The Core Argument: Dark Energy is the thermodynamic cost of encoding information on the cosmic horizon.
Instead of treating it as a vacuum fluctuation (which leads to the UV catastrophe), I derive it from the First Law of Thermodynamics ($dE = T_h dS$) applied to the Hubble horizon.
Key Results: 1. I derive the correct holographic scaling ($\rho \propto L^{-2}$) from first principles. 2. The raw geometric derivation predicts the correct magnitude order ($\sim 10^{-27}$ kg/m³) but overshoots by a factor of 3. 3. I show that requiring dynamic consistency with General Relativity demands a renormalization factor $\xi \approx 1/3$. This same factor precisely corrects the numerical prediction to match Planck observations.
Essentially, the "error" in the geometric derivation is actually the missing efficiency factor needed for GR consistency.
I’d love any feedback on the derivation in Section 5.
https://zenodo.org/records/17807430
EvertonB•2mo ago
The Core Argument: Dark Energy is the thermodynamic cost of encoding information on the cosmic horizon.
Instead of treating it as a vacuum fluctuation (which leads to the UV catastrophe), I derive it from the First Law of Thermodynamics (dE = T_h dS) applied to the Hubble horizon.
Key Results: 1. I derive the correct holographic scaling (rho ~ L^-2) from first principles. 2. The raw geometric derivation predicts the correct magnitude order (~10^-27 kg/m³) but overshoots by a factor of 3. 3. I show that requiring dynamic consistency with General Relativity demands a renormalization factor xi ≈ 1/3. This same factor precisely corrects the numerical prediction to match Planck observations.
Essentially, the "error" in the geometric derivation is actually the missing efficiency factor needed for GR consistency.
I’d love any feedback on the derivation in Section 5.
https://zenodo.org/records/17807430