"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is just opinion." -Democritus of Abdera
When you take a look out at the Universe, past the objects in our own solar system, beyond the stars, dust and nebulae within our own galaxy, and out into the void of intergalactic space, what is it that you see?
What we normally think of as the entire Universe, consisting of hundreds of billions of galaxies, with about 8,700 identified in the tiny patch of deep-sky shown above. Each one of those galaxies, itself, contains hundreds of billions of stars, just like our own Milky Way, and this is just counting the part of the Universe that's presently observable to us, which is by no means the entire thing!
And yet, if we map out everything known in the Universe, and trace out the cosmic structure, we find that the normal matter -- things made out of all the known elementary particles -- is less than 5% of the total energy density of the Universe. There's got to be about 20-25% of the Universe in the form of dark matter, a type of clumpy, collisionless matter that is made up of a yet-undiscovered particle, in order to get the type of clustering we see.
But perhaps most bizarrely, the remaining energy of the Universe, the stuff that's required to bring us up to 100%, is energy that appears to be intrinsic to empty space itself: dark energy.
Image credit: NASA, retrieved from http://universe-review.ca/.
So, as part of Matt Francis' Carnival of Cosmology on Dark Energy, I've decided to answer your best questions on dark energy, and I promised I'd take all comers. Let's see what we can learn!
Where is the dark energy coming from in an expanding universe? It seems to violate the laws of energy conservation. -Richard Latham
This question is a good one: if there's an intrinsic energy to space, and it's expanding (and therefore creating more space), aren't we violating the conservation of energy? The answer is no, because dark energy doesn't only have an energy density: it also has a negative pressure with very specific properties. As that negative pressure pushes outwards on space, it does negative work on the Universe, and the work it does is exactly equal to the increased mass/energy of whatever patch of space you're looking at. I wrote a more technical explanation here last December, for those so inclined.
In articles about the nature of dark energy, I frequently see “quintessence” mentioned as one possibility. I’ve never seen any explanation of what that would be. In my present state of knowledge, the word might as well be “magic”. Assuming it is legit (i.e. not a handwave or ether redux) can you give us some idea of what it is? -anatman
Let's back up a little bit and explain "dark energy" first. When physicists say "dark energy," we mean that we observe a uniform accelerated expansion to the Universe, and in physical cosmology the thing that causes that is a uniform energy density with a sufficiently negative pressure.
The simplest model that fits the data is to have dark energy be what Einstein called a cosmological constant, where the pressure is equal to the negative of the energy density times the speed-of-light squared [ P = – ρ c2 ], and that's still 100% consistent with the best data we have today from all sources. But it could be something more complicated: dark energy could be time dependent, it could have the pressure not satisfy the above equation exactly, it could behave in any way other than this that you can imagine. A large class of the models we can imagine (parametrized by a scalar field, if you care for that detail) are known as quintessence.
They may be fun (for some) toys to play with, but there is so far no evidence to indicate that dark energy requires any more complexity than the simplest explanation: the cosmological constant.
In your opinion, what length of timeframes and advances in technology do you relatively think it’ll take to understand dark energy beyond just observing its effect on the expantion of the universe? -James G.
Is there a known (or suspected by a theory) connection between dark energy and fundemental particles? -Erol Can Akbaba
Is there any plausible experimental handle on dark energy? Any reasonable way, either on the ground, or at least on Solar-system scales, to directly interact with whatever it is? -Michael Kelsey
That depends on whether dark energy is related to a particle or not. If it is, then all it will take is a powerful enough collider to create that particle, and a way to distinguish that missing energy from things like neutrinos.
If dark energy isn't a particle, however -- and since it doesn't appear to interact, clump or cluster the way other particles do -- our prospects are much more pessimistic. Which is to say, I can't even imagine how to do it under those circumstances, given the physics that I currently know.
How does the previous post about a universe being so flat flat flat that there could be trillions of years of expansion enter into this? -Dave Dell
Curvature and energy density are very closely related in cosmology: you measure the expansion rate (which allows you to calculate the Universe's critical density), you measure the energy density, and then you compare those two to determine the curvature. As far as our measurements can tell, the actual average energy density of the Universe -- including dark energy -- is indistinguishable from the critical density, and that's why our Universe's curvature is indistinguishable from flat.
Could Dark Energy be the final stage of light? I learned in High School (provided my memory serves me right) that as light travels and expands it moves further along the spectrum and that the universe is filled with Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Could Dark Energy be that radiation? -Jordan Brooke
I wish that were possible. Radiation -- in this case, in the form of photons -- is generically a massless particle that moves at the speed of light. Unfortunately, it's incredibly well understood, it does contribute to the expansion rate of the Universe, but it slows the expansion down, and has a positive, not a negative pressure. So while it does exist and does contribute to the expansion rate, it is not the cause of dark energy.
On the other hand, dark energy actually causes the radiation to redshift faster than it would in a Universe without dark energy. So in our Universe, the presence of dark energy actually makes the cosmic microwave background radiation less important to the fate of the Universe than a Universe without it!
The reason I have a hard time accepting Dark Energy is because I have no idea what I’m even supposed to be thinking of. As anatman said, it seems like so much “Abra Kadabra!” and poof, an F appears on my physics test. -Donovan, seconded by Jeff
I once had a (very cranky) physicist describe dark energy as "The biggest F U the Universe could have possibly given us." While I don't quite agree, I do sympathize with that point of view. I think of it as a fluid that permeates throughout all of space with a positive energy density and a negative, outward-pushing pressure. That may be dissatisfying, but it's what the math and physics tell us, and at this point, that's the best I've got.
Why is it called, dark ‘energy’? - Jeffrey Boser
The energy part doesn't bother me nearly as much as the "dark" part does. The energy part is because it's an intrinsic energy to space -- the zero-point energy -- that actually has a positive, non-zero value. I would prefer to call it "vacuum energy" because it's the energy intrinsic to empty-space, or the quantum vacuum, but this dudesaid "dark energy" before anyone knew who I was and now everyone calls it that, and most of us hate the name, too. Bummer.
Image credit: retrieved from http://rocketxtreme.wikispaces.com/.
If the universe is accelerating, where is the equal and opposite reaction? -Bobby van Deusen, for his 14-year-old son, Jack
The answer, believe it or not, is "dark energy." The accelerated expansion of the Universe is the reaction, and dark energy is the thing that causes it, does the work on our spacetime and is the action. If the Universe either had dark energy and no acceleration, or had acceleration with no dark energy, then we'd have a problem. But we have one because we have the other, and in fact that's how we know we have dark energy.
Is Dark Energy a fundamental force of nature? -Jon
As far as we can tell, it is not a separate force the way electromagnetism, the weak force, or the strong force is. It is part of the force of gravity, and was even predicted by general relativity originally. Gravity could have existed with zero dark energy, but that doesn't appear to be the Universe we live in. Regardless, it isn't an extra force, just one aspect of General Relativity that happens to exist the way it does.
Sounds like ether to me. -Alan
The big difference, remember, was that ether was a thing that light needed to travel through. With the exception of the expansion rate of the Universe, nothing we can measure would be any different if it weren't for dark energy. While dark energy appears to have one thing in common with the old luminiferous aether -- it permeates all of space, uniformly, everywhere -- it neither has a preferred reference frame nor is it required as a medium for anything to travel through.
At least, as far as we know.
Is this new dark energy being created that is strong enough to overcome gravity attraction between galaxies? -BillK
We live, right now, in either a very interesting or a very disgusting time, depending on your point of view. On one hand, gravity is still working in full-swing, and all masses are gravitationally attracted to all other masses in the Universe. On the other, there is this intrinsic dark energy "pushing" things that are expanding away from one another to accelerate away from one another even faster.
At this point in time, everything that is already gravitationally bound to one another -- including us and our local group, and all the individual galaxies in a large cluster (like Hercules, above) -- will stay that way; dark energy will lose to gravitation on those scales. But on larger scales, those groups and clusters that are not already bound to one another never will become so, and will accelerate away from one another as the Universe continues to expand.
My question is basically why the need for DE? The whole universe can still be homogeneus and isotropic on the largest scale but have fluctuations on small scales. -Sinisa Lazarek
If what we observed as "dark energy" were just a fluctuation -- a result of our observable Universe being a different density than most of the Universe -- we would be about a 10,000-sigma fluctuation away from what we'd normally expect. The probability of that happening is about the same as your odds of playing "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6" and winning the lottery every week in a row for your entire life.
In other words, it's unlikely enough that we don't even consider that as a reasonable possibility.
And finally, one last one...
Why should I care whether Dark Energy exists or whether it’s just an intellectual exercise????? aka ‘What’s in it for me?’ -Norma Parfit
See all those things in the night sky? Everything out beyond the stars in our own galaxy? In a few billion years, we'll merge together with Andromeda, the only other large galaxy in our local group, and our combined, giant elliptical galaxy will eventually gobble up the remaining dwarf galaxies orbiting us, and then all we'll have beyond our own galaxy is this: the intergalactic void.
Because thanks to dark energy, all of this -- every other galaxy, group, cluster, and supercluster of galaxies -- will disappear from our observable Universe. What's in it for you? The opportunity to know the Universe, as it is right now, and as it won't be in a trillion years.
In fact, if humans came on the scene, for the first time, a trillion years from now, we never would have learned about the cosmic microwave background, about distant galaxies, clusters, or have seen a single "spiral nebula" in the night sky. Because dark energy is going to accelerate that all away. Even the Virgo cluster, the closest large collection of galaxies to us, will disappear from view.
And if that doesn't make you care, I don't know what will. Even though I wish we understood its nature better, this is our Universe, full of dark energy, as we know it today. Enjoy it while it lasts, because it only gets lonelier from here!
About the incredibly low odds of dark energy being a local fluctuation: what about the anthropic principle? If some other region of the universe had a wildly different density, what consequences would that have for the prospects of life there?
