Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
On 2 Nov 2003 at 14:16, Ron McFarland wrote: Greetings list members. This is my joining post. Recent headlines indicate that there is empirical evidence now that our known universe is about 13 billion years old, it is essentially flat, and that space/time continues to be inflationary (we are in a continuing big bang state) after experiencing an initial expansion phase originating from a singular point -- followed a few billion years later by some sort of phase change that cause the universe to change from a slowing down expansion rate to a speeding up expansion rate. The properties of dark energy are postulated now to be the cause of continued and ever increasing in rate expansion of space/time, the continuing big bang state. snip I see now, via the article at Universe Has At Least 30 Billion Years Left and which references the interesting article The Big Rip (dated some 8 months before my joining post) that this subject is again back in the news. I wonder how my postulate will fare up as this matter remains in debate and investigation! Ron McFarland
Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
Hi, George. I'm sorry for the lateness of my reply; thankfully I've been very busy. I find your thoughts interesting in that they seem distantly relative to fractional charges we attribute to some things, such as quarks, although one might argue that they are only fractional because they were not the 1st items to have been assigned values! I tend to try to formulate my thoughts upon logic rather than mathematics, though, since I'm of the opinion that mathematics is limited to a digital interpretation but logic encompasses both the digital and the analog. When dealing with the very large and the very small, I think mathematics is inherently inaccurate when trying to describe an analog condition and that is why it can not accurately represent infinity in a practical way. My thoughts, on what dark matter and dark energy really are, are not mainstream and they seem inconsistent with your general equation involving them. I've argued in this topic that both of those things are really not matter/energy, and that they are both the same thing. I've basically agreed with a strange idea that dark energy is what we see when the force of gravity is relavistically below a threshold value and that it is the engine which is causing an accelerating expansion space/time within our entire open universe. I've gone further to say that the equivalent flip side of that concept is expressed when the force of gravity exceeds a threshold value and a black hole forms in result. I've argued that a black hole, in seeking to be a singularity, is forever moving away and distancing itself from all other objects in our universe and that the process is nothing more than another but localized expression of an ever increasing rate of space/time inflation. I've argued that the force of gravity related to a black hole is what dark matter is. Based upon that logic, I've argued that dark matter and dark energy are really the same things, an inflating region of space/time. Building more on that logic, I've argued that gravity is not matter/energy and it instead is an expression of space/time. I've argued that space/time and matter/energy are two differing things, and that they can not be unified into one term. I've argued that space/time is the absence of matter/energy, it is an infinite nothingness. But I've argued that matter/energy and space/time do affect each other nonetheless, and that the affect is expressed in a concept that we refer to as relativity. And I've argued that matter/energy is but a chance quantity and arrangement of a spontaneous appearance of virtual particles in what I've termed a meta universe. I like that the term meta universe to distinguish it from similar but non identical concepts. I've argued that it just so happened that enough virtual particles appeared close enough together that an expanding bubble formed and which our entire known universe resides within. All of our measurements are constrained within that bubble, they are not relative to the meta universe because on the average and over infinity there is nothing in the meta universe - all virtual particles return their energy back to the meta universe which thereby keeps its state of thermal equilibrium (that state being at a temperature of absolute zero, not even a fraction above). From the viewpoint of an eternity in the meta universe, all space/time and matter/energy that we perceive in our bubble universe simply does not exist and it is but an illusion. Although our universe does exist relative to its constructs composed of what to us are real particles but what to the meta universe are but virtual particles, our universe does not really exist relative to the meta universe because there is no point of relative reference in the meta universe which is but, on the average throughout eternity, composed of absolutely nothing at all. I've argued that both at the cosmic and at local scales, in our universe, space/time continues to inflate at an ever accelerating pace. I've argued that where there be matter/energy then inflation slows down locally, but it is never completely inhibited. I've argued that inflation itself is the process by which the apparent energy in our universe is returned to the meta universe, that inflation is a sort of tension or a sort of attraction mechanism that seeks to and ultimately will return the virtual particles to a ground state (a zero energy state) in the meta universe. And so that logic also had me argue that gravity does not have a force carrier, it will never be found because gravity is just a relative expression of inflationary space/time itself and gravity is not composed of matter/energy. I've argued that at some point where inflation locally exceeds the speed of light then the very atomic bonds become unbound due to their component parts being forced away from (and thereby distancing themselves from) each other, and that this is the mechanism by
Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
Looks like this topic ended with my last post of 3 days ago. Thank you to those who contributed. I've no idea how things will really settle out in a Theory of Everything related to physics. My arguments are but one view point, certainly not the most educated, and until some time in the future it just can not be known what truth is within the view point that I've expressed in this topic thread. More than likely some more surprises are in store that will turn physics on its head yet again. We live in the most exciting age that humankind has ever seen, with events unfolding at an astonishing rate. It seems to me that it would be a little naive to think that any one explanation is total (not even my own offered up here for disassembly). All we really know is what we can repeatably measure, we do not yet know what we measure nor that which we have no means to measure. Ron McFarland
Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
Ron, I am not a physicist, just a dabbling engineer philosoper, however, the idea of dark energy is intriguing. I asked a question a few weeks ago, whether dark (mass) energy is identical to negative (mass) energy and what the implications would be in terms of Newton mechanics. The reason for my question was that, on purely philosophical grounds, because of symmetry and of conservation laws, I was expecting the amount of positive (mass) energy in the universe to be exactly equal to the amount of negative (mass) energy. Therefore, I was expecting the amount of dark energy to be exactly equal to the amount of mass energy in the universe. However, in recent article, Tegmark stated that the amount of dark energy has been measured to be 67%. This data shoots down my bipolar symmetry conjecture. However, pursuing the idea of symmetry in the complex plane, it may imply that there are two kinds of dark energy each 33% of the universe. The symmetry would then be three-fold: 1/3 real matter, 1/3 (-0.5 + isqrt(3)/2) dark energy and 1/3 (-0.5 - isqrt(3)/2) dark energy. Can any one figure out what the implications of this conjecture would be? How would dark energy interact with itself and how would it interact with ordinary matter? George Ron McFarland wrote: Looks like this topic ended with my last post of 3 days ago. Thank you to those who contributed. I've no idea how things will really settle out in a Theory of Everything related to physics. My arguments are but one view point, certainly not the most educated, and until some time in the future it just can not be known what truth is within the view point that I've expressed in this topic thread. More than likely some more surprises are in store that will turn physics on its head yet again. We live in the most exciting age that humankind has ever seen, with events unfolding at an astonishing rate. It seems to me that it would be a little naive to think that any one explanation is total (not even my own offered up here for disassembly). All we really know is what we can repeatably measure, we do not yet know what we measure nor that which we have no means to measure. Ron McFarland
Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
On 9 Nov 2003 at 16:22, Brent Meeker wrote: In the intial relativistic models of the origin of the universe, the matter began with very high energy so it expanded against the pull of gravity. Taking the zero of energy to be when the matter is infinitely dispersed, as is usual, the net energy of any portion of the universe is zero. Taking this back in time, the gravitational potential turns into kinetic energy and hence a hot big bang. However, this model had some problems explaining the great homogeneity of the universe. Hence the inflationary model was invented by Alan Guth (c.f. his book Inflation). These models do assume another field as the source for inflation which may be independent of the cosmological 'constant'. This is usually referred to as the 'inflaton field' and there have been theories that tried to identify it with the Higgs field. In the models the inflaton field changes dynamically, i.e. it and the scale of the universe are coupled in differential equations. I'm looking forward to the upcoming high energy experiments that just might settle the issue of a gravity force carrier. My thought is that it will never be found, that gravity ultimately is but another expression of inflation; a kind of tension between our universe and the meta universe that is trying to reclaim its virtual particles that are our universe. I'm at loss to explain the physical properties of that tension because I don't think there are any that can be expressed in matter/energy terms (because they are space/time terms, and I don't think the matter/energy and space/time can ever be unified even though they do have effect upon each other). And it is difficult to imagine a force carrier that could climb out of a black hole and be expressed as gravity with particles in our universe. ... How is this argument consistent with the very accurate prediction of decay rates based on quantum analysis of potential barriers which do not consider inflation or any other aspect of gravity? You refer to quantum mechanical tunneling, a probabilistic event? We're getting Spooky again! It's a form of expression related to Planck's constant. There is no in between state in QM, a particle is either here or it's there when it comes to the smallest packet of energy that can be expressed. When decay occurs due to a particle being there instead of being here (i.e. bound as it was to a nucleus) we are simply seeing QM probability on display. This is not the same mechanism of decay being caused by inflation. But you postulated,... one reason behind a decay of any particle (radioactive or not) is because of inflation... I'm just pointing out that quantum tunneling already explains and accurately predicts the decay of radioactive atoms and unstable particles without considering inflation. So this seems to leave no role for inflation as one reason for decay. Maybe you are referring to some kind of decay that has not been observed? like decay of the proton? I postulated a different (non energy exchange) mechanism for decay, not the only mechanism for decay (another being interaction with another energy sources). I mean there's a difference to having pumped something up to an unstable state and QM then doing its decay thing versus something that is in a ground state which then suddenly decays due to sudden bond breakage caused by space volume changes that result from inflation. The two decay mechanisms are not related whatsoever, although they both result in a decay. Unless pumped up to a higher energy state by interaction with energy, particles seek to be at ground state. Once all the foreign energy has been shed from a particle via QM, it undergoes no more decay and is 100% stable. Well, maybe not, but I think that it is so. Stable until the volume of local inflation relative to that particle reaches a specific value. No, I don't think we're likely to observe much in the way of locally detectable decay due to inflation right *now*, because the rate of and the volume of inflation locally has not exceeded the speed of light at the atomic level - yet. Only where space/time inflation between 2 points surpasses the speed of light to the point where a particle within that volume can not interact with other particles can one expect that *total* decay occurs. This is likely to occur in voids and black holes sooner than elsewhere in the universe. Unfortunately, when it happens it can not be observed. Well, maybe there might be some really very high energy decay observed due to some QM effect when the expansion rate relative to a particle is at an infistimately small fraction below the speed of light, and we might in result detect flashes of super high energy seemingly coming randomly and from anywhere. But we detect nothing from within areas where inflation is expanding faster than light. Meanwhile, as volume of inflation increases and before
Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
On 8 Nov 2003 at 20:35, Brent Meeker wrote: A balloon model neglects inhomogeneties that allow gravity to dominate locally. at short range the weak, electromagnetic, and strong force dominate. Of course almost anything is possible at the Planck scale. What you are proposing are effects of Einsteinian gravity, including a cosmological 'constant', at the level of strings or whatever the most fundamental particles are. But current theories would say that the cosmological constant can't pull apart things that are more strongly bound than some threshold. Since it never starts to pull them apart, its negative pressure on them never increases and they remain bound by the other forces. Brent Meeker Well stated, Brent! I would be forced to agree, but there might be an omission in that very strong counter argument. There was a peer reviewed article published many years ago (I think in Scientific American magazine) that basically said that given enough time EVERY particle will spontaneously emit energy until, eventually, there is no energy left to emit. If I remember correctly that argument was making claim that not only radioactive particles are unstable, and that all particles with no exception follow the same emission rules but that some are just almost unimaginably unlikely to do so but that they will do so. The point being that in some near infinite but still within a finite time every particle in the universe will have evaporated, so to speak. Since having read that article I've never seen a disapproval of the hypothesis presented in that article. Perhaps I've missed a peer reviewed disapproval of the premise. But the question in my mind at the time I read that article was: why would a particle considered to be stable eventually decay to a point of complete self destruction? I now believe that the answer to that question is localized inflation of space/time being expressed at the subatomic level. Although the nuclear binding forces are so very strong that the consequences are that inflation is very drastically slowed relative to a particle, inflation itself is a factor of space/time and not of matter but matter does exert a resistive effect against inflation. But only a resistive effect, however large that might be, and not a total inhibiting effect. Over time, inflation marches on regardless. It seems to me that it is true that one reason behind a decay of any particle (radioactive or not) is because of inflation rather than because of fuzzy quantum chance. The argument I put forth is that any atomic arrangement is actually 100% stable until it is acted upon by an external force, which does include inflation but could also include interaction with other energy sources. Barring any possibility of interaction, eventually inflation will lead to decay and be expressed by way of spontanious emmision of energy. Inflation is a component of space and time, it is not granular (it is smooth) and is not itself subject to Planck's constant. The constant is a measure of the smallest size of an energy packet at the quantum level, something like 6.26 x 10^-34 J-sec, and it is the only reason why the affect upon matter by inflation occurs in discrete levels of energy instead of linearly. It is the very drastic localized slowing (but not the entire elimination) of inflation that makes it appear that inflation is not occuring at a subatomic level because of some binding force such as gravity or [insert choice here]. But inflation is still occuring regardless, and at some finite point in time it gets expressed in Planck terms. Ron McFarland
Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
On 9 Nov 2003 at 11:20, Brent Meeker wrote: The theory of supersymmetry implied that all particles could decay to photons. As the universe expands photons lose energy through redshift. So the universe would decay asymptotically to zero energy density. That's not exactly the same a decaying to nothing. Decaying to nothing is not a requirement. All that matters is that a particle can not know of other particles, and for the reason being that redshift has gone to zero energy because the (relative to the affected particle) universe then is inflating at a speed faster than light and so no particle can interact with that affected particle. The bottom line is that there is no way to take relative measurements in that situation. If energy is not relative to something else then it is nothing more than virtual energy. From my opening and following posts for this list topic, I'm saying that when that situation occurs the energy has not been lost but it has been returned to what I've chosen (for topic consistency) to call a meta universe and from which it originated. The theory of supersymmetry predicted that protons would decay. Experiments have put lower bounds on the life of the proton that are inconsistent with the simple forms of supersymmetry. Some modified version may still be possible. ... I think you are misled by cosmological discussions of inflation. These generally assume a uniform, spherically symmetric solution to Einsteins equations because that makes them explicitly solvalbe and it is a good approximation at very large scales. In this approximation, changes in the metric are uniform throughout space. This might lead you to suppose that space is inflating even between quarks; but this is an artifact of the simplifying approximation. If the equations were solved exactly, taking into account of the lumpy distribution of matter then there would be no expansion between nearby gravitationally bound bodies (as in galaxies, much less atoms). Of course it is already known that Einsteins equations cannot be correct at atomic scales anyway because Einsteins theory is not consistent with quantum mechanics. Again you seem to argue that there is a threshold level of attraction (be it gravitational or nuclear) below which inflation can not occur. If that be the case then what mechanism can explain inflation near the initial creation time of the universe when density of all existing matter was so highly concentrated? But inflation certain did occur, then it slowed, then it sped up again and appears to continue doing so. Might there be two differing