Determine the mass of baryonic matter based on relativity constants ?

[stephaneww]

Hello,

I'm not sure that I can post this in "Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers section" so I post here

The final fomula that I propose is :




It's base on the classical notion of the force and the density of cosmological constant :

for the force notion


for the density of cosmological constant


where the Planck force is : .


if and where is for Planck value we have exactly with the notion of classical force :





as the Planck force appears in the density of the cosmological constant I think we can assume that, in the relativity, it's assimilable to a Force of the cosmological constant witch must be egal to


now, we can try to duplicate the Planck's values for the force of the cosmological constant with the notion of classical force :

the more easy is to use instead of (it's constant and have the same dimension)


now we need a mass of matter :

in the Planck force we had

so, in cosmology we need two constant mass and egal (it must be mass of dark matter/2 or (dark matter + baryonic mattter)/2 or baryonic matter/2)


after computational tests the only approximate correct value is (we need to divide by two otherwise we have 2 mass of universe. they must be egals to duplicate the formula of the Planck force)

and add the factor is needed to be ok to within 0.6% with the Planck force value :

with datas of abstract data Planck 2018





if what is above is correct we can write :







and finaly :



I'm interested by your opinion and questions

Thank's in advance

[stephaneww]

Hello,

Note for moderators : I am a little surprised to haven't a return. Is it possible to start the 30 days deadline on the first feedback date, please?

To try to support the approach of using classical mechanics with general relativity and quantum physics, I complete with this :


For acceleration noted , the dimension analysis tells us that it is of dimension L/T^-2

In classical mechanics, the gravitational acceleration is and has the same dimension than .



Always with for Planck, we can construct an acceleration of Planck :



Now if we multiply by the surface density of Planck (dimension = M/L^2, 1 unit of mass per 1 unit of surface) we have naturally :





, i.e. exactly volume density of energy of the quantum vacuum



In cosmology, I haven't found an equivalent to but we can but we can calculate with :

instead of and instead of





Now it suffices to remember that, in order to have a volume density of energy, it is necessary to multiply an acceleration by the surface density,

i.e. to multiply by 1 unit of mass and to divide by 1 unit of area, and we have:

i.e. volume density of energy of the vacuum of the cosmological constant with a difference of 1.1%

[slang]

Note for moderators : I am a little surprised to haven't a return. Is it possible to start the 30 days deadline on the first feedback date, please?

Hello stephaneww, welcome to CosmoQuest. Extensions to the 30 day limit are rarely given. Just because at least until now it appears that nobody is interested in commenting on, checking or challenging your idea by itself is not enough reason to extend the deadline. But if a useful discussion does start after all, we'll discuss what we can do then. (As a sidenote, it's no biggie in this case because, well, there really is no thread to disrupt, yet..., but please check rule 17 of the forum rules to see how best to contact moderators in the future.)

[Copernicus]

Hello,

Note for moderators : I am a little surprised to haven't a return. Is it possible to start the 30 days deadline on the first feedback date, please?

To try to support the approach of using classical mechanics with general relativity and quantum physics, I complete with this :


For acceleration noted , the dimension analysis tells us that it is of dimension L/T^-2

In classical mechanics, the gravitational acceleration is and has the same dimension than .



Always with for Planck, we can construct an acceleration of Planck :



Now if we multiply by the surface density of Planck (dimension = M/L^2, 1 unit of mass per 1 unit of surface) we have naturally :





, i.e. exactly volume density of energy of the quantum vacuum



In cosmology, I haven't found an equivalent to but we can but we can calculate with :

instead of and instead of





Now it suffices to remember that, in order to have a volume density of energy, it is necessary to multiply an acceleration by the surface density,

i.e. to multiply by 1 unit of mass and to divide by 1 unit of area, and we have:

i.e. volume density of energy of the vacuum of the cosmological constant with a difference of 1.1%

I've done something similar to this already and I pretty sure other people have done this already too. But the current belief is that the universe goes on very far if not infinitely so there has to be new cosmological physics discovered before this is settled.