I'm imagining our observable universe as a dense expanding pimple in the middle of much vaster emptiness (or if that's not a uniform-enough universe for good taste, maybe an expanse of hills and valleys of density). In such a universe, of course we'd be in a dense part because that's the only sort of place we could have evolved.
I guess we're just pretty sure that a lack of dark energy wouldn't make it any harder for life to evolve?
So, on rereading the December 2011 post on dark energy, I found clicked through to the post on Cosmic Variance which notes that energy is not conserved in GR -- instead there is "energy-momentum conservation". I know that in Newtonian physics, energy conservation corresponds to time-translation invariance of the laws of motion by Noether's theorem (not that I'm very familiar with Noether's theorem, but I know *of* it). Is there a similar invariance in GR that corresponds to energy-momentum conservation?
James, that wildly different area would have demonstrated a different density, therefore we have no need to assume it has a similar density to our local area.
It's just without cause otherwise, we have to assume a similar scenario as we observe here would be observed everywhere.
Without that assumption, we could infer no universal laws, only local specifics, and we would not have a clue about the effects that make it appear gravity, for example, depends on mass concentration only. We could only say it depends on that on earth, but on the moon, without an atmosphere, it may not, since we haven't stripped off earths atmosphere to see if that changes things here.
" I think of it as a fluid that permeates throughout all of space with a positive energy density and a negative, outward-pushing pressure."
I appreciate this answer, thanks.
You keep using that diagram were the "23% dark matter" slice is way bigger than a quarter:
Besides, the labeling of the other graph you use is less confusing with regards to "free" and "non-free":
Dark energy permeates the void evenly. So does the Higgs field. Is the Higgs field dark energy? Are ther speculations among physicists, or ideas about how we might determine if Higgs is the dark energy?
Great answers Ethan. Thanks.
Ethan, you say, "dark energy doesn’t only have an energy density: it also has a negative pressure.. that negative pressure pushes outwards on space, it does negative work on the Universe." I think I understand.
Now considering a black hole, it also has an energy density; but if "negative pressure pushes outward on space" then a black holes swallowingness would seem to have a "positive pressure that pulls inward on space" and thus a black hole would do positive work on the universe. Am I misunderstanding, or is this correct?
Assuming my conclusion is correct; is there possibly a cosmic cycle that involves
1) continuous "negative work on the Universe" caused by the vacuum energy (aka Dark energy/cosmological constant)
2) continuous positive work on the Universe caused by the many black holes at the center of galaxies.
3) and since 1) is correct and if 2) is correct; is it possible that 1) and 2) are balance (e.g. according to QM and GR)?
That's the question that crosses my mind. Any responses and insights will be appreciated.
I don't think Ethan is right with
"it also has a negative pressure.. that negative pressure pushes outwards on space, it does negative work on the Universe.”
Because positive pressure pushes outwards on space. And therefore "does negative work on the universe".
It's antigravity, in that it is infinite ranged like gravity or electromagnetism, doesn't have charge dependency like electromagnetism, but is a universally NEGATIVE force, unlike the POSITIVE force of gravity.
Although it seems backwards, Ethan is right. Negative pressure pushes outwards on space. Think of space like a bed sheet pulled tight. Putting a bowling ball on it puts positive pressure on it. Any marbles you dropped on the sheet would accelerate towards the bowling ball in the middle. Dark Energy is a negative pressure that creates a convex curvature so marbles would accelerate towards the edges.
Mathematically, the effect of pressure on curvature is described in the Friedmann equasions.
"Think of space like a bed sheet pulled tight."
No. Why should I?
If I have some parcel of air at high pressure in a container and I relax that container's rigidity so it can expand or contract freely, what happens to the air container? What happens to the air that surrounds it?
The air parcel expands.
This despite there being no negative pressure, only positive.
It is totally understandable, what you're saying about pressure. This is, after all, how pressure affects matter: a high pressure area pushes out against the lower pressure regions, while a low (relatively negative) pressure area pulls in on its surroundings.
But that is now how the Universe's curvature responds. Positive pressure contributes the same way that positive energy density does: more of it means that there's more "stuff" pulling on spacetime, fighting the expansion. Less of it (more negative stuff) means there's a push on spacetime, enhancing the expansion.
In GR, the contribution to the total acceleration is the energy density plus *three times* the pressure (one each for all three spatial dimensions). So overall, dark energy contributes negatively (because +1 -3 = -2), and that's why it causes an overall acceleration, doing negative work on the Universe.
Sorry for the technical explanation.
If you use analogies to describe a subject qualitatively, you must use those analogies consistently.
If you wish to show the Freidman equations that have a negative response to pressure (because it is a potential energy repository and E=mc^2, therefore to redress this hidden potential, the reaction has to be negative on either the explicit energy (kinetic or photon for example) or the implicit energy (binding or potential)), then you must use the friedmann equations with its use of energy inclusion of both explicit and implicit energy.
Positive pressure pushes the surrounds back.
Therefore the use of negative pressure and say that this is used because it pushes back the surrounds is counter to the analogy of pressure.
Really we're talking about the missing energy that an implicit energy store retains.
Dark Energy is implicit energy (we can't withdraw it), but acts to expand the universe (like explicit energy does).
Ethan, I hope that the follow on post helps show why I counter this use.
If you used energy rather than a loaded everyday term like "pressure", then it would be a lot clearer without the conflating baggage.
We're quite used to different forms of energy.
Different forms of pressure? Not so much.
The confusion doesn't exist in the mathematics, but this forum has very few people who could follow the necessary maths, hence using the specific terms that make sense there isn't useful here (I could, with some long lead-in time and a bit of help remembering, get to understand the maths, but I'm basically lazy...)
Where is the dark energy coming from in an expanding universe? It seems to violate the laws of energy conservation. -Richard Latham
I never understood why this would be seen as a more problematic question than the question of how existing space grows into a larger volume of existing space.
The solution is the same of course, as long as locally flat space or dark energy balance or the universe seen as a system convinces us that there is no input of energy required.
If dark energy isn’t a particle, however — and since it doesn’t appear to interact, clump or cluster the way other particles do — our prospects are much more pessimistic. Which is to say, I can’t even imagine how to do it under those circumstances, given the physics that I currently know.
I don't think that is correct. Weinberg gave a very early prediction for the cosmological constant by using anthropic theory. I think that is alive and well, look at Susskind's latest arxiv paper on eternal inflation.
At least as long as the Planck probe results promised later this year haven't sunk eternal inflation...
I would prefer to call it “vacuum energy” because it’s the energy intrinsic to empty-space, or the quantum vacuum, but this dudesaid “dark energy” before anyone knew who I was and now everyone calls it that, and most of us hate the name, too. Bummer.
Yeah, well, the predictions that it is a cosmological constant and that that constant comes out of vacuum energy is auxiliary, no?
But it would have been nice!
If what we observed as “dark energy” were just a fluctuation — a result of our observable Universe being a different density than most of the Universe — we would be about a 10,000-sigma fluctuation away from what we’d normally expect.
Uups! I have to be careful now. Ever since Theobald managed to estimate the probability of a UCA as ~ 10^2000 larger than separate cellular ancestors, I have maintained that is the best observation in all of science and the best we can expect.
Of course, all that builds on combinatorics on speciation phylogenies, which is why I expect it to remain the best observation ever. A direct comparison with a random null hypothesis would be the creationist independent 'poofing' of all species.
Today's species are estimated @ ~ 10 - 100 million. [Global biodiversity, Wikipedia]. I hear fossils predict ~ 99.9 % of all species has gone extinct. So conservatively we have the likelihood for independent species of ~ 2^(10^7*10^3) ~ 10^10^9. On a gaussian approximation of the large binomial distribution the LUCA is ~ 10^4 times as likely as dark energy.
Phew! I feel better now.
@ James MacAulay:
I can't say I understand the cosmology, but a complete lack of vacuum energy would be unlikely AFAIU. I hear that in multiverses/string theory vacuum energy can go all the way down to slightly negative energy, which is an uninhabitable end state of multiverses AFAIK. (No matter, I think.)
I can't say I understand general relativity (this is a theme!), but several energy principles exist in GR AFAIU. I hear there is a lack of global energy principle which would correspond to Noether's energy-time I think, as that derives from a global symmetry as I understand it (no Noether either :-/). The reason redshift violates energy conservation is because you look over cosmological volumes that expand, not a closed system.
I hear at least one of the local energy principles correspond to flat space zero energy. But there is a way to assess global energy by looking at the system behavior of a cosmology, GR and global solutions and all. Then it turns out universes are thermodynamically closed systems with an attractor that asymptotes to zero energy. "One might question the notion that an infinite spacetime filled with matter should have zero energy. The instinctive answer might be that the energy is infinite. However, the open FRW universe dilutes its matter density to an infinite extent and is hence asymptotic to Minkowski spacetime."
["ON THE TOTAL ENERGY OF OPEN FRIEDMANN-ROBERTSON-WALKER UNIVERSES", Faraoni et al, Astrophys. Jour. 2003.]
Of course it is arguable. You can look up "Zero-energy universe" in Wikipedia.
A similar but simpler idea was that the scalar Higgs field could be a field of inflation. Seems it didn't work with the current parameters for the Higgs.
Not a definitive analysis, I'll give you that. =D
"Why dark energy is weird. The top two pictures shows how normal gases behave: in a small volume, the gas is compressed and can support a large weight, while if the gas expands, its pressure decreases. The bottom two pictures show what happens if you could somehow confine dark energy: the smaller the volume, the smaller the pressure, while a large volume has a larger pressure."
In GR, energy have pressure AFAIU i.e. it isn't an analogy as you claim, and Francis goes through some of that too.
I must be tired. The LUCA may be ~10^10^8 times as likely as the DE observation. Well, it is enough that it is "a huge factor".
You may be right there torbjorn, but pressure is used with the "pushes back the surrounding space" which doesn't talk about the effect on the pressure (in your case, increasing) whic DOES support the meme of "negative pressure". But pushing back the surround? Normal positive pressure does that.
Meanwhile, negative gravity WOULD cause everything else to repulse.
