This petty personal squabbling needs to stop.
If you can't discuss the topic without bringing in personal baggage from other threads and trolling each other with personal snipes, I will have to start handing out official warnings to both of you.
Violations of energy conservation in the early universe may explain dark energy
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
If you can't discuss the topic without bringing in personal baggage from other threads and trolling each other with personal snipes, I will have to start handing out official warnings to both of you.
You are morally equating my p5 post #98 in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/vi...arly-universe-may-explain-dark-energy.158695/
which was an accurate observation, with paddoboy's #108 and even worse #118? And as remarked in #119, latter (and for that matter earlier post) of his was not only completely off topic but factually inaccurate to say the least. I even let padoboy have the last say way back in #125, so why dig this up anew at such a late stage? Horse having long bolted.
Last edited:
I've dug this up anew, as you put it Q-reeus, because there are several reports sitting in our report queue right now awaiting moderator intervention. I decided that, rather than issuing warning points to each of you, I would suggest a course of action that might lead to an avoidance of such official warnings.
I have done nothing in terms of "equating" anything. And, frankly, the argument that "I should get off scott free because he did it first/his insults were worse than mine" is unlikely to fly.
I have done nothing in terms of "equating" anything. And, frankly, the argument that "I should get off scott free because he did it first/his insults were worse than mine" is unlikely to fly.
The fact that, as always, I'm unafraid to speak my mind re mho of admin/mod standards is a factor here methinks. Whatever, I have no power or influence at SF.
From the original paper I linked to at............
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.04183v3.pdf
"To conclude, we have shown that violation of energymomentum conservation can be reconciled with metric theory of gravity by taking the fundamental theory of spacetime to be unimodular gravity. This change of paradigm leads to an effective cosmological constant term in Friedmann’s equation, that can be seen as a record of the energy-momentum non-conservation during the history of the universe. It decreases or increases in time, whenever energy is created or lost, yet it becomes quickly a constant (at least in the models described here) as regular matter density dilutes with the expansion".
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.04183v3.pdf
"To conclude, we have shown that violation of energymomentum conservation can be reconciled with metric theory of gravity by taking the fundamental theory of spacetime to be unimodular gravity. This change of paradigm leads to an effective cosmological constant term in Friedmann’s equation, that can be seen as a record of the energy-momentum non-conservation during the history of the universe. It decreases or increases in time, whenever energy is created or lost, yet it becomes quickly a constant (at least in the models described here) as regular matter density dilutes with the expansion".
SimonsCat
Registered Member
It does seem speculative, I noticed they also used the expectation value of the stress energy tensor; when you try to quantize source terms in the field equations, they tend to run into divergence problems. I did attempt to use this approach myself a year back but was heavily criticized by someone who actually works in high energy field theory.
The problem of these divergence problems are so profound, some physicists believe that replacing source terms for their respective operators is inherently forbidden in relativity. We'll see. I am not a fan of absolutist statements.