[The Physics Detective]

...But the current belief is that the universe goes on very far if not infinitely...

There's no actual evidence for that. Take a look at the timeline of the Big Bang written by Luke Mastin in 2009. He says "The linear dimensions of the early universe increases during this period of a tiny fraction of a second by a factor of at least 10²⁶ to around 10 centimetres (about the size of a grapefruit)". Since then WMAP and other observations have indicated that the universe is flat, and as per this NASA article, there's now a presumption that the universe is infinite. I think it's a non-sequitur myself.

Stephane: I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're proposing.

[stephaneww]

Stephane: I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're proposing.

Hello The Physics Detective,

what I propose requires knowledge in cosmology, especially the LambdaCDM model

[stephaneww]

But the current belief is that the universe goes on very far if not infinitely so there has to be new cosmological physics discovered before this is settled.

Oops, you're right. I did not know

[stephaneww]

Hello Copernicus

These two approaches could make it possible to say that the cosmological constant is a simple parameter of relativity as a function of the mass of baryonic matter (the half mass : ), within the framework of the LambdaCDM model of a finite universe. Of course, if the universe is infinite, we need another cosmological physics, but I stick to the model, which to date best fits the observations.

Edit : And of course I think that I'm not the first to propose that (I'm interested if you have a link). However I never seen an equivalent of message#1

[Shaula]

Do you have a theory that led to that equation?

[stephaneww]

Do you have a theory that led to that equation?

Hello Shaula,

No, I have no theory to justify these equations

I had noticed that was at the center of the problem of the cosmological constant:

1 the volume density of the quantum vacuum equal to = (formula derived from the dimensional analysis in Planck units)

2 the volume density of the vacuum of the cosmological constant expressed in =

The ratio between the two being the number of factor of unsized.

Everything else is of dimensional analysis.

[Shaula]

No, I have no theory to justify these equations
...
Everything else is of dimensional analysis.

Then that's probably why you haven't got any comments. You've discovered, basically, that if you multiply numbers together you get other numbers. And if you do it enough you can get numbers that you can claim are significant.

Awhile back I proved that you could derive cosmological constants using a few basic numbers and some celebrity heights. Doesn't make the universe intrinsically linked to the height of celebrities.

Numerology like this can provide you with a pointer to go and explore something - but on its own it isn't science and it isn't interesting, I am afraid.

[stephaneww]

Then that's probably why you haven't got any comments. You've discovered, basically, that if you multiply numbers together you get other numbers. And if you do it enough you can get numbers that you can claim are significant.

Awhile back I proved that you could derive cosmological constants using a few basic numbers and some celebrity heights. Doesn't make the universe intrinsically linked to the height of celebrities.

Numerology like this can provide you with a pointer to go and explore something - but on its own it isn't science and it isn't interesting, I am afraid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numero...rical_patterns

British mathematician I. J. Good wrote:

There have been a few examples of numerology that have led to theories that transformed society: see the mention of Kirchhoff and Balmer in Good (1962, p. 316) ... and one can well include Kepler on account of his third law. It would be fair enough to say that numerology was the origin of the theories of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, gravitation.... So I intend no disparagement when I describe a formula as numerological.

When a numerological formula is proposed, then we may ask whether it is correct. ... I think an appropriate definition of correctness is that the formula has a good explanation, in a Platonic sense, that is, the explanation could be based on a good theory that is not yet known but ‘exists’ in the universe of possible reasonable ideas.

This does not exclude that one can build a theory after, especially in the case of message #1. The values quoted are in the same theoretical framework and give with an accuracy of 0.3%. It's not about numerology done with the captain's age.

[Geo Kaplan]

This does not exclude that one can build a theory after,

True, but irrelevant. What you have so far is indistinguishable from pure numerology because you have not yet built a theory. That's why you didn't see a discussion for a long time -- you have nothing scientific to discuss yet! As Shaula pointed out, one could construct an infinity of numerical coincidences, using quantities such as the weight of a movie star, the height of the tree in one's backyard, and Planck's constant, and then ascribe some cosmic significance to the result (it also helps if one has the freedom to choose units arbitrarily).