Appropriate analogy accorded to appropriate phenomena.
Physics is easily confusing as it is, lets not increase the opportunity for it, hmm?
Hey! Thanks for answering my question!
Ethan, what is the time frame for the Big Rip? I saw your mention of a trillion years, but when I did some Googling I ran across pages asserting that it could happen as little as 60 billion years from now, or even less. Do we have a commonly accepted answer for how far in the future the rip is, and how confident are we of that figure?
Pressure is what it's been called since long before I came on the scene. It predated Einstein and, as far as I know, goes all the way back to Euler. It might not be intuitive because it doesn't behave the same way towards curvature as it does towards matter, but it's the only thing to call it.
That would depend on how different from a cosmological constant it is. Remember I said P = – ρ c^2 for a cosmological constant? We can put a letter, w, in there instead, so that P = w ρ c^2 instead.
If w < -1, we get a big rip. Right now, it's constrained that w = -1.0 +/- about 0.18, and that will continue to improve over time. A trillion years is about as long as it will take for the closest unbound galaxies to disappear completely from our night sky in the case of a cosmological constant, but a Big Rip could, with the current constraints, happen as "early" as about 80 billion years from now.
See the excellent post from astrokatie (linked under my name) for a deeper discussion of the Big Rip and timescales.
Thank you Ethan - very interesting.
I was meaning to ask a question as well - "if DE is adding more space between us and distant galaxies, and a galaxy is said to be 1 billion light years from us, does that mean that the galaxy: (a) was 1b LYs away when the light left it (in which case it is >1b LYs away now); (b) was <1b LYs away when the light left but exactly 1b LYs now; (c) was 1b LYs now such that the light took exactly 1b years in transit; or (d) something altogether?"
Thank you and apologies if this is a dumb question.
Wonderful, informative blog, Ethan. I learned a lot which I like, and I didn't understand bits which I also like 'cause it stretches my brain. :-D
No time now. I have to read carefully what Ethan said and Wow and the missing link. And digest it.
Ethan, thanks for taking the time to answer my question. Much appreciated. Best regards.
Ethan -- In the comments thread that emanated from your December, 2011, post on Dark Energy, you promised us a column "next week" on this question of pressure. Judging by the current thread as well as those in December, it may be time for that column!
Ethan, Wow and Torbjörn
You seem to know what you are talking about. And I admit to my ignorance. I've read what you've said, followed links and done a few searches.
But I have no idea if my question has been answered or ignored by any of you.
Please don't worry about being polite. If my question is stupid just tell me that and why as best you can. If my question is sensible but too difficult to even guess an answer (you know infinities everywhere) then tell no one can answer my question yet but we guess it is worn because of this or that.
So if someone can give me a clue, an imperfect answer; I'd appreciate it.
So let me paraphrase my question and thought process (same idea as above)
1) negative pressure means the universe is inflating (i.e. like a balloon)
2) black holes are kind of deflating (i.e. really sucking) so do they have positive pressure (I think so)
3) There are 170 billion galaxies in the observable universe. so there are a lot of supermassive black holes at the center of each of those galaxies. So that's a lot of real sucking, i.e. deflating, i.e. positive pressure.
So we got a balloon universe being blown up everywhere inflation (i.e.cosmological constant or such) but we got 170 billion black hole leaks in the balloon (i.e. deflating the universe).
So maybe despite the eternal inflation (maybe I use this term incorrectly); maybe the persistent 170 billion black hole positive pressure leaks will leave the universe essentially looking the same in 1 trillion years. Now this is a very dynamic looking the same; and I suppose it may require maybe extra dimensions, curved space (at least in the vicinity of the black hole).
So please tell me why my thinking is wrong or what nonsense would be required for it to be possibly correct; give me an idea. I don't want to argue my point; I want to understand what is wrong or problematic or naive with my thinking.
Teach me something please. thanks.
no physicist, but think you are mixing the two different things, black holes and DE. Black holes suck in matter, they don't suck in space. Yes, they curve space a lot (maybe to singularity), but they don't suck space out of existance. Black holes are not "deflating" the universe. Space is still there.
p.s. if your scenario was the case, then you have to account that everything with mass will "suck in" space.. the Earth, the Sun etc.. Earth and Moon would colapse onto one another, the black holes would suck the space of every galaxy long before we came on the stage... etc..
None of that happened/happens... so...
"Black holes suck in matter"
I know what you mean, but: AAAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!!
Black holes no more suck in matter than the earth does (when asteroids or meteoroids fall in to the earth's gravitational field and smack into the ground...).
Ethan (and for some reason trying to answer on a tablet only ever seemed to click the link, so only answering now), you don't seem to be getting my point.
Pressure, like temperature or entropy or many many other things from classical mechanics are not real things in themselves. No atom has "pressure".
The maths uses this because this is the terms that we can use and measure (or attempt to), as opposed to using more physically real but insanely complex to measure items like velocity and vectors of each atom).
Besides that, your use here:
"it also has a negative pressure with very specific properties. As that negative pressure pushes outwards on space, it does negative work on the Universe"
Positive pressure pushes outwards.
Yours is more correct if you use "pressure" (as opposed to "energy" or "momentum" or "temperature" or similar) in the maths, but for people not into the maths, this is confusing because your assertion of special properties appears to be the property of the non-special version too.
After digging into the maths, you can see why it's genuinely special, but not from what you do there.
sorry for "suck".. gravitate is the appropriate word, but it's what OKThen used in his question/post, so I used it in the same way.
He said: " So that’s a lot of real sucking, i.e. deflating, i.e. positive pressure."
don't get angry instantly :)
I am not trying to argue to win, I'm discussing to learn.
Sinisa, you say, "Black holes are not “deflating” the universe."
Well I'm not sure; not because I am right; but because I don't know. Let me be clear;what I am trying to do here is to understand current theory (I assume some form of inflation or eternal inflation i.e. or e.g. Alan Guth). I am not trying to propose a new theory; so if Wow or Ethan tell me, No, no. My only argument will be can you explain that a little better to an inquisative person. And an imperfect answer especially in laymen's terms) is OK; as well point me to a path of learning that will take me years (e.g. read these 2 books and 10 papers)
So with that disclaimer,
1) "cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation or just inflation is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the EARLY UNIVERSE by a factor of at least 10^78 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density." wiki
2) "dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe... The data confirmed cosmic acceleration up to half of the age of the universe (7 billion years), and constrain its inhomogeneity to 1 part in 10." wiki So, dark energy acts on the current universe; and I will not argue with the data.
Now when we say that "constrain (the universes) inhomogeneity to 1 part in 10"; I think we are refering to the vast expanses of empty space (in particular the voids between galaxies and clusters of galaxies). No one argue that spacetime is homogeneous in the vicinity of matter (i.e. a planet, star or blackhole).
In particular, a black hole curves spacetime too the extreme; but in the opposite manner that the big bang curves spacetime and also in the opposite manner that cosmic inflation (of the early universe) and also in the opposite way that dark energy (e.g. maybe Guth's eternal inflation) continuously curves space time.
So whether I talk in metaphor or in "The maths (that) uses.. more physically real but insanely complex to measure items like velocity and vectors of each atom"; it seems to me that the "velocities and vectors" on each atom and elementary particle and every virtual particle depend upon the location of these various particles.
Now to be sure, in the vastness of cosmic voids, the "velocities and vectors" determined from the movement of galaxies (i.e. redshift data) suggests that spacetime of the universe (as a total) is behaving a certain way (i.e accelerated iexpansion, i.e. dark energy).
But spacetime as a local phenomenon is everywhere flat (i.e. inertial frame of reference/equivalence principle).
But when in dark energy scenario, we say universe is inflating; we are not looking locally and summing over elementary particles, etc everywhere; because we don't know what to do with the infinities (i.e. the infinite spacetime inhomogeneity) inside the event horizon of a black hole.
So I assume current math physics techniques just throw away the spacetime infinities inside a black hole as not significant. I mean what do you do with an energy density (ie.energy momentum tensor) that reaches infinity.
I assume that math physics throws away these supermassive black hole terms with reasoning like this. A galaxy contians 100s of billions of stars; the supermassive black hole has the mass of only 100s of million of stars. Thus throwing away 1/1000 th of the stars should be OK.
But I am asking, "Is it possible that this 1/1000 th of baryonic mass (i.e. supermassive black hole mass) of the universe (in the form of 170 billion supermassive black holes) somehow balance the spacetime general relativity curvature.
Now we know that locally everywhere in the universe (according to general relativity) that spacetime is flat in the local inertial frame of reference (i.e. equivalence principle.
So reframing my question; is local flat GR inertial spacetime indifferent to whether cosmic spacetime inflates; while black hole spacetime deflates. Or if all the local spacetimes are summed from any particular (e.g. Earth or nearby Earth) must all of the spacetime (whatevers energy momentum tensors and such). When all of such quantities are summed over the whole universe including black hole singularities does general relativity say maybe these black hole singularities are infinite leaks in the spacetime balloon that perfectly balance the inflation of the whole baloon. all of this of course done from a particular inertial reference.
And yadda yadda yadda; I understand there are hundreds of possible model universes and all of these make many many assumptions. so I guess my question is what is my question implicitly or explicitly assuming that usually is thought to be unreasonable or completely wrong.
I will say no more, except maybe thank you.
Please give me your best informed wackiest or non wacky thought.
I meant to say, " No one argue that spacetime is inhomogeneous in the vicinity of matter (i.e. a planet, star or blackhole) and extremely inhomogenousinside the event horizon of a black hole".
"don’t get angry instantly"
There's no such thing as instant! The quickest possible event occupies at least the planck time, therefore there is no instantly!
"1) “cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation or just inflation is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the EARLY UNIVERSE by a factor of at least 10^78 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.” wiki"
At this level, it's probably better to call the expansion as driven by the phase change from one type of "space" (one where, for example, photons and matter are bound together) to another (one where, as today, photons travel mostly freely through space, uncoupled).
Like the energy released from a phase change of water to ice. Or steam to water.
