The Cosmological Constant: a New Law

[coldcreation]

The Cosmological Constant:
A Fundamental Constant Attached to a New Law of Nature

Underlying the postulations held by the Cold Creation theory is the mechanism inherent in space responsible for generating stability between massive bodies called the cosmological constant and denoted by the term lambda. This mechanism is operational not just between planets and stars (at Lagrange points), but also between galaxies, galactic clusters, and most likely too, between particles, atoms, molecules and so on. This pristine law of nature effectually defines what is space, and is to be regarded as one of the most fundamental physical features of our universe.

Stay tuned

[UncleAl]

Unclear on the concept with delusions of competence. Education: that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.

Google
"cosmological constant" 228,000 hits
"Lagrange points" 13,700 hits
"Lagrange point" 20,200 hits

The proposed cosmological constant has nothing at all to do with local gravitation or anything smaller. In its most extreme extrapolated case re dark energy, that will remain true for billions of years to come.

[JerryB]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

Unclear on the concept with delusions of competence. Education: that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.

Great quote!

[coldcreation]

Hello UncleAl,

I beleive you are refering to the new cosmological constant. Einstein's had nothing to do with the repulsive acceleratory negative energy stress tensor based on the 1998 SN observations.

Atomic nuclei, atoms, molecules, planetary orbits, galaxies, and clusters are observed to be very stable systems. And we have no reason to disbelieve the likelihood that the universe in its entirety is stable, and dependent on the same natural ubiquitous mechanism responsible for mediating stability on all scales: It has a name: Lambda, the cosmological constant. This is no parameter. Einstein, De Sitter and Eddington especially were very close to finding its mechanism.

Cold Creation theory is built on several themes: (1) The universe may not be expanding. (2) There was no beginning to the universe, or big bang event. (3) Matter was created otherwise than in a fierce initial episode. (4) Cosmic evolution is very different than previously thought. (5) Human consciousness, creativity and imagination are inextricably attached to the laws of nature, and can be rationalized in logical and consistent physical terms.

There's more...

But first, what's your gig UncleAl?
Don't tell me you agree with the hot big bang cold dark matter and profuse kooky energy theory, do you?

In your mail you write: "The proposed cosmological constant has nothing at all to do with local gravitation or anything smaller. In its most extreme extrapolated case re dark energy, that will remain true for billions of years to come."

It would be a curious 'substance,' indeed, a dark form of energy that did not affect things on all scales. Why can't Einstein's term be ubiquitous, everywhere present, an intrinsic feature of spacetime, and ultimately, inseperable from the gravitational interaction?

It can be demonstrated, and it certainly will be, that you suggest is way off the mark. So too is modern cosmology's interpretation of lambda.

One final note. Without a proper understanding of Einstein's enfant terrible an ultimate theory is unattainable. Furthermore, and last but not least, Lagrangian points are well known. However, there importance is perhaps less so. It can be shown how the field interaction between bodies induces stability, and how, precisely, the cosmological constant is involved in the shaping of complex gravitating systems.

coldcreation



later.

[coldcreation]

Cold Creation
The Essence of the Physical Universe and its Evolution in Time
The Ultimate Theory

Cold Creation theory is built on several themes: (1) The universe may not be expanding. (2) There was no beginning to the universe, or big bang event. (3) Matter was created otherwise than in a fierce initial episode. (4) Cosmic evolution is very different than previously thought. (5) Human consciousness, creativity and imagination are inextricably attached to the laws of nature, and can be rationalized in logical and consistent physical terms.

Cold Creation theory (broadly outlined) is a wide range of statements (verbal, pictorial, topological) within a specific discourse that does have unity, a discourse whose pervasiveness is not merely the study of matter, energy, force, motion and the way they interact, but too, the study of perceptual codes, the essence of consciousness, and the operational mechanism in the foreground of all things. Our belief is that there is unity in what might be called a discourse of nature.

Much of the scientific research that deals with high-energy physics, astro-particle physics and grand unification stratagem that attempt to unify the forces of nature—with the co-aspiration of uniting quantum mechanics and GR at inaccessibly high temperatures, energies and densities—have not been successful because the investigations have centered erroneously on a scorching dead-end path: the big bang. Cold Creation has placed its accent on the function of cooler-than-cool least-energy interactions and low temperature physics.

A.M.

[UncleAl]

Cold Creation theory (broadly outlined) is a wide range of statements (verbal, pictorial, topological) within a specific discourse that does have unity, a discourse whose pervasiveness is not merely the study of matter, energy, force, motion and the way they interact, but too, the study of perceptual codes, the essence of consciousness, and the operational mechanism in the foreground of all things. Our belief is that there is unity in what might be called a discourse of nature.