Until you've actually built a theory, what is there to discuss? You think you've found something significant but you can't show it at this point. That's not science yet. Sorry.

[stephaneww]

Then that's probably why you haven't got any comments. You've discovered, basically, that if you multiply numbers together you get other numbers. And if you do it enough you can get numbers that you can claim are significant.

...

and there is the methodological approach : do you contest this step? (that of the message n ° 1) which determines ? where please?

[Shaula]

and there is the methodological approach : do you contest this step? (that of the message n ° 1) which determines ? where please?

There's nothing to contest. You've arbitrarily multiplied numbers together. Your 'method' is currently no more scientific than reading the future in tea leaves.

Geo Kaplan has said it well so I won't repeat what has been said. Until you have a theory or even a framework for why you are doing what you are doing there simply isn't anything to discuss in scientific terms.

[stephaneww]

Do you have a theory that led to that equation?

Hello Shaula

I think I finally found one. I have it with the numerical values, I still have to finalize the formulas, check the dimensional analysis and do the translation in English.

It's based on the static universe of Einstein

[Shaula]

I think I finally found one. I have it with the numerical values, I still have to finalize the formulas, check the dimensional analysis and do the translation in English.

Hope to see it presented here soon then. Good luck finalising it.

[Reality Check]

...It's based on the static universe of Einstein

That is a problem for your ATM idea, stephaneww, because Einstein's static universe was wrong. It is probable that Einstein considered the introduction of the cosmological constant into GR to allow a static universe, "the greatest blunder of his life".
Investigating the legend of Einstein’s “biggest blunder”

An Einstein scholar concludes that the famed physicist probably did use those words to describe the cosmological constant.
...
In 1956, the year after Albert Einstein’s death, physicist George Gamow wrote a Scientific American article on the Big Bang model that included a tantalizing historical tidbit: “Einstein remarked to me many years ago that the cosmic repulsion idea was the biggest blunder he had made in his entire life.”1 Gamow repeated the claim in his 1970 autobiography,2 and the story became one of the great legends of 20th-century physics. The story only got juicier with the 1998 discovery that the rate of cosmic expansion is increasing, an observation that cast Einstein’s “biggest blunder” in a new light.

We have known that this was a "blunder" since the discovery that the universe is expanding in 1927 (Georges Lemaître) and 1929 (Edwin Hubble). The Einstein universe

Because the Einstein universe soon was recognized to be inherently unstable, it was presently abandoned as a viable model for the universe. It is unstable in the sense that any slight change in either the value of the cosmological constant, the matter density, or the spatial curvature will result in a universe that either expands and accelerates forever or re-collapses to a singularity.

After Einstein renounced his cosmological constant, and embraced the Friedmann-LeMaitre model of an expanding universe,[5] most physicists of the twentieth century assumed that the cosmological constant is zero. If so (absent some other form of dark energy), the expansion of the universe would be decelerating. However, after Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess introduced the theory of an accelerating universe during 1998, a positive cosmological constant has been revived as a simple explanation for dark energy.

Any scientific theory based on a theory that has an overwhelming amount of evidence showing to be wrong, starts with an enormous handicap. The author has to show that all of that evidence is either explained by that base theory or is wrong. That cannot be done in less than 30 days.

[Copernicus]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/numerology the study of numbers, as the figures designating the year of one's birth, to determine their supposed influence on one's life, future, etc.

I don't see numerology, I see no model, from the newbie, that attempts to justify the hypothesis. Period. There have been great scientists who have gone down this road. None of them have developed a model that is accepted.

[Swift]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/numerology the study of numbers, as the figures designating the year of one's birth, to determine their supposed influence on one's life, future, etc.

I don't see numerology, I see no model, from the newbie, that attempts to justify the hypothesis. Period. There have been great scientists who have gone down this road. None of them have developed a model that is accepted.