That doesn't make it kind of a dark energy, though.
"But spacetime as a local phenomenon is everywhere flat (i.e. inertial frame of reference/equivalence principle)."
Read up on "Mincowski spacetime". Assuming locally flat is a simplification. We have computing and mathematical shortcuts that reduce the need for such simplification.
It's very hard to find a place in the universe that is properly inertial.
"I mean what do you do with an energy density (ie.energy momentum tensor) that reaches infinity."
You change your geometrical measure. I.e. you don't use cartesian geometry on a spherical earth over a scale of 1000miles. You use spherical geometry.
Similarly, if you use time as an imaginary coordinate, you no longer get a big bang, spacetime becomes a sphere. The "North Pole" being the big bang, the "South Pole" a big crunch. But you no longer have infinities.
You'd do the same thing inside a black hole's event horizon.
From an observer in there, you STILL get expansion of spacetime. Hubble constant still makes things retreat, and expansion makes the Hubble constant increase over time. And at some time you get your destination (the centre of the black hole's gravitational well) retreating, since it too is distant from you, and at some distant future, that black hole is beyond the visible horizon, retreating faster than light.
Remember, from the frame of reference of someone inside a black hole, they continue to accelerate toward that centre. And there is still distance to go to get there.
It gets seriously weird.
not arguing of course, we are all here to learn. So this would be my reply. Again, not saying I'm right, just my take on it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but seems to me that there are two parts to your proposal. First is some link between inflation and expansion (DE) and second part deals with curvatures of spacetime.
So as for first part, I don't know if those two (inflation and DE) can be taken as a same thing, or a manifestation of the same force. It might be, but I just don;t know. My educated guess is no. Inflation (at least Gut's) happens "before" what we think of as big bang. In eternal inflation model it produces multiverses and other weird things which are not related to this topic since we are dealing with "our" bubble universe.
In the second part, I think you made one error in reading. I quote you:
" The data confirmed cosmic acceleration up to half of the age of the universe (7 billion years), and constrain its inhomogeneity to 1 part in 10.” wiki So, dark energy acts on the current universe; and I will not argue with the data.
Now when we say that “constrain (the universes) inhomogeneity to 1 part in 10″; I think we are refering to the vast expanses of empty space (in particular the voids between galaxies and clusters of galaxies). No one argue that spacetime is homogeneous in the vicinity of matter (i.e. a planet, star or blackhole)."
Notice in the first part it deals with inhomogeneity of acceleration. And in the second part you seem to talk about inhomogeneity of spacetime and later with curvatures. Those are not the same. First part only says that basically expansion is uniform from our perspective. It doesn't deal with empty space and curvatures. It's not the same thing.
"In particular, a black hole curves spacetime too the extreme; but in the opposite manner that the big bang curves spacetime and also in the opposite manner that cosmic inflation (of the early universe) and also in the opposite way that dark energy (e.g. maybe Guth’s eternal inflation) continuously curves space time."
again.. I think you are trying to put 3 different things under the same force. I don't think this works. In the current "theory" of DE, if we can call it that, yes, the positive curvature that DE imparts to spacetime causes it to expand. But by your rationale, we need to modify GR with a new term that addresses "contraction" of space due to mass imparting it with negative curvature. I am not one of those who says that changing GR is blasphemy. Just pointing out, that if you are correct, GR is not.
But if this was in fact the case, we would have observational data of it. It needn't be black holes. Every mass curves space. We would notice a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Ever so slight but we would notice. Every mass would in addition to curving spacetime also contract it. And like I said before, given the time, every gravitational source would "eat away" at spacetime. I don't see this happening.
the last part..
"Now we know that locally everywhere in the universe (according to general relativity) that spacetime is flat in the local inertial frame of reference (i.e. equivalence principle.
So reframing my question; is local flat GR inertial spacetime indifferent to whether cosmic spacetime inflates;"
I am not sure if you are talking about geometry or topology of local spacetime when you say it's flat. Every mass will curve spacetime in proportion to it's amount. Be it a single atom or a star or a black hole. No exclusions.
Then again you put in inflation in all this. By all theories inflation is not happening any more inside our universe. In eternal inflation model, the inflation is happening, but outside of our bubble universe. Every bubble universe is sort of a "break" in inflation, altough the model allows new universes to be created even inside an existing ones etc.
But my bottom line is whatever model of inflation you take, it's not the same as DE. As far as out bubble universe is conserned inflation stopped 13.8 billion years ago. Acceleration and expansion are happening, but inflation no.
looking forward to your ideas :)
If the universe is expanding yet the molecules in my body stay roughly the same distance apart from each other, then this must mean that the atoms in my body are constantly countering this expansive force just to stay at this same distance? Not sure what my point is.
The point is that if your body was extended over 100,000 light years, you may be able to notice a difference in your entire body size changing.
Over the length of 6ft and 100 years, not so much.
I must say your explanation is makes a lot of sense and cuts right through several of my confused ideas. That's what I wanted; thanks for these insights that are new to me. In my opinion; you've broken my naive idea. Perhaps I see the problem with the pressure analogy. So I've got to learn more; I'll follow your suggestion and focus on understanding Minkowski spacetime.
Your comment "Similarly, if you use time as an imaginary coordinate, you no longer get a big bang, spacetime becomes a sphere." makes sense to me. I need to follow up and understand more before I ask another question.
Yes. So I defer to Wow's explanation.
Thanks and yes I am confused. And I need to reread your thoughts. But I have no more ideas here now. My ideas are learning ideas. When someone like Wow shows me the naivetee of my learning ideas or breaks them; I'm very happy to learn that lesson.
"The point is that if your body was extended over 100,000 light years, you may be able to notice a difference in your entire body size changing."
Would it though? Wouldn't the nuclear forces holding my molecules together ensure that the distance between the atoms remained the same?
the expansion is extremely tiny when viewed from our prespective of size.
the expansion rate is about 74 km/s/megaparsec. And parcec is roughly 3 million light years. and a light year is about 9x10^12 km. So that's 74km/s for every 27x10^18 kilometers. That's so small that when scaled to our body size is incomprehensible. Let alone on atomic scale. The nuclear forces are much much stronger than DE's influence.
Yes it would, chris.
@Wow "Similarly, if you use time as an imaginary coordinate, you no longer get a big bang, spacetime becomes a sphere. The “North Pole” being the big bang, the “South Pole” a big crunch. But you no longer have infinities. You’d do the same thing inside a black hole’s event horizon."
Instead of a big crunch (at the "end of time"), perhaps each of those billions of black holes could behave as a "south pole" of the imaginary time (complex) dimension.
All this talk of 'pressure' being negative or positive had me laughing, sometimes I get into arguments with other pilots about whether if you have a decompression event, do you get sucked out or blown out?
Semantics is fun!
Well, in this case, pressure isn't what is causing the effect. The differing velocities mean that the air inside leaves faster than airreturns.
Pressure is a good concept, but questions like that show that it, too, is an analogy.
Richard, I don't know the maths, but I believe the pshere is a result of a closed universe.
For me, the result was interesting as illustration of how you can re-phrase your questio or model to remove difficult issues.
Let me try to answer your question (which was mine as well).
In my mind, Wow has correctly explained how in spherical co-ordinates (I assume 4-Dimensional with 3-spatial with real numbers and 1-temporal with imaginary numbers) that the big bang is not a singularity (but something similar to a pole on a sphere i.e. a North Pole). Well enough. And in that regard, a big crunch would also be something like a pole on a sphere (i.e. a South Pole).
And to my mind, a black hole in such spherical type coorrdinates would also be like a little-south pole on such a sphere. But as Wow pointed out:
"From an observer in there (inside the event horizon of a black hole), you STILL get expansion of spacetime. Hubble constant still makes things retreat, and expansion makes the Hubble constant increase over time." Ouch, I had misunderstood this important point. What this means:
I think, is that regardless of the little-south-pole ness (i.e. suckiness of a black hole); within the event horizons of these black holes we would still observe the accelerated expansion of our visible universe. So the suckiness (i.e. the deflationaryness, little-south-poleness of a black hole) is a very individual and very local effect. Sooo local that right up to the singularity of a black hole (or in spherical coordinates, right up to the little-south-poleness of a black hole) the universe as observed by measurements of redshifts of visible stars and galaxies is still in a state of accellerated expansion (i.e. inflation); i.e. dark energy is observed. OUCH! OUCH!
That's my understanding of the implication of what Wow explained. So until someone else who understands the math or until I can do the math (well enough) to explain differently; this is the geometric/physical picture that I am stuck with. OUCH!
I don't like it; but that's what the data (and theory of general relativity) tells me; because as Wow correctly points out: Inside the event horizon of a black hole that data would be the same!
OUCH! So much for my idea of popping the inflating balloon of our universe with a 100 billion little black hole singularity deflating pins. Yes they are still pins but they do not change the observed cosmic dynamic of dark energy observation even when viewed inside the event horizon of a black hole.
1) I will not argue with observation/experimental evidence.
2) I've confined my understanding to interpreting general relativity; I am not trying to invent a new theory.
3) sticking with observation and sticking with general relativity; I am stuck with a cosmological constant, dark energy, eternal inflation or something like that.
4) Why OUCH!? Because it's not philosophically what I prefer; but it is scientifically what I must accept based on the data and correctly interpreting general relativity inside the event horizon of a black hole.
Thanks again Wow for popping my idea bubble. I mean if I am going to have an alternative idea; it needs to fit with data and current theory OR it needs to fit with data and a NEW theory or a NEW interpretation of old theory. And I got nothing NEW.
I defer to Wow; when he understands something he explains it well; and when he doesn't, he says he doesn't know.
On with my learning and questioning.
I never really got the hang of matrix operations in maths which meant in a lot of uni science I had to try and make up the marks in understanding better the handy-wavey bits.
Finding the right handy-wavey-words isn't much easier than matrix operations, however.
Ah well. You do the best you can.
