If Lambda [cosmological constant] had been > 10^(-120) we would not be here [Weinberg 1987]

The paper is refering to is: S. Weinberg, Anthropic Bound On The Cosmological Constant,Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2607 (1987).

If Lambda was too large the universe would have expanded too fast for life to exist, if it was too negative, it would collapse too quickly.

Anthropic coincidences are ***self-regulating*** "ecobalances", like the one that we, *contributing members* arose from, and *belong to*... "bitch".

ReplyDeletehttp://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/instability.gif

Eddington also thought that the cosmological constant version of the general-relativistic field equation expressed the property that the universe was ***"self-gauging"***.

Eddington considered that in the Einstein field equations for general relativity the stress-energy tensor Tμν, which represents matter/energy, was merely provisional, and that in a truly unified theory the source term would automatically arise as some aspect of the free-space field equations.

Eddington wasn't as crazy as people like to make him out to be, but modern scientists have no trouble finding an infinite number of excuses why the above coincidences don't tell them that that 10^-120 is where it stays regardless of how fast the universe is observed to be expanding.

But how could that be... ?

Four extremely short, yet unaddressed posts to the moderated research group:

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2005-06/msg0069755.html

Four of many... *unaddressed* points that I made to the physicists there.

Maybe they'll answer me after the LHC puts particle theory out of business... but probably not.

Eddington had a gravity theory that used R^{abcd}R_{abcd} in his Legrangian as opposed to the Ricci scalar?

ReplyDeleteNot that this matters, it is off topic. Just since you talked about Eddington I thought you might know what ever became of this theory.

He got lost in something called, "E Frames"

ReplyDeleteI don't know anything about that.