smolejleo napisal/-a:Shrink: največji CENZURA je tisti, ki napiše; kozmološka konstanta = temna energija = energija vakuuma in trdi, če veliki Carroll tako misli, potem tudi jaz in to je tako.
Aha, razumem,
dubisthobifirales: kozmologi, kot je Sean Carroll, so šarlatani in zato jim ne gre verjeti; treba je pa verjeti hobikozmološkim modrostim
osmoljenegaleota: "Vesolje se pospešeno širi zaradi črnih lukenj" (drugič).
Kakšen boljši dokaz bo pa že potreben, saj sem ti napisal, kako definiramo energijo,
Tebi se niti ne sanja, čemu mora ustrezati temna energija, ampak ker sem dober, te bom razsvetlil s ponovitvijo schnellkursa:
That’s a nice general story. What might dark energy specifically be?
The leading candidate is the simplest one: “vacuum energy,” or the “cosmological constant.” Since we know that dark energy is pretty smooth and fairly persistent, the first guess is that it’s perfectly smooth and exactly persistent. That’s vacuum energy: a fixed amount of energy attached to every tiny region of space, unchanging from place to place or time to time. About one hundred-millionth of an erg per cubic centimeter, if you want to know the numbers.
Is vacuum energy really the same as the cosmological constant?
Yes. Don’t believe claims to the contrary. When Einstein first invented the idea, he didn’t think of it as “energy,” he thought of it as a modification of the way spacetime curvature interacted with energy. But it turns out to be precisely the same thing. (If someone doesn’t want to believe this, ask them how they would observationally distinguish the two.)
smolejleo napisal/-a:pa dokažemo enakost, ...
Kako, hobi logik? Z "reflektivnostjo" morda?