There was a typo in option (c) in my earlier posted question which I have corrected here: "if DE is adding more space between us and distant galaxies, and a galaxy is said to be 1 billion light years from us, does that mean that the galaxy: (a) was 1b LYs away when the light left it (in which case it is >1b LYs away now); (b) was <1b LYs away when the light left but exactly 1b LYs now; (c) was 1b LYs now such that the light took exactly 1b years in transit; or (d) something altogether?”
Any thoughts/responses would be most appreciated, and apologies again if this is a dumb question (if it is I am happy for someone to tell me as much....)
Your question is not dumb, far from it. But the answer is not simple, since there are different measures of distance in cosmology.
When you say i.e. that a galaxy is 1 billion years from us, and you want to be really precise, you need to say by which distance you mean it.
There is "proper distance" - meaning that if you froze everything at this moment... how far away is the galaxy, and usually this is the number that's used. But proper distance doesn't take into account the expansion. Meaning in 200 years i.e. that distance will be greater because of expansion.
Then there is comoving distance and also luminosity distance (used to measure the distance to supernovae). There are also other distance measures i.e. angular diameter distance. So the answer to your question lies in what distance measurement is used.
OKThen: any conjecture about what some hypothetical "observer inside the event horizon" of a BH might experience is completely speculative. There are no experimental observations. In fact, there's no possibility that information from "an observer" behind the event horizon could even escape the BH, so most likely we'll never know. Given the incredibly exotic conditions near such "singularities", reality is probably stranger than we *can* imagine! ;-)
Richard, you're still thinking of the black hole as sucking stuff in.
Someone inside the schwartschild radius can communicate to someone outside it. They can't communicate out to infinity. But technically, nothing can either.
Someone further inside can communicate with someone closer to the black hole bot not as far away as the one just inside the horizon could.
And moreover, there's nothing at all to suggest the laws of physics change just becuse you got a bit close to a black hole. The only breakdown you necessarily get will be at the singularity.
Just like in the big bang.
In short, the singularity inside the black hole doesn't start at its event horizon.
And you forget that from the POV of the dude falling in, the situation looks completely unlike the view from outside, in an inertial frame. Turn your view into his. Not the other way round.
Thankyou SInisa! Your reply is much appreciated. I'll do a bit of research on those 'distance' terms you mention.
'....So overall, dark energy contributes negatively (because +1 -3 = -2), and that’s why it causes an overall acceleration, doing negative work on the Universe.'
Negative work? can't be, since W = F.d is similar to a positive expansion.
Only if energy is conserved in this universe (not a bad idea) negative work is a viable option.
A little more explanation about this might be useful here about what I wrote above.
The displacement of the stars, looking at them, is outward in an expanding universe. The work done by the gravitational force is negative.
The work done by Dark Energy is in the same direction as the displacement, so must be considered positive.
Negative work decreases the energy of a system. Dark Energy increases the energy of this universe.
I am a Pure Layman, and Don't do math. However I noticed that in one spot, You say that the Photon, has no mass. And in another You say that gravity works to attract items that have mass.
How can these statements be true? The light,Photons can undergo "Gravitational Lensing " as in the Hubble Deep Field.
If a Photon has mass, could it redshift, and at some point, have a Phase change, making it energy without mass.?
Could this be the source of the "Problem", in the Math?
Also You did great, explaining the Pressure/Negative Pressure, question. Even I understood it.
universe is so small that an intelligent scientist can reach it very fast, that is faster than light or dark energy, almost 99 percentage of the universe filled with energy which human can reach/define in later stage of development. one day the total theory of universe will change and new knowledge of universe appear in the field of knowledge and it is never ending, hope some alien will bring the solution.
I read the article about the fate of the Universe. All ordinary matter like, dust, clouds, comets, asteroids, planets, stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies and radiation from radio waves to gamma rays all constitute 4% of the Universe. The big unseen invisible pro-gravity force, called dark matter that binds clusters of galaxies together constitute 23% of the Universe. Altogether, they constitute 27% of the Cosmos. The visible matter and dark matter are pro gravity forces. But, these are not enough to contract the universe into a Big Crunch. I know for sure, beyond any shaddow of a doubt that the Universe will expand for ever for Trillions of Zillions and Quadrillions of Galactic era, now and for ever because of Dark Energy, the dominant Force in the Infinite Universe. As Dark Energy is a repulsive force, driving the galaxies apart, almost all of them, because 73% of the Universe is the vaccum filled universe of dark energy, the expansion of the Universe for ever is an absolute certainty. The discovery in 1998 of the ever increasing red shift of distant stars and galaxies means that Eternal expansion will happen for ever. I reject out of hand the Big Crunch scenario as there isn't enough matter to halt the expansion of the Lord's Universe. If the dark matter amount was 60%, then it would be enough to crush the universe into a Big Crunch, but the latest research has shown that we are heading for a Big Freeze or Chill of the Universe. In 100 Trillion years from now, the least massive stars, red dwarfs will have burned out. Red dwarfs are 10 thousands of times dimmer than our White yellow Sun and have a surface temperature of a mere 5,500 F instead of 10,895 F for our white yellow Sun. Of course, shiny brilliant supergiant blue stars shine with a temperature of 22,000 F up to 44, 000 F at most.
We have new info to share regarding the Dark Energy Source. Recent observations of Blazars, revealed the mechanism for Dark Energy, ie Photons from the Blazers are being absorbed, in the Gama energy range. It indicates that the two photons can form temporarily, a Matter-Anti-matter pair that repel each other, creating the negative pressure that we have been theorizing about. Check out Discovery's comments on this very subject. I think it is the smoking gun that accounts for the Dark Energy "Problem" it is the"First Glimpse of Moving Starlight" article. I think it is the missing part of the puzzle regards this subject.
My personal, layman's notion of what DE is: It's "anti-gravity" or negative gravity, where the further apart matter is, the more it is repelled from other matter - in inverse of what we know as gravity. This would dictate a "critical distance" at which the effects of gravity would flip from attraction to repulsion. I came upon this idea by comparing gravity to magnetism, which are analogous in various ways.
From my reading. I've come across literature that gives the mass of the proton some X*10^55 mass and at the dia or 27 Fempto meters 2 protons orbit each other at one dia speration.
Anyway Schwartzschild proton model consisted of two balck holes and all the math I saw was basic and very agreeable.
This theory gave me great relief as it explained the universe.
Basically the whole of the universe is made up of the same soup . Here there and everywhere. All connected at once. to the same point.
It explained the "remote viewing" "ancestral memories" and other phenomenon which would have been paranormal psychic rubbish.. now seemingly it is that we are all sharing the same "matter" and the appearance of matter is just the interference pattern of energy events causing disturbances in the "matter / energy soup"..
I postulate that the whole universe as we observe it is just a filtered impression or narrowband translated interpretation caused by our brains, of the bigger picture.
Seems to me that the universe is comprised of a fractal based on planks constant (in this realm) and crosses over to another realm under that size, which is unobservable, totally.Nothing more than a spiral with nodal interference lines at "quanta" points like corpuscles creating matter , waves etc. or the illusion there-of. The "Goldern Spiral" that we see re-produced in nature and the universe every place, is actually the simplest of equations from which all "things" come. Its based on the universal gravitation equation.
Mass / Energy would pop in and out of space seemingly randomly. Yet governed by the simplest rule, repeating for a few billion years, gains complexity, just like a fractal.
I'm starting to see Tesla's vision now with some clarity and Casmiri effect, Hutchinson Effect. All seem to make more sense now.
I'm personally back to once formula and one ingerdient from which all else is made.
CERN etc can keep smashing stuff but they can never get to the size of Plank's Constant. I think we have all considered that Planks Constant is the "Zero" of the infinitesimally small.
If I have a stab at the zero point exploit it would be:
Filter, Polarize, Synchronize, Resonate,Rotate, and Tap.
Which is probably the sound it would make also ! lol
I think that Tesla saw this clearly. Why else would he build rotational machines with resonant coils.
You see at 7.83 Hz (First order of Shumann Resonance) equates to 469 RPM so the "peak of a wave would always strike the outer disk at the same spot giving the potential across the disk of the entire wave. Basically a groovy antenna in resonance due to rotation but only works at these VLF frequencies. Why wrap 9,544,239.27 M of wire to get a 1/4 Wave length ? Not a bad idea ! All he had to do was run the disk at 4*1/7.83 Hz or 1879.2 RPM ! Instant 1/4 wave antenna !
The speed of light at that rotation speed would scribe a virtual straight line to the centre of the disk so that he could just have a disk with radial conductors and a full 1/4 wave impressed from the centre to the edge of the disk.
I'm sorry I can't patent that Idea. It's a doozy in the VLF range.
By making his coils resonate at this 7.83 Hz he could amplify the Shumann resonance greatly to what he called "useful power". As you know he used this method to transmit energy in the wave guide that is the earth / ionosphere. He would flood the cavity with radiant energy and receive it anywhere in the world. Trouble is the polarization changes on skip so the antenna had to be a round toroidal shape.
Are you getting the picture ?
He was kind-of tapping the zero point energy of the solar system but more acrately tapping the solar energy in the shumann cavity, which he gave a little push from the ground to keep it resonating with a higher amplitude.
Brain waves and most biological systems work in this same frequency or very close. SO I'm glad that he did not go ahead with it, or we'd all be nuttier than we already are !
I'm sure that the very little energy that is naturally present in the resonance might provide a feeble source of power but pushing it along as he proposed was just messing up nature to the Nth degree. I think he realized that towards the end.
How do you "statistically deplete" a region ? only by resonance. Resonance and a little push to break the "bonds".
I think Sono-luminescence showed us that.
Sure I'm just a dabbler. It's ok to give me a serve. I'm used to it.
An interesting summary of spatial cosmology, dark Matter, and Dark Energy. Highly skilled scientists look at the hard data, and propose interesting naturalistic theories for the data - (singularities, bubble universes, etc). Those same scientists then brush aside causality with little analysis or apparent concern.
The profound fact is that by all known laws of Physics, the universe cannot have been self-creating. Nothing still comes from nothing, and Quantum Physics offers no satisfactory off ramp for answering the fundamental law of causality.