types of inflation? Inflation did occur when all matter was gravitationally bound together during the birth times of our universe, the equations must reflect that empirical evidence. Had it not been for inflation the gravitational binding would have resulted in an immediate collapse of the newly born universe. It seems to me that it is true that one reason behind a decay of any particle (radioactive or not) is because of inflation rather than because of fuzzy quantum chance. The argument I put forth is that any atomic arrangement is actually 100% stable until it is acted upon by an external force, which does include inflation but could also include interaction with other energy sources. How is this argument consistent with the very accurate prediction of decay rates based on quantum analysis of potential barriers which do not consider inflation or any other aspect of gravity? You refer to quantum mechanical tunneling, a probabilistic event? We're getting Spooky again! It's a form of expression related to Planck's constant. There is no in between state in QM, a particle is either here or it's there when it comes to the smallest packet of energy that can be expressed. When decay occurs due to a particle being there instead of being here (i.e. bound as it was to a nucleus) we are simply seeing QM probability on display. This is not the same mechanism of decay being caused by inflation. There is no uncertainty when it comes to inflation, because decay by that method is not dependant on QM and it is instead dependant to how much space volume has inflated within a region occupied by the constructs of a particle and how the increasing distance between those constructs is eventually expressed in the only way matter can do so - in units specified by Planck's constant. Ron McFarland
Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
On 7 Nov 2003 at 10:25, Joao Leao wrote: OK. I get your point. That supersolipsistic situation is rendered somewhat unlikely by the fact that galaxies seem to be structuraly stable (the dark matter issue), in other words, they do not seem to berak apart with the accelerated expansion. The chances of every particle becoming its own disconnected universe are also made unlikely by what we know of microphysics. Gravitational collapse is the way out of of space-time problems altogether. At a small (galaxy size) cross section the effect of inflation has not yet (for the time periods we can observe) reached the point of causing a breaking apart. Gravity is still dominant in those local systems. Either there is or there is not inflation, either all objects as a result of inflation are or they are not all moving away and increasing distance from from each other. Unless it can be argued that inflation is not universal then it follows that ALL particles, macroscopic and microscopic are inflating. But, might the affect on fundamental forces also be inflating in propertion to all other inflation repercussions!? If so, then another argument is needed for why the universe went from a slowing down expansion rate to a speeding up expansion rate. To imagine a cyclic expansion rate requires that a new fundamental force be discovered. Well we can and have measured the dark energy distribution via the luminosity distance of Type Ia supernovae and the CMB background observations (recentlyWMAP) and it is smooth, uniform and tensional(=feels like a negative pressure). This is not an inference: it is as direct evidence as you can get in the cosmological domain! I'm not ready to agree fully accept that!grin We have measured that inflation is continuing, and in relation to observation of those supernovae the reality seems widespread and consistant. But that's a long ways from saying that the *distribution* of dark energy is uniform througout the entire universe. Dark Energy, if indeed originated in the Big Bang, could have had a very different distribution than and that is part of the problem: we don't know why it resulted in such a small cosmological term if it is indeed the combined energy of all the vacua of the interactions we know about... But then we don't know why any particles have the mass and energy that they do have, either. Some say it was chance that they are as they are (and lucky for us that things chanced as they did!) But that argument belies that virtual particles seem to have rules they obey. We just don't know why the rules are as they are, we just see the game being played. I addressed this point you keep making above. This is really not worth worrying about. Collapse is a much more likely end for a particle than supreme loneliness... But how can you say that? You maybe have a thought that the universe is not really expanding, forever and for eternity, and at all points (even within subatomic points) within itself? What mechanism might be involved? But maybe I do not understand what you mean by collapse. It isn't quite like that! If anything QM shows you that distant particles interact in some manner or better, exhibit non-local correlations beyond their time-like separation, so even between disconnected pices of the Metaverse (Level 1 as the list lingo goes)there are residual bonds that do not care about universal expansion... And there be the rub. Spooky is a good term. That bonding phenomenon does seem to be empirical. The question remains to be answered regarding if *imposed* information can be exchanged with the phenomenon, and latest indications are that particles moving at near light speed have a problem maintaining the bond. Perhaps the bond is broken when the rate of inflation becomes great enough? If the bond gets broken then a particle can not interact as it otherwise could! There is no speed limit (such as the speed of light) being argued for an ever increasing space/time inflation rate for the universe, is there? The worries that the Universe will reach a heat bath state left people very worried 2 centuries ago. I think that all the dark stuff, ominous as it sounds is kinda reassuring that such end is quite unlikely. But, if you want to be worried, I am sure you can find plenty of reasons, still. Empirical evidence is all that counts, reasonings must take it into account. My argument is that inflation must at some finite point in time result in no particle being able to exchange energy with any other particle in the entire universe - because the distance between all particles (and caused by space/time inflation) is then increasing at a rate faster than light. That's not the same as saying that a particle evaporated, although the end result seems the same! My arguement does not require that all particles be at the same energy potential, it only requires that they each not be able to know what
Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
