Authors: Stephen H. Jarvis
In following on from the preceding papers [1-13], this paper presents the case for the disparity between vacuum energy  and the associated cosmological constant  (when applied to calculated values of the redshift effect in regard to the metric expansion of space and associated energy requirements). A solution is provided to this problem while correctly deriving the value for the Lamb shift radiation as evidence for vacuum energy marrying up correctly with the large scale observed cosmological value, such in the context of a revised understanding of the redshift effect and associated scaling system for the Planck constant . The process of proof presented here is by taking a close look at the theory behind the cosmological constant, those calculations, and any of those associated assumptions of theory and modelling of time and space in those calculations and observations that could lead to the problem, and thus determine in fact why the value for the observed energy of space is so great according to contemporary estimates and processes of theoretical modelling of space. Above all, this paper shall present proof for vacuum energy and cosmological constant being in parity, such by using the fundamental basis of the phi-quantum wave-function scaling system in deriving the temperature value of the CMBR and Boltzmann constant, and finally proof for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury which is demonstrated to be directed related to the vacuum energy of space and CMBR.
Comments: 33 Pages.
[v1] 2019-12-25 00:54:25
Unique-IP document downloads: 17 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.