My final comment may go unnoticed, or cause a flood of negative comments, but here goes...
The hypothesis of causality by infinite, and living mind is just as reasonable as other naturalistic hypotheses given the known laws of physics, and observable data. The universe is simply too complex, with too many uncaused effects to exist without an architect.
Get Ready to Hiss and Boo...I quote from a religious book that many reject, yet millions find compelling.
Romans 1:19-20 (NIV Bible)
"what may be known about God is plain.., because God has made it plain.... 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
I find the God Hypothesis as plausible as what I find in most science discussions.
( And (remember) the Day when We shall roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books, as We began the first creation, We shall repeat it, (it is) a promise binding upon Us. Truly, We shall do it. ) holly Quran .alanbya 104
Get Ready to Hiss and Boo…I quote from a religious book that many reject, yet millions find compelling.
It's a very good thing science is governed by data and research instead of blind obedience to a book written by goat herders and rewritten many times since - we would never had advanced anywhere with the book's writings.
I find the God Hypothesis as plausible as what I find in most science discussions.
Yes, dismissing reality for fiction is always a good way to look at the universe. (Wait, no it isn't.)
The existence of emptiness between the subatomic particles in the atoms in our bodies, is the same as the existence of space volume between two stars, say our own Sun and Alpha Centaur i, and all else. This undefinable, unseen, immeasurable, constant fabric of all Universes, known and unknown, and all neutrinos, quarks, strings, etc. allows all existence to be. Tolle calls it Being, I call it Aha! Once you can grasp its infinity and its purpose, you are one with it, forever. It is the pristine, the purveyor of all possibilities. Be at Peace, knowing that you have a slice of awareness of Presence, let that be your muse as you continue your quest.
Dark Energy can be space itself. All attempts to reduce the dark energy down to some kind of energy, lead to nothing. If dark energy is space time itself. Just read the Biggum Mombo comment.....
I am agree with Rubin Sarmell. Dark energy is nothing but space itself. It may proved from Einstein's equation E= mc^2. I am trying publish my paper on it since 2005. At present this paper is under consideration of a journal (JPAR) but available at researchgate or even any one may search on google using its title- "Energy in form of space may solve the dark energy problem", Author- Arijit Bag. I request every on on this discussion board to read this paper and share your comment with me. I shall be thankful toevery one.
Eminent minds have struggled until Einstein gave us General Relativity at which point science thought we've got it cracked. However, for one hundred years science keeps running into challenges that they have not been able to overcome. Science takes the Big Bang theory and works away from that premiss, Is science missing something.
What would happen if gravity went through a phase reversal, as the earth’s magnetic poles have done so many times, and it may be not out of the question?
The force of gravity holding together all matter would, instead of being a force of attraction, and the best brains still have not come up with an answer for this force, would be one or repulsion.
Let me assume, long before the current universe was formed, that the universe was a dark void, unseen, and timeless containing countless particles and these particles, are which we do not have an understanding for, at this time. These countless particles all repelled each other and sat in equilibrium
The invention of time, a human invention, would not matter as a year, a hundred years, a thousand years, a billion years, a hundred billion years could pass in an instant.
However, change is always taking place and within the dark void a change taking place as one part of the void takes an increasingly higher electro-magnetic charge over that of another part of the void. Such a difference on earth we may see as a corrosion effect were two very close elements generate a current of electricity between them and particles are transferred.
As billions of years pass, in an instant, the electromagnetic charge eventually overcomes the electrical resistance between the higher charge position and the lower charged position and a electrical release takes place to balance the difference in the high and low points. The amount of energy released is beyond comprehension, the vibration accompanying the release also beyond comprehension and the heat in the release is far beyond imagination
In doing so, this release brings about an effect in the particles making each attractive to every other. Gravity is born.
Thereafter, matter slowly gathers to form a gas and the gas then draws itself together until the pressure are almost infinite when the gas compresses to a solid but the matter in the centre remains a liquid. This gathering of gas takes place across the dark void which is where we will come to understand our universe is located.
Let us assume that that event happened 13.5 Billion years ago. The human came into existence a mere fraction of that amount but the human race invented time and then estimated how much time had passed since the release. However, before the human race 13 billion years had passed in an instant as there was no intelligence to determine that it was not an instant.
So, in 2015, for between 125.000 to 60,000 years the “out of Africa” human race has existed on planet Earth years, in which time the Earth has travelled through the void of space and the human race has been fortunate that the earth has not collided with other objects of any size that would destroy our beautiful space ship which we humans call earth or our home. These collision are estimated to take place every 70 million years.
If the particles of which we are all formed also have a shelf life what could that infer Maybe that the only universal measure of time is the speed at which these particles degrade, loose energy, rotational speed declines etc. Maybe, at a certain level of one of these attributes, the gravitational attraction gained during the massive electrical release 13.5 billion years ago reverses to become a force of repulsion and then then our Solar system dissolves , our galaxy dissolves, the universe dissolves and the particles all take up a position of equilibrium to each other.
This is not such a bad outcome as may seem as this infers that the universe forms and dissolves at a regular interval. It means that, possibly, the forming and dissolving has been happening in the past and will happen in the future and possibly into infinity. That may infer an infinite number of times the elements are brought together and, then, it is possible that the same arrangement that formed “you” will form again. However, the reformation will not carry the same DNA or may be it will!!
The force of gravity holding together all matter would, instead of being a force of attraction,..., would be one or repulsion.
Well gravity would be repulsive rather than attractive, but that isn't the force holding together all matter.
and the best brains still have not come up with an answer for this force
This isn't the case and doesn't attach to the elipsis in the above sentence.
one part of the void takes an increasingly higher electro-magnetic charge over that of another part of the void.
And similar charges are repulsive, removing the clumping effect you're presupposing.
the electromagnetic charge eventually overcomes the electrical resistance between the higher charge position and the lower charged position
Go back to remedial classes. Electrical resistance is the retardation of a charge in a solid, not moving through free space.
And it doesn't make any sense either to say "between the higher charge position and the lower charged position".
Indeed all your presupposition has no sense to it. I've put it aside for the moment, but you're supposing this all happens and have absolutely no mechanism for HOW this happens. Try finding an excuse for these phenomena first.
In doing so, this release brings about an effect in the particles making each attractive to every other. Gravity is born.
How? Why? Where the hell is the vibration coming from? Vibration requires a restoring force to a nominal mean. You're just wordsalading sciencey words together in a huge text of absolute codswallop, aren't you?
when the gas compresses to a solid but the matter in the centre remains a liquid.
Nope, matter generally moves to a solid or metallic form under extreme pressures, not a liquid. Even Helium.
The human came into existence a mere fraction of that amount but the human race invented time
If time wasn't invented for 13.7Bn years, how could 13.7Bn years have passed before "time was invented by humans".
Oh, by the way, time wasn't invented by humans.
which these particles degrade, loose energy
LOSE. Not loose.
And more nonsensical wordsalad to go with it.
the gravitational attraction gained during the massive electrical release 13.5 billion years ago reverses to become a force of repulsion and then then our Solar system dissolves
Nope. Gravitational attraction doesn't keep the planet whole. It only keeps the planet in its orbit.
May I say in summing up that I've seldom seen a more tediously fatuous load of codswallop on a science subject since chelle tried to get the aether accepted by showing fluid flow simulations.
Thank you for wasting your time on commenting on my word salad.
The measurement of "Time" is an invention of scholars . Time does not exist. Gravity is not understood. Weak and strong forces are yet to be brought together under physical laws which do not clash.
Have you every thought you may not understand?. I have, and my interest can only be diminished by negative people who wish to think of themselves as the authority
The measurement of “Time” is an invention of scholars
Nope. The year lasted on earth as soon as it started in a settled orbit to traverse around the sun.
Time does not exist.
Yes it does. It's what stops everything happening at once.
Gravity is not understood.
A lot more is understood about it than you think or know.
Weak and strong forces are yet to be brought together under physical laws which do not clash.
No, those two are brought under one physical law. Also you were wibbling on rubbish about the electric forces, not nuclear forces, so why the hell did you bring this irrelevance up???
Have you every thought you may not understand?
Not understand what?
There's lots I don't understand. More I understand poorly. However none of that makes your bollocks earlier anything other than nonsensical rubbish.
Ever thought you really REALLY don't understand anything about physics?
If you really don't care to be on topic and don't care to listen to anyone else, then you need to read this subject and follow the advice therein:
Density of vacuum energy is calculated as E/V = cccc / (8piGrr) where c - light speed, pi = 3.14, G - gravitational constant, r - minimal possible radius of Black Hole. If r = electron radius, then E/V is circa 10(72) J/cubicmeter. If r = Plank dimension, then E/V is circa 10(112) J/cubicmeter.
Dark energy is a special case of vacuum energy. I could propose such analogy: Vacuum Energy is Ocean, Dark Energy is a small welle on surface of this Ocean.
By the way, energy cannot be negative. Energy is only positiv. But, a negative displacement of energy is absolut real thing. When you receive a negative energy in calculations, you have to look out an uncorrectness in psysical sense of your formels. No mathematics! Mathematics will be right. But, physics will be falsch.
I can understand folk trying to explain stuff about the big bang etc... But is everyone trying to solve the bare bones of it all. The black vacuum , stars ,black holes energy. What about the fact that its here and now. If you want to quantify everything whats beyond the quantifying . If stuf has limits whats beyond those limits.
If stuf has limits whats beyond those limits.
Note the predicate: "If". What if there isn't a limit? What if there isn't a "beyond" that limit?
It's here and now because we can only see the here and now. Yes, that's tautological, but it's a fact that you can't get around by proposing a sentcence, putting a question mark at the end, then wondering why nobody can answer it.
