On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > he > [Einstein] > didn't notice that it was an unstable equilibrium - a very elementary > mistake. > I would humbly submit that when trying to figure out what 4-dimensional non-Euclidean Tensor calculus is telling you about physics nothing is very elementary, especially not in 1917. > > > But the holographic principle can yield a value close the the observed. > How close? In science if your theory predicts something that differs from the observed value by a factor of 2 that's generally considered to be pretty damn bad, and we're talking about 10^120. They may have come up with something closer than 10^ 120, but close? I don't think so; at least not unless they worked backward and invented a 120 digit number and inserted it ad hoc into the theory so things come out right. But that would be cheating because if you can't get more out of a theory than you put in it has no use, and a 120 digit number is a lot to put in. I don't think we're going to have a good explanation for Dark Energy anytime soon, but I hope I'm wrong. > > > Sean Carroll has considered this in his review article > https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004075v2 > That article is 17 years old, and Dark Energy is as big a mystery now as it was then. John K Clark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