Greetings, Brent. Thanks for joining the conversation! On 8 Nov 2003 at 14:37, Brent Meeker wrote: I think you are misinterpreting inflation. The cosmological constant produces an inflationary pressure that's proportional to volume, so over large distances it dominates over gravity. But over shorter distances, i.e. galaxy clusters, gravity dominates. Since gravity dominates, the matter in the cluster doesn't move apart and gravity continues to dominate. Other clusters that are moving away experience greater expansion force and move away faster as gravity weakens due to distance. Of course it is not known whether the acceleration observed is due to a cosmological *constant* or due to some field that may dynamically depend on other variables and so change or go to zero. I think that's the same viewpoint that Joao is putting forth? Then the counter to my argument is that their can be no inflation within regions of the universe where the force of gravity is above a threshold value? That is a strong counter argument. I am not convinced that any value of gravity can stop inflation. Slow it locally, yes, and even slow it dramatically. I can not argue against that unless dark energy suddenly came into being everywhere and all at once when the universe was something around 5 billion years old. But I think it was there all along and from the moment of creation of the universe. It's just a matter of how it gets expressed when mitigating circumstances are specified. Instead I again think of the balloon model. Place one dot on the surface of a balloon that is being inflated. Place another dot 90 degrees away from it, also on the surface. As the balloon continues to inflate, the dots move away from each other. Although very primitive in description, this pretty much mirrors what seems to actually be happening to our universe. For simplicity of argument, I'm ignoring the dimensional movement of the individual dots relative to each other and which is not accounted for by inflation. However, I will consider the two individual dots, for the sake of argument, relative to what is happening to the balloon. As the balloon inflates the dots move away from each other. So do the subatomic components of an individual dot. But the dots are moving away from each other at a very much faster rate than are the subatomic components of an individual dot moving away from each other. It is, as you pointed out, a phenomenon that is relative to volume. There is more volume involved between the 2 dots than there is between the components that make up one dot. It is easy to measure the apparent inflation velocity of the 2 dots relative to each other due to the huge amount of volume involved. But the volume difference is so great between the 2 dots as compared to the components that make up just one dot that we simply have not observed the drastically slowed but still occurring inflation being experienced within 1 dot. Someone better than I am will have to do the calculations! But I am suggesting, based upon what I think is logic, that the amount of inflation occurring within one dot in the universe, relative to the amount of inflation assumed to be current for the entire universe, is going to result in a number that looks very familiar at the quantum level. And Im suggesting that the value for it changes over time because it is dependant upon how much inflation has occurred. And, I suggest that this changing value is what describes the inflationary rate of the universe as it continues to speed up. At some finite time in the future it will make itself obvious at the quantum level. But for now entire galaxies are just too small in of themselves to fall apart, much less atomic particles! Not enough space/time volume involved! But given a distant yet finite time, in each case there will be, rather suddenly, enough volume involved. But it won't happen everywhere at the same time. Ron McFarland
Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
On 6 Nov 2003 at 21:20, James N Rose wrote: If we are now observing acceleration, that means there was Inflation (huge acceleration) and then a huge reduction in acceleration. So, what bled off the extra original acceleration momentum? Or countered it? A mind bending question. Greetings, James. My argument includes the notion that from the perspective of our universe the big bang took time to occur within, not everything popped into existence simultaneously. The dominant force was the attempt of the meta universe to restore its zero energy imbalance that the way virtual particles had distributed themselves (in the meta universe and quite by chance) had caused to go in to imbalance. That force was predominantly being expressed as a near infinite rate of expansion (a very high acceleration). At first the rate was expanding faster than the speed of light and nearly all the virtual particles were being immediately returned to the meta universe. But due to the quirky laws of quantum mechanics not all particles were being immediately returned, some stuck around long enough that the force of gravity came into existence. As the birth continued an ever increasing value of gravity resulted. Gravity is locally stronger than the inflationary force, it slowed the expansion rate down. But expansion continued regardless, at a decreasing rate. But the affect of gravity is dependant upon distance. As particles receded from each other, like dots on the surface of an inflating balloon, gravity had less and less effect upon neighbour particles. Once distance between particles became great enough then the force of expansion again became dominant, and the universe again began to expand and at an ever increasing rate. It is apparently continuing to do so. In our case the number of particles that were ultimately given birth to seems to indicate that our universe will never experience a big crunch (else inflation would not be occurring). So there was no counter force to expansion, it was only a matter of relativity, the number of particles that came into being, how fast they were coming into being, and the ultimate number of how many came into being. The big bang happened in spurts, it didn't happen all at once. Are we do believe that this 'dark matter' which is out there 'increasing acceleration' is also responsible for the phase of 'decelerating acceleration' that had to have been in place prior to the current cosmological era??! It is dark energy (DE) that is responsible for the exansion of the universe. I argue that it is not really energy as we know the term, but sort of a potential for energy in our universe to be returned to the meta universe from which it came. The potential results in eventual heat death of our universe at some finite time, and at that time there is no measurable difference between our universe and the meta universe (which has always been at heat death) and they are both really the same object. Black holes are always shrinking to a singularity, effectively increasing distance between themselves and everything else that exists in our universe. A black hole is just a localized area of space/time inflation. That concept is important. The matter that goes into a black hole becomes energy returned to the meta-universe. What remains is not a black hole as we think of one being, but a sort of energy potential portal into the meta-universe. These portals are what exhibit the affect that is being labeled dark matter (DM). It's an attraction by the meta-universe, its attempt to reclaim its zero energy balance. It is no different than dark energy, they are one and the same and they only appear to be different depending upon your relative viewpoint. They are both just different expressions of the ever increasing rate of inflation of the universe. Ron McFarland
Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
Ron McFarland wrote: On 3 Nov 2003 at 16:45, Joao Leao wrote: > Part II: > >It is not the distance that contributes, it is the > > relative rate of expansion that contributes to the apparent redshift > > (all other factors that can contribute to redshift being ignored for > > the purpose of concentrating only on the affect caused by inflation > > itself). The further something is away from us, relatively speaking, > > then the faster it is moving away from us. With inflation being on > > an > > > > ever increasing rate, there comes a point in finite time when the > > expansion rate reaches a level that causes the entire universe to > > appear dark and at absolute zero in temperature in reference to all > > its matter relative to itself. > > If the acceleration persists, which is may or not be the case, that is > surely a possibility, depending on some other features of the > concordance model being verified or not. But we are still not sure > that the acceleration is forever... That's both an astonishing and maybe just a little bit of a scary thought. Is there some hint of any kind that the acceleration of the universe might have a limiting factor? Well the argument is that, because the onset of acceleration may be more or less dated we may speculate that it will start decreasing at some point in the future. Of couse not all "scenarios" allow for this. The "eternal inflation" point of view is quite to the contrary... > > In other words, the redshift at all points within the universe will > > have shifted to a level of absolute zero observable energy at some > > future time because the universe is then expanding (at every point > > within itself) at or beyond a rate that would allow energy to find > > anything in the universe that it could be relative to. > > I don't quite understand this last sentence. Assume that at some distant time the inflation rate of space/time has exceeded the speed of light. At that moment, and forever thereafter, no particle within that inflation region could interact with another - - because the distance between particles is increasing faster than a particle can transverse any distance at the speed of light or below. That leads to the conclusion that the affected particle is then no longer relative to anything but itself. As far as that affected particle is concerned it IS the entire universe and nothing else exists. This of course is an illusion, from the larger viewpoint of the meta universe. But I argue that when the particle becomes in that way relative only to itself then it has in fact melded with the meta universe, meaning that its energy has in fact returned to the meta universe from which it was spawned during the big bang. OK. I get your point. That "supersolipsistic" situation is rendered somewhat unlikely by the fact that galaxies seem to be structuraly stable (the dark matter issue), in other words, they do not seem to berak apart with the accelerated expansion. The chances of every particle becoming its own disconnected universe are also made unlikely by what we know of microphysics. Gravitational collapse is the way out of of space-time problems altogether. >But it may be worth > pointing > out that dark energy is uniformely and isotropically distributed so > that It is? That would infer a homogeneous distribution of energy that does not appear to hold true with any other observation of the universe. If the big bang had resulted in an observable universe that is uniform in structure or composition throughout then one might expect the same of dark energy, but this does not appear to be the case. I would argue that when/if we are able to measure (as opposed to just infer) dark energy then we will find it to be distributed in much the same way as is energy that we can now measure. Well we can and have measured the dark energy distribution via the luminosity distance of Type Ia supernovae and the CMB background observations (recentlyWMAP) and it is smooth, uniform and "tensional"(=feels like a negative pressure). This is not an inference: it is as direct evidence as you can get in the cosmological domain! Dark Energy, if indeed originated in the Big Bang, could have had a very different distribution than and that is part of the problem: we don't know why it resulted in such a small cosmological term if it is indeed the combined energy of all the vacua of the interactions we know about... > it seems to be something akin to the largest scales of matter/energy > distribution, for example, inertial mass distibution (dark and lit) or > better still, curvature or torsion. There are several models of DE > proposed along these lines... Perhaps. As you say, it's too early to know. But our closed universe has of late been attributed to have a shape that is NOT a smooth spheroid. Amazingly, it appears to be composed of interlocking shapes that are not that of a sphere, but because the universe is closed the aggregate appearance is theat of a non smooth spheroid. Maybe this
Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
If we are now observing acceleration, that means there was Inflation (huge acceleration) and then a huge reduction in acceleration. So, what bled off the extra original acceleration momentum? Or countered it? Are we do believe that this 'dark matter' which is out there 'increasing acceleration' is also responsible for the phase of 'decelerating acceleration' that had to have been in place prior to the current cosmological era??! James
Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
