosmological constant. In fact, as far as I can tell, your [tex]\Omega_{False Vacuum}[/tex] is equivalent to [tex]\Omega_{\Lambda}[/tex] from the quantum point of view. I understand that your theory of gravity is different, but you seem to be invoking the same source for the "dark energy" as in the most popular mainstream models.

Second, measurements of the Casimir Force tell us about the existence of the vacuum energy, but they tell us nothing of its magnitude. A measurement of a "force" is basically a measurement of dE/dx, not of E0. It's the latter that you need to constrain [tex]\Omega_{False Vacuum}[/tex].

This false vacuum energy requirement in the cosmological solution yields the [itex]\Omega[/itex]false vacuum = 0.11. This is a predicted value by the cosmological equations (see A New Self Creation Cosmology) and is not fine tuned to fit.
The fine-tuning problem comes from the quantum end of things, not the cosmological end. You may be thinking of the less severe "cosmic coincidence problem", which asks why the cosmological constant would suddenly be turning on at this moment in cosmic history. For more information on the fine-tuning and cosmic coincidence problem, check out this paper:

The Cosmological Constant Problem and Quintessence