I understand you could not present the field equation in a reasonable way because of all the deep calculations you are performing. I view your equivocations as an avoidance of omission.
That is an assumption on your part.
This is silly. If somebody wrote down the Euler equations (which describe fluids) in meters or feet it would still give the same predictions. The units don't matter. I wrote down the field equations in geometric units where G = 1 and c = 1, because that is the way they are commonly written down. What are you trying to prove here, how am I "equivocating"? Units don't matter.
I mean I can say Alpha Centauri is 1.34 parsecs or 4.37 light years away, it doesn't affect any predictions of any theory one might use. How could it?
Yes one of the term predicts an accelerating universe, it also predicts an expanding version a static version and if stretched predicts a contracting version.
Not with the matter density of the observed universe. Of course if you put in matter far more dense than the matter that really exists then the equations will predict the wrong thing. However this is no different to any other area of physics. If you put in incorrect details about the distribution of charges into Maxwell's equations, then they will predict an incorrect electric field.
The CMB only shows what the value of the cosmological constant must take. It is interesting that NO values can be presented from Quantum field theory to match the prediction. If you us the contributions of say those found in the Casimir Effect the following value for the cosmological constant is infinity.
You are repeating the lie I pointed out in message 16. The pure vacuum part of the cosmological constant
times too large (not infinitely large however, I don't know where you got that from).
However this ignores effects from
, contributions to the vacuum energy density coming from particle physics effects. With them added in, one gets a realistic value for
Also the CMB experiments measure far more than the value
must take. They measure hundreds of parameters.
The values of alpha and beta are renormalization parameters.
are finite parameters induced by renormalisation. Renormalisation (the prescription for removing infinities from quantum field theories) generates them.
In your citation there is reference to solutions by the Bunch-Davis vacuum which some claim is not even relevant to the primordial universe. My point being that any solution you wish to examine is dependent on the evolutionary era of the Big Bang. Making matters even worse is that if the universe is non-local what can be said about these parameters, them being fixed as you claim.
You didn't understand the paper I'm afraid. The Bunch-Davies vacuum is a possible quantum state of matter in DeSitter spacetime, the spacetime that describes an expanding accelerating universe.
If the spacetime with matter in the Bunch-Davies vacuum is stable, then it will be stable in other states. So all somebody needs to do to prove stability is prove stability with the Bunch-Davies vacuum. They're not saying it is the real state.
You miss the whole point these values fine tune the cosmological constant, the value of the constant is what is in question.
The values of
do not affect the value of
, they are separate parameters. Naturally
affects the value of
. However there is no fine tuning because the parameters are given a single predicted value by quantum field theory.
I believe I have found the document and cannot deem it as support to your claims. If you have the exact URL please provide it.
The exact url is:http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.2282
I would be very interested to hear how you think this paper doesn't support my claim, which was:
That the quantum theory, has and requires the parameters
and that it predicts an expanding accelerating universe.
This was a response to your claim that you weren't aware of any value from quantum theory which could match the observed evolution of the universe.
Considering that the paper is a mathematical proof of my claim, I would be interested to know how you consider it not to support that claim.