Copernicus

You've been here long enough to know that ATM is not a general discussion forum and it is not for collaboration; it is for one advocate to defend their idea. It is completely up to stephaneww to defend his idea.

This will earn you an infraction.

[stephaneww]

You swap your l_p for inverse Lambda because "They have the same units",

… and also because Lambda is constant unlike the radius of the universe (not constant) which could have been taken for whimsical reference

ditto for the mass of the observable universe and the Planck mass,

reponse :

now we need a mass of matter :

in the Planck force we had

so, in cosmology we need two constant mass and egal (it must be mass of dark matter/2 or (dark matter + baryonic mattter)/2 or baryonic matter/2)


after computational tests the only approximate correct value is (we need to divide by two otherwise we have 2 mass of universe. they must be egals to duplicate the formula of the Planck force)

there is no else consistent values… (the "mass" of cosmological constant over time changes) in cosmology

you add in random factors of pi because you didn't get an answer you liked,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Distinction_between_reduced_and _non-reduced

Equations that pertain to inertial mass like Klein-Gordon and Schrödinger's, use the reduced Compton wavelength. The non-reduced Compton wavelength is a natural representation for mass that has been converted into energy. Equations that pertain to the conversion of mass into energy, or to the wavelengths of photons interacting with mass, use the non-reduced Compton wavelength.

this is probably why pi disappears from message #2 (you didn't note that)

you tried all possible combination of the masses of the components of the observable universe until one got close.

Correct but I tried only these 3 possibilities of constant mass :

mass of dark matter/2 or (dark matter + baryonic mattter)/2 or baryonic matter/2

.

If we take a value other than Mb/2, the factor to take into account to find Fp becomes fanciful and, in this case, I would not deny doing numerology. Pi is a common factor in physics and give an accuracy of 0.3% on Mb

you then equated these two unrelated equations because you had fiddled one enough to get 'close' to the same number.

The link between Planck values from classical mechanics can't be disputed.
I use the same methodology for relativity (that of calculations in Planck units). The so-called "numerology" must be appreciated taking into account the margins of error on measured relativistic values.

Your criticism is about numbers, but what do you dispute about the methodology (edit:the use of classical mechanics theory to direct values to look for) please ?

[Shaula]

Your criticism is about numbers, but what do you dispute about the methodology (edit:the use of classical mechanics theory to direct values to look for) please ?

No, my criticism was about the methods you used. Simply that you can't actually provide any justification for what you did other than saying the numbers came out as you expected (because you fiddled them so that they did) and the units matched. The fact that you just randomly swapped in numbers is the problem, not the actual values of the numbers.

Your method can't be analysed because there is no replicable logical structure to it, it can't be tested because there is no framework (and you can just add in some other factors whenever you feel like it). You take the classical force between two Planck mass objects a Planck length apart (a decidedly non-classical domain) then suddenly decide that this should be equated to the product of an estimated mass for the observable universe and a cosmological parameter. It doesn't make sense, it doesn't give any particular insight (because you could have used any old numbers) and it currently doesn't lead anywhere. Come back when there is a theory or something the scientific method can be applied to.

[stephaneww]

The fact that you just randomly swapped in numbers is the problem, not the actual values of the numbers.

for example(s) please ?

It doesn't make sense, it doesn't give any particular insight (because you could have used any old numbers) and it currently doesn't lead anywhere.

with olds numbers (Planck 2015 data), the differences from the values ​​calculated in the LambdaCDM model are :
- 1.6% for Fp (more than 2018)
- 0.8% for Mb (more than 2018)
- 0.7% for Energy Density of cosmological constant (less than 2018)

Come back when there is a theory or something the scientific method can be applied to.

dimensional analysis is scientific : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

The concept of physical dimension was introduced by Joseph Fourier in 1822.[4] Physical quantities that are of the same kind (also called commensurable) have the same dimension (length, time, mass) and can be directly compared to each other, even if they are originally expressed in differing units of measure (such as yards and meters). If physical quantities have different dimensions (such as length vs. mass), they cannot be expressed in terms of similar units and cannot be compared in quantity (also called incommensurable). For example, asking whether a kilogram is larger than an hour is meaningless.