Many questions, the best ones, are solved in science with the opposite query. E.g. instead of asking why is a bubble spherical, ask what would happen if it weren't? And answering that question answers your first.
hi there your right univerese has unlimted infant power too the infant222222222222 power and growing too a faster rate then consuption
I awoke from a nap with this question in my mind: Does space permeate matter, or does it displace it? Would it permeate an atomic structure? For example, in an atom, do the singular elements of said atom displace space? Is there space inside a neutron or a proton or an electron? Or do the protons, neutrons, and electrons displace space? If they do displace space, is this why denser elements like gold have more weight than helium? Because gold's atoms are closer together, and therefore have a more "concentrated" area of space occupied by atoms and so displace more space than helium would?
It's pretty close what Terry Pratchett said about space:
It's not big, it's a place to be big IN.
It doesn't permeate matter, nor matter permeate it. It separates matter. Didactically, it is the separation *between* matter. Or any two points in space.
Couple things -- I am skeptical about extrapolating a trillion years into the future from our cosmic observations over the last century. I suspect the next 100 years will reveal great developments that will change everything we think we know about the cosmos.
Second, is it possible that a form of dark energy has already pushed a much greater universe away from our reach -- in other words a universe that we'll never know because its expanded beyond our ability to see?
Energy Universe / Energetic Physics
It is requested that my error and omission may kindly be regarded as English is not my mother tongue.The research of Mr.Ethan is praiseworthy. The three major Religions verify this beautiful vision.I think that the existing universe is the result of the one time of beg bang.It can be considered the limited universe.It is possible,that beg bang over the beg bang can be occurred and thus there may be uncountable universes. That is why that logically there is the unending space beyond the present universe.
Interesting. As per set theory, if there are more Universes - it simple expands the same Universe as this is how it is defined - Universes is not defined. Similar to who made the creator for creationists - whoever made the creator is creator.
Question on matter - Higgs Boson is everywhere. Is there a set of equations which can show how matter is achieved from these Bosons? If no, why not. If yes, what are they - is it possible that all matter in universe is simply density of these particles per unit of space. Which means all we have in the universe is (1) Bosons (2) Gravitational Field (3) Nothing else.
"Universes is not defined."
Yes it is: the plural of universe.
"Similar to who made the creator for creationists – whoever made the creator is creator."
Not similar at all.
"Is there a set of equations which can show how matter is achieved from these Bosons? If no, why not. "
No, because Higgs Boson creates inertial mass, not creates matter.
"The three major Religions verify this beautiful vision."
No they don't. Those three religions get it completely wrong, except to the level of stone age man's ability to observe. IOW fiction from the stone ages.
By the way, you DO know the difference between Sunni and Shia, right? And you DO know that both are in huge difficulties because each is convinced that the other is a fake religion, right, so you'd need to say four religions, right? Oh, and as for protestant/catholic...
Very nice very nice. This is the outstanding research of the noble scholar.He is the praiseworthy as he exposed the facts related to the dark energy. The three major religions verify this outstanding vision.I salute to the honorable researcher.I am sorry that i am airing at the moment.I have read much about this in a book written by the scholar of one religion.But i think this may be beyond of the intellects of the common people.The common sense verify this that the mystical power was hidden in the dark matter.Much can be said about this very nice theme.But due to the ailing i do stop here.I like the pray for all human being who are exist really offspring of God.
"The three major religions verify this outstanding vision."
Only after the fact,though, I notice.
It's as if you were interpreting the religion based on what you currently know, rather than what it revealed en nuevo.
But you'd never do that, would you?
"i do stop here.I like the pray for all human being who are exist really offspring of God."
And I sacrifice a chicken to Satan to ensure that you get nice treatment when you go to hell for apostasy. Yes, that's right: the Jews were right all along.
How do I know?
I'm god. And you know it's true, because god wouldn't lie and I'm not lying, ergo proof.
Hello gentleman at serial 85@87! I am most thankful to you that you did extend my knowledge by the exposing of the facts. I had already confessed my shortcomings that i had never been among the English speakers. I am absolutely disable person. Thank you very much for the sharing of valuable information's.
I have decided that no comments will be sent by me which response is given by the gentleman at serial 85&87 on this page.I suddenly came to know that this is the beyond & beyond of the mind of the common people which appear on this site.
SO YOU REFUSE TO LISTEN TO GOD!!!!!!
Then I punish the earth for your apostasy!!!!!
This year I will make it hotter than ANY YEAR BEFORE! AND YOU WILL LOSE YOUR NEXT PAYRISE. I HAD thought you were holy and listened to god, but now you don't, I will not let you profit from my giving you a job!
Do you know why you are disabled?
BECAUSE YOU DID NOT LISTEN TO ME, GOD!!!!!
PROOF I am god!
Hello! Mr.At serial 90@91.I studied thoroughly your impressions.May be you are mathematician having the outstanding intellect.To recognize you a God is seem wonderful. Suppose i recognized you a God then what will be said about those who recognize every thing is godhead. And it will said about the maximum population of the world who have the different creed and way of life.I have also told about my permanent disability. To great extent i am blind of one eye and also dump. Furthermore i am not the English speaker.Furthermore i am on the extreme of superannuation.Furthermore i do not fall in discussion.This is the work of intellectual people. I like to stop the discussion.
"I like to stop the discussion."
And that is why I made you blind of one eye and also dump.
I have a question hypothetically could dark energy be used as a way to have propulsion for a craft in space.
No, there's nothing new about it as a reactant other than we can't interact with it.
Hard to accelerate the mass and use it in a rocket if we can't interact with it.
Oops. Thought you meant dark matter.
Dark energy: a very very low energy density. The only reason it is so large in total is that, unlike any other form, it's everywhere at that low density, rather than concentrated in discrete lumps.
"Oops. Thought you meant dark matter."
Regardless you fking Idiot everything has it's antithesis.
Which really buggers on Dumb Blokes like you that fail to see it.
Particle/Anti[article God/Atheist The whole Bloody world is full of it.
Thus dark matter.and Dark energy follow the same damn concepts.
Geeez try and keep up.
For FK Sake.
"Regardless you fking Idiot everything has it’s antithesis."
No you moronic godbotherer, not everything does. Opposite of light? It ain't dark you shithead.
And what the fuck does that gobshite have to do with #94? You thought it would be a vehicle to fuck about, didn't you.
" other than we can’t interact with it."
Then how does it contain Galaxies THAT'S INTERACTION...no?
No, that's not interaction.
Please visit Vethathiri Maharishi Model of Universe and Beyond. This can be understandable only by Great saints like Jesus, Prophet Mohamed, Buddha, Maharishi, Ramana Maharishi, Vivekananda etc.
If you tune your mind to Natures frequency , then nature reveals it to you.
Science and Philosophy need to merge to understand it.
Thermodynamics will make moot the universe from a big bang ::
You can’t have friction without a particle
Why Can't Anything Go Faster Than The Speed Of Light?
Quantum Theory: It's Unreal 24:25
Why do half-integer spin particles exhibit Pauli exclusion - that is, why do they refuse to the be in the same state, including the same location in space, at the same time?
:: linked to the above :: What does it mean for two objects to “touch”?
A new philosophical foundation to criticize high energy particle research
What does it mean for two objects to “touch”?
A new philosophical foundation to criticize high energy particle research
Quantum Theory: It's Unreal 24:25
"You can’t have friction without a particle"
Define friction. Precisely. How does it happen and what does it require?
To make your claim, you have to know both the above.
The only unreal thing here is your thought, bondie.
"If you tune your mind to Natures frequency , then nature reveals it to you."
No it doesn't. If you BELIEVE hard enough, or take hallucinogenics, you can THINK you did. But you didn't.
Ask any Napoleon who is living in the nearest mental health hospital.
"This can be understandable only by Great saints like Jesus, Prophet Mohamed, Buddha, Maharishi, Ramana Maharishi, Vivekananda etc."
Since neither you, nor anyone involved in that farcical play are any of those, none of you understand it either.
So how do you know what it says? You can't. It's only understandable by fictional characters like Jesus or Gandalf or Mohammad, etc.
If space is expanding, which would include the space my molecules are taking up, in essence our bodies are expanding relative to the expansion of the universe, could we study the expansion of the universe just by monitoring the expansion of two atoms (or subatomic particles) no matter how miniscule the changing distance? Is the universe expanding uniformly, meaning are my atoms expanding uniformly? Any distortions in the expansion could give us clues to which universe expansion model is more accurate, correct? Instead of looking to the furthest edges of space should we look inwards?
If all interactions create energy or rather transfers energy, then dark matter must be interacting to transfer energy, similar to the water exclusion phenomenon. How is the universe's energy, density, and mass determined? I'm more curious on how the boundaries of the universe, which would be the interactive layer of the universe, fixed. If the universe is fixed as compared to an expanding balloon or a closed system then I'm satisfied with the models. This would assume there are no byproduct and all energy in the universe feeds back into itself. Is the universe considered a closed system7
If dark energy is possibly the energy required to expand the universe, is dark energy the energy source, a byproduct, a catalyst, or decay of another form of energy? Is it interfered by other forms of energy similar to a deconstruction wave cancelling out another wave? Are certain areas of space expanding faster or slower? Would traveling energy over long distance be affected by this expansion force? Would creating space or destroying/collapsing space interact with this expansion force?
What if dark energy merely allows the transfer of energy instead of being the energy missing from the universe expansion? What if a very small energy source was what was expanding the entire universe? Dark energy as a catalyst or medium to exchange energy would explain it's presence across the entire universe. White fat is fluffy and is a less efficient way of storing energy. Brown fat is very dense and converts the inefficient white fat to a more efficient energy. Could dark energy just be doing the same thing? If there is a hidden transfer of energy still unknown to us the question is if the energy transfer is passive or active, meaning is the universe expansion an uphill or downhill slope? Acceleration or deceleration? If the deceleration model is accurate could the deceleration actually be the inverse reaction to another accelerating reaction elsewhere?
"If space is expanding, which would include the space my molecules are taking up, in essence our bodies are expanding relative to the expansion of the universe"
The binding of the atoms is making them contract far faster than the expansion of the universe is making them grow apart.
