Tuesday, February 14, 2006 ... Deutsch/Español/Related posts from blogosphere

Cosmological constant seesaw preprint

Michael McGuigan from Brookhaven was brave enough to supplement the ideas about the cosmological constant seesaw mechanism, apparently also discussed in Sean's blog article (although arguably in some hidden way), with dozens or hundreds of equations and interpret the cosmological constant as a squared mass term in the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. The result is here

and it is up to you to decide whether the cosmological constant problem has been solved or not.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (3) :

reader Quantoken said...

Not a chance that they "solved" the CC problem. Come on can any one still do calculations using Arabic numbers? Using the formula they derived, you obtain a CC value which is about two and half orders of magnitude TOO BIG, or, about 380 times too big. When you get a result that is 380 times too big, you are not even any where near the correct solution.


reader Luboš Motl said...

This factor of 380 or whatever is negligible compared to the current problem - factor of 10^122 or 10^60 - and the result 380 times above the observed value is fully comparable to the original upper bound on the CC from Weinberg's anthropic argument.

reader Quantoken said...

After double checking my calculation I find I missed a PI. So their result is actually 120 times too big. You can check that by the thumb of rule number that the cosmological constant is about 5 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter.

120 times is huge. It is as if claiming that a regular human being is nearly half as tall as the State Empire Building. Which of course is totally ridiculous.

Correct theory should provide exactly correct result, not a bit more and not a bit less. Any discrepancy must be fully explained by blamning it on instrument imprecision. And if there is still some discrepancy left after considering instrumental error, then there must be a new theory to explain away that remaining discrepancy. So if you get a result that is 120 times too big that's absolutely horrible. It is not even good enough to be called a matching coincidence.


(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m) })(window,document,'script','//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-1828728-1', 'auto'); ga('send', 'pageview');