Any physically meaningful equation (and any inequality) will have the same dimensions on its left and right sides, a property known as dimensional homogeneity. Checking for dimensional homogeneity is a common application of dimensional analysis, serving as a plausibility check on derived equations and computations. It also serves as a guide and constraint in deriving equations that may describe a physical system in the absence of a more rigorous derivation.

[Shaula]

for example(s) please ?

Most of your first post. I didn't read the second one.

Examples:
Why pick the Planck masses and distance - what system are you modelling with these? Why are you using classical equations?
Why swap out for lambda? Your rationale was "the more easy is to use lambda instead of the Planck length squared (it's constant and have the same dimension)" which makes absolutely no sense. You could have swapped in anything.
Then pi appears for no reason.
Already mentioned the "try anything until it works" mass.
Then you equate two things that are not equal and are both meaningless and rearrange them.

with olds numbers (Planck 2015 data), the differences from the values ​​calculated in the LambdaCDM model are :
- 1.6% for Fp (more than 2018)
- 0.8% for Mb (more than 2018)
- 0.7% for Energy Density of cosmological constant (less than 2018)

Sorry that was a piece of British vernacular. It didn't mean using the old Planck numbers - it is an expression that literally means "you could have picked any random numbers". My criticism is that you have no rationale for picking the numbers you did other than that they 'worked' (roughly, subject to fudge factors)

dimensional analysis is scientific : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

Doesn't matter how many times you quote the article your use of it is not. The article explicitly says you can use it as a plausibility check and that it is a guide and constraint - you can use it to try some ideas out, maybe see if numbers work but then you have to actually do the hard work and contextualise. You have to explain what the equations are telling you, how you can use them. At the stage you are at all the equations are telling you are "Look, I can do algebra"

[stephaneww]

Most of your first post. I didn't read the second one.

Please read it, while waiting for me to make a more complete answer : I follow the same methodology of the message #1 and it supports the values retained in the message # 1

[stephaneww]

Examples:
Why pick the Planck masses and distance

to find Planck force value in Planck unit

what system are you modelling with these? Why are you using classical equations?

I have already say :

Hello Shaula,

No, I have no theory to justify these equations

I had noticed that was at the center of the problem of the cosmological constant:

The original concept of force is in classical mechanics, I tried with Planck units, the result is exactly the Planck force. I don't see a problem for that.

Why swap out for lambda? Your rationale was "the more easy is to use lambda instead of the Planck length squared (it's constant and have the same dimension)" which makes absolutely no sense.

The Planck values are constants. I needed constant with a dimension of a length in cosmology

You could have swapped in anything.

not whith a radius of univerve(to have a length (swap with what for example ?)

Then pi appears for no reason.

I already answered. Need other arguments?

Correct but I tried only these 3 possibilities of constant mass :

mass of dark matter/2 or (dark matter + baryonic mattter)/2 or baryonic matter/2

.

If we take a value other than Mb/2, the factor to take into account to find Fp becomes fanciful and, in this case, I would not deny doing numerology. Pi is a common factor in physics and give an accuracy of 0.3% on Mb

Already mentioned the "try anything until it works" mass.

I tried the 3 contant mass in LambdaCDM model. see above

Then you equate two things that are not equal and are both meaningless and rearrange them.

Can you detail, I do not understand what and where ?

it is an expression that literally means "you could have picked any random numbers". My criticism is that you have no rationale for picking the numbers you did other than that they 'worked' (roughly, subject to fudge factors)

the numbers are not chosen at random: they are constrained by the laws of gravitation, Planck's units and the values of cosmology

Doesn't matter how many times you quote the article your use of it is not. The article explicitly says you can use it as a plausibility check and that it is a guide and constraint - you can use it to try some ideas out, maybe see if numbers work but then you have to actually do the hard work and contextualise. You have to explain what the equations are telling you, how you can use them. At the stage you are at all the equations are telling you are "Look, I can do algebra"

about dimensional analysis : ...It also serves as a guide and constraint in deriving equations that may describe a physical system in the absence of a more rigorous derivation.

