What is the proposed solution to the Vacuum Energy Density Crisis?

[Knecht]

I have done some research that has led to a possible soultion to the 120 orders-of-magnitude VED disparity betwen the VED of particle physics and the VED measured by cosmology. Nobel Prize-winner F. Wilczek calls the VED crisis a horrendous problem, indicating that there is something fundamentally wrong somewhere in standard physics.

A quick review of the basic crisis and a discussion of the specific potential solution that I am proposing can be found at: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0901/0901.3381.pdf .

Other related papers can be found at: http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw , or at arXiv.org.

If you have some free time and want to explore and discuss an interesting problem in physics, please check out the paper and then let's talk about it.

Yours in science,
Knecht

 

[confinement]

In the paper you linked you show some interesting consequences of a scaling hypothesis for the gravitational constant G.

An important reference is your other paper on Discrete Scale Relativity:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0701132

I don't understand how we can have discrete scaling levels and have diffeomorphism invariance (general covariance). It seems that a simple dilation of coordinates from one scale to another that incurred a discrete scaling of the gravitational constant would be a non-differentiable transformation.

 

[jal]

If the revised scaling for gravitation proposed by the
SSCP is correct, then a revised Planck scale based on G-1 is necessary and the revision yields the following values.

Planck length = [ħG-1/c3]1/2 = 2.93 x 10-14 cm ≈ 0.4 proton radius (7)
Planck mass = [ħc/G-1]1/2 = 1.20 x 10-24 g ≈ 0.7 proton mass (8)

I have not heard anyone on this forum express any interest or support for minimum length.
jal

 

[Knecht]

To Confinement: Fractal geometry is a new and different kind of geometry.

Classical fractal geometry is continuous, but non-differentiable.

Usually when we have had a major paradigmatic advance in our understanding of how nature works, a major change in our ideas about nature's geometry is involved. Usually the geometry gets more generalized, e.g. 3+1 Euclidean to 4-d Minkowskian to 4-d Noneuclidean.

So Discrete Scale Relativity represents a very large paradigmatic change in our concepts about nature, and will undoubtedly require a new generalization of our geometric modeling.

This new fractal geometry is still a work in progress. One nice thing about it is that it may eventually be able to encompass both continuous and discrete phenomena within one geometry, depending on relevant circimstances that depend on scale, resolution, type of system, overall reference frame, etc. How to make GR compatible with DSR is a very important question and the person who solves these mathematical issues will have accomplished something very worthy.

To jal: Excellent, because nature's hierarchy has no anthropocentric "top" or anthropocentric "botton". Nature's cosmological hierarchy is totally unbounded, according to Discrete Scale Relativity.

Yours in science,
Knecht

 

[Naty1]

Just a layman's observation: sure seems odd that Planck scales would be on the order of proton length and mass!...surely we know experimentally some range at which those Planck scales occur...can't we rule out such HUGE scales experimentally??

 

[Knecht]

Greetings Naty 1,

First a comparison.

Old Planck scale: Planck length ~10^-33 cm, Planck mass ~10^-5 g,
Planck time ~10^-43 sec.

Revised Planck scale: Planck length ~10^-13 cm, Planck mass ~10^-24 g,
Planck time ~10^-25 sec.

What does the Planck scale define? Well, there are several ways of answering this important question, but the most intuitive way is that it is the microscopic scale at which general relativity (i.e., gravitation) plays a role that is at least as important as the role of QED (i.e., electromagnetism).

You refer to 10^-13 cm as "huge". In comparison to 10^-33 cm it is huge. But I would argue that 10^-13 cm is a very reasonable number.

In fact, it is the Old Planck Scale that gives bizarre numbers. Consider the weird Planck mass of 10^-5 g. This corresponds to nothing in nature, and physicists have given this problem a name: "the hierarchy problem", meaning hat the Planck mass is wildly different from the known particles of physics, and there seems to be no obvious connection either.

The Revised Planck Scale is self-consistent and matches up well with fundamental properties of nature. You be the judge.

Moreover, if you go to http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf , you wil see that hadrons can be modeled as Kerr-Newman solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations. This is radically different from the standard model of hadrons, but it works and it does not require "believing in 10 impossible things before breakfast", if you know what I mean.

Give it some open-minded thought, and thanks for the chance to clarify this issue.

Yours in science,
Knecht
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

 

[Vanadium 50]

Knecht, your paper says a bunch of things that aren't true. Let's just pick the list on the bottom of page for and take a look.

1. Both hadrons and Kerr-Newman black holes are almost entirely characterized by just three parameters: mass, charge and angular momentum.

Except for strangeness, lifetime, parity, electric quadrupole moment, charge conjugation...

2. Both hadrons and Kerr-Newman black holes have magnetic dipole moments, but do not have electric dipole moments.

True. (But hardly a surprise, as quantum mechanics forbids electric dipole moments).

3. Typical hadrons and Kerr-Newman black holes have gyromagnetic
ratios of ≈ 2.

False. Let's look at just the baryon octet:

• Proton: 2.79
• Neutron: -1.92
• Lambda: -0.73
• Sigma+: 3.12
• Sigma0: 2.05
• Sigma-: -1.42
• Cascade0: -1.75
• Cascade+:-0.92

The only one close to 2 is the Sigma0, and the next nearest one, the proton, is almost 40% off.

4. Hadrons and Kerr-Newman black holes have similar linear relationships between angular momentum and mass squared, i.e., J α M2.

Care to explain the following data? (c-cbar mesons:)

• eta_c m = 2980 (MeV) J = 0
• J/Psi m = 3097 J = 1
• chi0 m = 3415 J = 0
• chi1 m = 3510 J = 1
• h_c m = 3525 J = 1
• chi2 m = 3555 J = 2
• eta_c(2S) m = 3637 J = 0
• Psi(2S) m = 3686 J = 1
• Psi (2770) m = 3770 J = 1

It doesn't match that at all.

5. When Kerr-Newman black holes interact, their surface areas may increase but can never decrease; this is analogous to the increase of cross-sections in hadron collisions.

Possibly true, but vacuous. What does "analogous" mean - how can someone other than you determine if something is analogous or not? For example, if you are claiming analogy with increasing cross-section, what about cross-sections that decrease? For example, between p(lab) = 300 MeV and 700 MeV, the pi+ on proton cross-section is falling like a stone - it drops by a factor of 10.

 

[Knecht]

VED Crisis and Response to Vanadium 50

Hello Vanadium 50,

Thanks for your efforts at identifying potential problems with the paradigm I am proposing.

Tonight I will look over your criticism carefully, and I should have some substantive and specific responses tomorrow.

For the present I would just like to repeat the following general comment.

When one seeks a new and more unifying paradigm one has to start somewhere and gradually develop that new paradigm. When generations of physicists have worked to hammer the Standard Model into conformity with observations, obviously the fit is going to be fairly good. The new discrete scale invariant paradigm is worth considering, even in its present state and especially if you are an open-minded young student, because it can unify a badly schizophrenic physics (disconnect between QFT/QM and GR), it can solve the VED crisis, it can explain the fine structure constant, it can elucidate the real meaning of Planck's constant, it can finally give us a reasonable Planck Scale, it generates a definitive prediction for the dark matter (not some vague arm-waving about hypothetical "unicornons"), ...

Yours in science,
Knecht
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

 

[George Jones]

I have done some research that has led to a possible soultion to the 120 orders-of-magnitude VED disparity betwen the VED of particle physics and the VED measured by cosmology.

Then publish it in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. The rules of Physics Forums explicitly prohibit the promotion of personal theory except in the Independent Research forum.