Bullshit. A shoddy shannonization with no mathematical basis and no empirical support. The universe doesn't care what you believe. Only self-consistent mathematics that survives empirical falsification is functional. The rest is called "religion" and it is a balloon without a skin.

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/

Google
shannonizer 163 hits

[coldcreation]

Cold Creation
The Ultimate Theory!
zero religion.
zero god.
100% physics.
100% natural.
No new physics.
One fundamental constant unearthed by Albert Einstein.
One new law of nature that had been overlooked.
Lambda = zero
material creation is explained without a hot dense state.
redshift is not a doppler effect.
To construct an ultimate theory all that is needed is GR with lambda and its proper mechanism, QM, and the laws of thermodynamics.
nothing more for now, but there's plenty where that came from...

PS. Cold Creation is a 350 page book...
stay tunned...

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Cold Creation is a 350 page book...
stay tunned...

Fair warning. Spamlinks get removed and the poster gets banned. If you have something to discuss that's fine. If you start pitching your book then you're outta here. We'll even discuss what's in your book if you want to discuss it to see if we can poke holes in it. No sales pitches though.

[coldcreation]

[QUOTE=C1ay]Fair warning.

Mr. C1ay, stay cool,
I have to tell you that I don't even have an agent yet. I just finished it a couple of days ago... if ever this kind of work can be finished. I think it's an ongoing process. The reason I'm on line now is to see if anyone can pock a hole in my suggestions. For now I've posted quite a few ideas. I'm still waiting for some constructive criticism.

I don't my a little hostility from unknown people out there, but it's kind of easy to do that. Much more difficult it is to argur rationally about important topics, such as the cosmological constant and its implications for any theory of the cosmos.

Let's see what happens. I'll give it a shot for a couple more days, then I'll find another solution for some critical input.

For now, here is something to chew on: Richard S. Ellis (Caltech) has studied the ultra deep images in detail. One of the outstanding features of the ‘early’ universe is that galaxies out to redshift 7 appear to have normal stellar populations. These are not the big, bright, ultra-heavy 500 solar-mass 1st generation stars thought to have reigned at the time. Moreover, galaxies are fairly evolved. This means that those distant galaxies formed at an epoch assumed to be the dark age—detrimental evidence to big bang cosmology.

Also: The fudge factor, as the term was long known, has had many looks in its nine decades of life. Everyone agrees, however, that its last facelift was a disaster. The ugly conundrum is best summarized in the language extracted from a passage of The Accelerating Universe by Mario Livio, written in a clean, forthright, propulsive style:

“What exasperates the situation is the fact that…the most natural value theoretically expected for the contribution of the vacuum energy to omega is about 10 (to 123 power), while the measured value appears to be 0.6 to 0.7. Thus apparently by some mysterious process, the contribution of the virtual particles of the vacuum has been striped from its most natural value to 123 decimal places, leaving only the 124th place intact…thereby violating a basic requirement for beauty…in principle, the situation could be much worse than we think. Within the errors that are still possible in the values of the different contributions to omega, it could be that those contributions add up (God forbid!) to an omega (total) of 0.9 or 1.1, rather than 1.0. If this were the case, then even the most basic prediction of inflation in its simplest form would be jeopardized. I will ignore here such horrifying possibilities, simply hoping that nature has some mercy on us in our attempts to understand it…It is therefore not impossible that the prejudices against a dominant contribution by the cosmological constant merely reflects our present ignorance concerning where the ultimate theory is going to lead us…What does it all mean? Is it possible that we have come all this way, where in every step along the path our belief in the beauty of the universe has only been strengthened, to see it all collapse at the very end?” (Livio 2000, p. 192, 194, 195)

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

For now, here is something to chew on: Richard S. Ellis (Caltech) has studied the ultra deep images in detail. One of the outstanding features of the ‘early’ universe is that galaxies out to redshift 7 appear to have normal stellar populations. These are not the big, bright, ultra-heavy 500 solar-mass 1st generation stars thought to have reigned at the time. Moreover, galaxies are fairly evolved. This means that those distant galaxies formed at an epoch assumed to be the dark age—detrimental evidence to big bang cosmology.

Or, maybe a big bang event did occur in a space larger than the universe as we know it. That space may have already had old star clusters and the event that we call the big bang happened in the vicinity of some of them such that they ended up in the sphere that is the universe as we know it. That would mean they predate our own universe. This might explain galaxies that were already old and dying in the early universe.