Question, if assuming a multiverse to explain the exactness of the cosmological constant is a defensible position, is there any reason not to consider the deist view and say the universe was created with the cosmological constant needed for life to form as an equally likely outcome?
The argument for multiple-worlds seems to be that if you take the most elegant possible formulation of the "equations of the universe", you find that some of constants in these equation have to be set to apparently arbitrary values to imply a universe like our own.
This seems to rest on an assumption that simple patterns tend to continue beyond our immediate perception, like if a person see a part of a sphere sticking out of the sand on a beach, they would tend to expect an entire sphere to buried beneath.
The two questions that appear would: is formulation really the simplest and does this kind of reasoning apply "outside the universe", given the universe is all that we use to make such judgments.
> Force fields have positive zero-point energies while matter fields have negative ones
This tidbit stuck out to me. Anybody able to offer a deeper explanation of why?
The Space Time Quantization theory of Prof. Auguste Meessen  leads to an explanation of the accelerating expansion of the universe, the cosmological constant suggested by Einstein (drak energy) and dark matter. It uses just simple and basic physics. The only new hypothesis leading to this theory is that measured distances would be quantified. That means that there would be a minimal measurable length.
This is totally based on zero evidence, but it seems to me, as a casual observer, that maybe there are elementary particles whizzing aren't detectable until they combine with other elementary whizzing particles and combine to make the detectable ones? So like hydrogen can be fused into helium (I know, easier said than done!), sometimes the they collide and create a detectable particle. This explains the Casimir effect in that there really wasn't nothing between the plates, just the stuff whizzing through the plates that we can't block.
I really like this article. I have read a lot of articles that bandy about terms like dark energy, the cosmological constant, and the multiverse. This was the first thing I have read that clearly explains how they link together.
However, I have a question. The article says that dark energy "presence causes the cosmos to expand ever more quickly, since, as it expands, new space forms, and the total amount of repulsive energy in the cosmos increases" But wouldn't this violate the first law of thermodynamics?
There are a lot of states of vacuum. Our space is either in rock bottom stable state or in metastable one.
Maybe it's just the state in which this energy is as small as it gets?
Would relativity explain a lot of it? "Empty" space isn't always empty. You put a camera anywhere in the known universe and almost instantly it will get bombarded by particles.
All those particles in flight, albeit sparse, have mass or in the case of photons can collide turning their energy into mass.
TLDR. What is the mass of all in flight particles?
> This fine-tuned situation suggests that there might be a huge number of universes, all with different doses of vacuum energy, and that we happen to inhabit an extraordinarily low-energy universe because we couldn’t possibly find ourselves anywhere else.
At a certain point "God" is going to be a simpler explanation than "infinite universes with infinite cosmological constant variance", etc.