Wow Ron! That is a lot of answer for me! I will have to split mine in two installments if you don't mind. Ron McFarland wrote: Thank you list for the welcome. I look forward to many congenial debates! I am sorry but you seem to contradict yourself below! You state, quite correctly as far as I can tell, what the outcome of the most recent cosmic observations on our universe is. But them you state that Neither dark energy nor dark matter has been proven by experiment or measurement to exist. Both seem as pure postulates at this writing. Both dark matter and dark energy express little more than our puzzling with two sets of consistently observed effects which we aren't able to accommodate in the so-called concordance model of standard cosmology. What these terms designate are not (yet) definite entities so it is a bit early to even call them postulates. Theorists have sought to explain these effects along several distinct hypothetical lines but the word is still out on which one of those will prevail. Correct, and I did not define my terms. I am not sure I follow you here. Your terms are surely not the conventional ones, but that is not necessarily objectionable. Let us see... By postulate I mean the expression of an idea not yet represented by a defining mathematical statement. In that case I can't agree that dark matter and dark energy are postulates. They both have no lack of mathematical expression, the problem is that we don't really know which one describes them fully or integrates with what else we know. By theory I mean an idea supported by mathematical statement but not yet verified in all possible ways by apparent empirical evidence. Again there are serveral many theories (called scenarios) that try to account for either one, and they all aim to match the available empirical evidence. But, as data from better probes comes along, the small disparity between the scenarios should favor some over others. That is already the case, for example, when you compare the WMAP data with the Type Ia supernova surveys, for dark energy evidence... By law I mean an idea supported by a mathematical statement that can not be ruled out by empirical evidence. I am not sure that you can say that about any law of physics with much conviction. Conservation laws are associated with global symmetries and even these can be broken (think of Parity and CP for example), and consequentially ruled out by empirical evidence. To me, dark energy seems to be the more important postulate. It appears to me that if the universe will forever keep expanding at an ever increasing rate then within a non infinite time period no elementary particle of matter will be able to interact with another. Will get to the other part later... -Joao -- Joao Pedro Leao ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 1815 Massachussetts Av. , Cambridge MA 02140 Work Phone: (617)-496-7990 extension 124 Cell-Phone: (617)-817-1800 -- All generalizations are abusive (specially this one!) ---
Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
On 3 Nov 2003 at 10:18, Joao Leao wrote: Wow Ron! That is a lot of answer for me! I will have to split mine in two installments if you don't mind. My apology for the length of the answer. The answer was for the most part a restatement of something I wrote and was aired on radio over a decade ago, a Billy something Show that was out of Nevada (I had to string a long wire to receive it!) and which was very similar to the now very popular CoastToCoastAM.com related international radio show that airs nightly in most cities (and which sometimes guests very respectable scientists).. Although I claim absolutely no credit for any or the ideas expounded upon by myself then or now, I do not find much in the way of inconsistancy with the general ideas expressed by the very qualified people who came up with the ideas that I merely attempt to assemble into understandable arrangement. ... By postulate I mean the expression of an idea not yet represented by a defining mathematical statement. In that case I can't agree that dark matter and dark energy are postulates. They both have no lack of mathematical expression, the problem is that we don't really know which one describes them fully or integrates with what else we know. I certainly accept that any idea set forth within a peer review scientific community will almost certainly be accompanied by math. But math at a postulate level is not a requirement unless it purports to rise to the level of a theory (in which case it is no longer merely a postulate). Restated, a postulate by general definition is To make claim for; demand. To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument. To assume as a premise or axiom; take for granted. See Synonyms at presume. By theory I mean an idea supported by mathematical statement but not yet verified in all possible ways by apparent empirical evidence. Again there are serveral many theories (called scenarios) that try to account for either one, and they all aim to match the available empirical evidence. In this we seem to fully agree, in that a theory is an attempt to lay a math foundation that fully describes empiracal evidence. But it remains untested by peer review (experimentation and observation), or at least not as fully tested as be practical. Until that type of peer review has completed it is but a theory that does not rise to the level of being considered to be a law. But, as data from better probes comes along, the small disparity between the scenarios should favor some over others. That is already the case, for example, when you compare the WMAP data with the Type Ia supernova surveys, for dark energy evidence... Thank the universe for the apparent consistency of exactly how some supernova do their thing. They were at the root of a problem where some seemed to be older than the expected age of the universe! But when the universe went from a slowing down type of expansion to a speeding up type of expansion the redshift data made sense and seems to have reconciled that age problem. Basically a phase shift occurred, but only in the sense that as the universe expanded the weakening of gravity as felt by objects in the universe reached a point where it started becoming less attractive than be the what until then was the less powerful repulsive (inflationary) force that is being referred to as dark energy. By law I mean an idea supported by a mathematical statement that can not be ruled out by empirical evidence. I am not sure that you can say that about any law of physics with much conviction. Conservation laws are associated with global symmetries and even these can be broken (think of Parity and CP for example), and consequentially ruled out by empirical evidence. It was a red flag that called for re-evaluation of our basic assumptions. If a law can be broken then the breakage is not part of the law and it follows that the law is not a law nor even a valid postulate - because it has been disproven by empirical evidence. Will get to the other part later... -Joao :) Ron McFarland
Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
Greetings list members. This is my joining post. Recent headlines indicate that there is empirical evidence now that our known universe is about 13 billion years old, it is essentially flat, and that space/time continues to be inflationary (we are in a continuing big bang state) after experiencing an initial expansion phase originating from a singular point -- followed a few billion years later by some sort of phase change that cause the universe to change from a slowing down expansion rate to a speeding up expansion rate. The properties of dark energy are postulated now to be the cause of continued and ever increasing in rate expansion of space/time, the continuing big bang state. The properties of dark matter are postulated to be the cause of observed gravitational interactions within the universe as a whole and where there is insufficient observable normal matter to account for the observations. Dark matter is now said to greatly exceed the amount of matter that we are able to measure and verify as existent. Neither dark energy nor dark matter has been proven by experiment or measurement to exist. Both seem as pure postulates at this writing. To me, dark energy seems to be the more important postulate. It appears to me that if the universe will forever keep expanding at an ever increasing rate then within a non infinite time period no elementary particle of matter will be able to interact with another. That condition seems to indicate that relativity would thus be meaningless when that point in time occurs. To my logic this argument appears to violate conservation of energy law. If the argument is nonetheless true, then it follows that said law is not a real law and that our entire theory structure is faulty at a fundamental level. I would be most pleased to here read comments from the list members. Ron McFarland
Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, conservation
Thank you list for the welcome. I look forward to many congenial debates! On 2 Nov 2003 at 22:05, Joao Leao wrote: On Nov 2, 2003, at 5:16 PM, Ron McFarland wrote: Greetings list members. This is my joining post. Recent headlines indicate that there is empirical evidence now that our known universe is about 13 billion years old, it is essentially flat, and that space/time continues to be inflationary (we are in a continuing big bang state) after experiencing an initial expansion phase originating from a singular point -- followed a few billion years later by some sort of phase change that cause the universe to change from a slowing down expansion rate to a speeding up expansion rate. The properties of dark energy are postulated now to be the cause of continued and ever increasing in rate expansion of space/time, the continuing big bang state. The properties of dark matter are postulated to be the cause of observed gravitational interactions within the universe as a whole and where there is insufficient observable normal matter to account for the observations. Dark matter is now said to greatly exceed the amount of matter that we are able to measure and verify as existent. Ron I am sorry but you seem to contradict yourself below! You state, quite correctly as far as I can tell, what the outcome of the most recent cosmic observations on our universe is. But them you state that Neither dark energy nor dark matter has been proven by experiment or measurement to exist. Both seem as pure postulates at this writing. Both dark matter and dark energy express little more than our puzzling with two sets of consistently observed effects which we aren't able to accommodate in the so-called concordance model of standard cosmology. What these terms designate are not (yet) definite entities so it is a bit early to even call them postulates. Theorists have sought to explain these effects along several distinct hypothetical lines but the word is still out on which one of those will prevail. Correct, and I did not define my terms. By postulate I mean the expression of an idea not yet represented by a defining mathematical statement. By theory I mean an idea supported by mathematical statement but not yet verified in all possible ways by apparent empirical evidence. By law I mean an idea supported by a mathematical statement that can not be ruled out by empirical evidence. To me, dark energy seems to be the more important postulate. It appears to me that if the universe will forever keep expanding at an ever increasing rate then within a non infinite time period no elementary particle of matter will be able to interact with another. What makes you think so? The supposition that redshift is an observable component of inflation of the universe. It is not the distance that contributes, it is the relative rate of expansion that contributes to the apparent redshift (all other factors that can contribute to redshift being ignored for the purpose of concentrating only on the affect caused by inflation itself). The further something is away from us, relatively speaking, then the faster it is moving away from us. With inflation being on an ever increasing rate, there comes a point in finite time when the expansion rate reaches a level that causes the entire universe to appear dark and at absolute zero in temperature in reference to all its matter relative to itself. In other words, the redshift at all points within the universe will have shifted to a level of absolute zero observable energy at some future time because the universe is then expanding (at every point within itself) at or beyond a rate that would allow energy to find anything in the universe that it could be relative to. In that situation a particle would never be able to travel from any point A to any point B, although it might try to do so for as long as it existed. Eventually the particle could no longer exist, because it itself would loose coherency as its integral parts moved away from each other as a consequence of the space it occupies continuing to inflate, and thereby move its parts away from each other until nuclear forces could no longer maintain the attraction that keeps the particle (of any type whatsoever) from totally disintegrating. That condition seems to indicate that relativity would thus be meaningless when that point in time occurs. To my logic this argument appears to violate conservation of energy law. If the argument is nonetheless true, then it follows that said law is not a real law and that our entire theory structure is faulty at a fundamental level. That may very well be the case but it is again, to early to tell. As you have probably heard General Relativity has always had an open place for something like Dark Energy, namely the cosmological term. So it may be worth our while to
