Dark Energy is the thermodynamic cost of encoding information on the horizon

[EvertonB]

I’m working on the intersection of thermodynamics and gravity. I just released this preprint (submitting to Physics Letters B) that proposes a solution to the Cosmological Constant Problem—the famous 120-order-of-magnitude discrepancy.

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]

I’m an independent researcher working on the intersection of thermodynamics and gravity. I just released this preprint (submitting to Physics Letters B) that proposes a solution to the Cosmological Constant Problem—the famous 120-order-of-magnitude discrepancy.

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

[natch]

I don't know physics but it is amazing and wonderful to see something of this magnitude (even if it doesn't pan out, but it sounds… wow) posted on HN! Congratulations on this step of the preprint release! I hope you hear from more informed people here shortly.

[EvertonB]

Thank you so much for the kind words!

It is definitely daunting to put a proposal for such a massive problem out there as an independent researcher, but this community's spirit is exactly why I wanted to share it here. Even if it turns out I missed a subtle coefficient somewhere, the discussion is always worth it. Hoping for that technical grilling soon!