I understood (I'm french) :
"deriving" as : obtain something from (a specified source).

and

...in the absence of a more rigorous "derivation" as :in the absence of a more rigorous developing of something from a source or origin.

I am wrong ?

[Geo Kaplan]

dimensional analysis is scientific : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

As I've already said, being dimensionally consistent is a basic requirement, a low bar. It is necessary, but not sufficient. Linking to a wiki article on dimensional analysis (note that the second word is not creation) is rather beside the point and shows that you continue to ignore what's actually at the core of the problem. Wishing that away won't make it go away.

Quit arguing that dimensional analysis suffices to confer legitimacy on your numerology. It does not, and merely repeating the same assertion does not alter that fact.

Your challenge here, remember, is to convince us, not merely to declare faith in the correctness of your ideas. You seem to have forgotten your burden here. We already know that you believe yourself, so confirming that over and over again is a waste of time.

No scientific discussion is taking place. You are merely asserting that your arbitrary combining of scientific constants is the same as doing science.

It is not.

It may be hinting at something scientific, but in the absence of any theoretical framework, it is indistinguishable from mathematical gibberish. Until you construct that framework, there can only be a useless exchange about whether what you are doing is science.

[stephaneww]

It may be hinting at something scientific, but in the absence of any theoretical framework, it is indistinguishable from mathematical gibberish. Until you construct that framework, there can only be a useless exchange about whether what you are doing is science.

The only minimal framework that I can propose for the moment is:
- a force must always be of dimension M L T^-2 whatever the considered physics (classical, relatist, quantum)
- we can say the same thing ("must always be of dimension ...) for all the physical notions (acceleration, energy, etc ...) whatever the physics considered.


This is not new…



EDIT:

The physical system used is classical mechanics and the values ​​come from quantum mechanics and cosmology. Strange mixture at first, but gives exact results when the datas are exact (values of Planck)


I'm waiting an answer for this (it's not urgent)

about dimensional analysis : ...It also serves as a guide and constraint in deriving equations that may describe a physical system in the absence of a more rigorous derivation.

I understood (I'm french) :
"deriving" as : obtain something from (a specified source).

and

...in the absence of a more rigorous "derivation" as :in the absence of a more rigorous developing of something from a source or origin.

I am wrong ?

[stephaneww]

Your challenge here, remember, is to convince us, not merely to declare faith in the correctness of your ideas. You seem to have forgotten your burden here. We already know that you believe yourself, so confirming that over and over again is a waste of time.

Ok,I'll try.

1st step:

The frame is the classic mechanics. Take the notion of the classic mechanics of your choice. Look at its physical dimension and the relationships between dimensions. Associate with each dimension of exponent 1, its numeric value in Planck unit. Take account of the exponents for each dimension and make any calculations required by the relations.We will always have the value of the notion in Planck's unit.

True ? wrong?

if fake shows an example please

If true, do you agree that we can say : this is dimensionnal analysis combined with Planck units ?

[stephaneww]

Ok, I still have no theory but,

for relativity, I can try enhance my proposition with formula (It comes, without achieving the result you want, following my research to try to satisfy you), instead of the exact numbers that were used for the Planck units.


in message #2, I have :

...
In cosmology, I haven't found an equivalent to but we can but we can calculate with :

instead of and instead of

there is a small error on the numerical value but it doesn't matter.


. we can also deduce this formula from the message #1 :

so





note: Mb disappears in this part of egality



edit 2 :

…


and this numerical value, (without Mb), is exactly the one obtained when one calculates with Mb calculated in the message # 1. Nothing magic or numerological here, these values are linked by formulas and the sames choices of values to use for relativity in #1 and #2. I think it gives a little more consistency.