Things aren't "stuck" in space. They can move around. So space may expand, but the motion anything has still occurs ON that expanded space.
We can only measure differences between phenomena: therefore our opinion about the functioning of the universe is based upon a sensorial concept of reality (scientific equipment is only an extension of our senses). We simply cannot observe everything that is involved with these differences so our concept of reality – formed by empiric science – is incomplete. Thus we are talking about expanding space, while we don’t know what space is and what is the underlying relation between space and matter.
Nevertheless, the most successful theory about reality is the quantum field theory. Unfortunately, modern cosmology doesn’t fit within this theory. Quantum fields cannot expand and these fields cannot be compressed into a singularity. Moreover, rest mass is a local interaction between 2 kinds of quantum fields (scalar field and vector field). Therefore, when space expands by magic, everything will expand too. So modern cosmology is an nice bunch of hypotheses but don’t take it too serious.
"We can only measure differences between phenomena: therefore our opinion about the functioning of the universe is based upon a sensorial concept of reality"
Well. Yes. What else would you be able to use? If you can't sense it, how would you know if it's right? The number of things that can not be sensed include the entire gamut of infinite possibilities that are utterly and completely wrong.
"We simply cannot observe everything that is involved with these differences so our concept of reality – formed by empiric science – is incomplete. "
Well, no. In the strictest sense, yes, incomplete, but not in the way you think it. For we have inductive reasoning to work with too. And verification of the induction is done by a few axioms that state, variously, the simpler explanation with the greatest coverage that can be verified as correct through observation is the correct model.
You know, like the solid object of a brick is a continuous volume of a solid, not the result of the 2D surface structure alone that we can see and touch. Nobody has EVER seen the inside of a brick. or touched the inside of a brick. Only ever the surface. When you break a brick, all you know is you have two new surfaces that you can now touch and see.
INDUCTION infers that there is a continuous 3D volume, not the creation of new 2D surfaces. Because the 3D explanation is simpler and covers more of the observations.
"Therefore, when space expands by magic, everything will expand too. "
Yeah, but it's not by magic, any more than magic makes the sun shine or the brick weigh in your hand. Proclaiming it is magic doesn't make nuclear fusion or the atomic theory of solids "a nice bunch of hypotheses but don't take it too serious".
"This question is a good one: if there’s an intrinsic energy to space, and it’s expanding (and therefore creating more space), aren’t we violating the conservation of energy? The answer is no, because dark energy doesn’t only have an energy density: it also has a negative pressure with very specific properties. As that negative pressure pushes outwards on space, it does negative work on the Universe, and the work it does is exactly equal to the increased mass/energy of whatever patch of space you’re looking at."
Explain how every action, inflation, has an equal and opposite reaction. The basics we need to revert to before coming up with theories. So if it's expanding somewhere it going back onto itself.
Putting patches on infinity so we get a finite answer is completely incorrect.
As science is find out for yourself. Look up Nassim Haramein The Schwarzschild Proton - http://hiup.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/AIP_CP_SProton_Haramein.pdf
"Putting patches on infinity so we get a finite answer is completely incorrect."
Normalistion has worked astoundingly well before in many different fields. Hell, it led to the discovery of antiparticles (specifically the positron).
So, please, proof, if you don't mind.
"Proof plz." - Should you not want to accept that patches were put on infinity and not look it up on your own, lead people to think only one thing. Are you trying to be a "just add water", "intellectual" skeptic?
I thought every physicist accepted the constant applied to achieve a finite answer working with infinity.
"In quantum electrodynamics, which applies quantum
mechanics to the electromagnetic field and its interactions with matter, the equations led to infinite results for the self-energy or mass of the electron. After nearly two decades of effort, this problem was solved after World War II by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman, who shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga for this breakthrough, referred to this sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.”" - http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/tackling-infinity
You read that part where it is "conveniently ignored"? And why? Infinity under the rug? Set yourself up for failure is what it did! A skewed formula gives skewed results. Re-normalization skewed the results as what was observed was change to meet mans finite ideology.
“…present day quantum field theory “gets rid by a renormalization process” of an energy density in the vacuum that would formerly be infinite if not removed by this renormalization.” (Gravitation, p.426)" - http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/04/11/vacuum-energy-proof-free-energy-s…
When you see "limit", think "approaching" - https://www.mathsisfun.com/calculus/limits-infinity.html
"“Proof plz.” – Should you not want to accept that patches were put on infinity "
Yes, I prefer proof to proclamation.
"You read that part where it is “conveniently ignored”? "
Care to explain how that proves your proclamation?
Purposeless sentence, making no sense in light of the follow up:
"Infinity under the rug?"
Maybe you didn't mean to put the question mark there.
And since it isn't literally "under the rug", it must be figurative.
So it doesn't mean what it plainly says, it is allegorical.
Just ripping the phrase out of context is a fallacy and is called "quote mining".
"“…present day quantum field theory “gets rid by a renormalization process” "
Yes, it does.
It's a standard mathematical technique when it come to integrals. It's no more hidden under the rug than the existence of infinity itself.
Did you ever do advanced high school maths yourself?
Oh, and that wakingtimes piece is rubbish.
There is no "infinite energy" in the vacuum energy. It's very VERY definitely limited.
Please take your science from science papers, NOT newage woomancer sites on the internet.
Oh, and mathsisfun is wrong too.
1/infinity is 0.
In some fields of mathematics.
counting to infinity is a process that never ends, therefore "getting to" infinity is impossible.
But it doesn't mean you can't take a shortcut.
Add a series of numbers, each decreasing by a factor of two over the one before.
What's the "last one"?
There is none. Its an infinite series.
What is the sum of all of them?
Twice the first number.
When you, use, conjecture to prove something and even assume, "as it doesn't mean what it plainly says".
I don't think any proof will satisfy you even for this basic. I thought so, an "intellectual" SKEPTIC! (next step is to prove my argument is incorrect, not just say it is.) ("as it doesn't mean what it plainly says".) Quite lame by, out of context or in, it doesn't matter. It's always lame.
Were you related to those from the inquisition keeping the geocentric concept? Don't think I'm attacking you, it's all in the argument of debate. Extremely hypocritical from your end.
You don't know it all, no one does, as you are all over this post. Like it or not, physics doesn't accept infinity, it has to be finite, which is incorrect in any math avoiding what is observed. LIM/x-> ∞. Define LIM.
"Maybe we could say that 1 /∞ = 0, ... but that is a problem too" MATHISFUN
was addressed!!!! YOU DON'T READ!
You demand proof, yet offer none for your argument? You are all over this post. I see why.
Don't bother to answer. I can't learn anything from you as you use fallacy saying I took it out of context. I just posted the quote saying did you read that part and watched you make stuff up, as you knew "it doesn't mean what it plainly says". Some people amaze me.
You need to get your politics out of your science. It doesn't mix!
If you don’t violate his senses, or if you tell him what he already wanted, or expected to hear, no “proof” he will require. Tell him something he doesn’t want to hear, or believe in, and stand back to behold him as he shape shifts into a just-add-water “intellectual” SKEPTIC. The “truth” is nothing more than a popularity contest to this unworthy breed
A CLOSED MINDED PERSON ONLY BELIEVES IN THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION ON LIFE. A VERY OPEN MINDED PERSON WILL TAKE ON BOARD EVERYONE’S THEORY ON LIFE AND DISMISS “NONE”, THEREFOR HAVING A MUCH GREATER CHANCE OF POSSESSING “REAL TRUTH”.
Once you have calmed down and have a science demeanor, there is new science for today's times which explains infinity.
"When you, use, conjecture to prove something and even assume,"
Why, are you typing, like Captain, James T, Kirk?
"next step is to prove my argument is incorrect, not just say it is."
Or look for yourself:
It's not fully fleshed out, but infinity hasn't changed much over the years, so it's pretty complete.
"I can’t learn anything from you"
Because you don't want to learn, just like you didn't want to learn sentence structure at primary?
" as you use fallacy saying I took it out of context"
That's not a fallacy. Taking things out of context is a fallacy (if it fails on the "quote mining" logical fallacy), but saying someone took it out of context isn't a fallacy.
"A CLOSED MINDED PERSON ONLY BELIEVES IN THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION ON LIFE."
Which is 100% what you're doing.
See, for example, "Don’t bother to answer. I can’t learn anything from you".
"A VERY OPEN MINDED PERSON WILL TAKE ON BOARD EVERYONE’S THEORY ON LIFE AND DISMISS “NONE”"
You should have an open mind, but not so far your brain falls out.
Taking every pissant idiot claim as truth is how never to progress in science.
I'm more interested in the metaphysical claim that there is more energy in 1 cubic centimeter of empty space than there is in all the matter in the universe. David Bohm touched on this as did Krishnamurti. It's believed that if you can rid your mind of thought trash, you can see this clearly. Now, go ahead and get your kicks laughing at me and criticizing my comment!
"Now, go ahead and get your kicks laughing at me and criticizing my comment!"
Why bother? You've already trashed that comment and criticised it for us!
Oh, a little pointer for you, proclaiming "If you were smart enough, you'd get it" isn't a good way to promote your ideas, especially when there's no actual substance to understand in the rest of it.
Honestly, you've done nothing than namedrop and go "SMART people would get it just by thinking!", so there's nothing there to understand other than your ego is really out of control.
Well, that and proclaim persecution before it even starts...
sorry WOW, didn't mean to offend all you smart fucks with I Qs of 250.
To a mental midget like yourself, an IQ of 100 seems little different from Maralyn vos Savant.
I didn't mean to offend you by not believing your moronic 5 IQ BS. But it looks like you are raging nonetheless.
November 2, 2015
Jeff: “When you, use, conjecture to prove something and even assume,”
WOW: Why, are you typing, like Captain, James T, Kirk?
YOU LOSE... GIVE UP AND I"M NOT CORRECT EITHER. YOU SERIOUSLY HAVE TO RESORT TO INSULTS TO MAKE YOURSELF FELL BETTER ABOUT HOW WRONG YOU ARE AND HAVE NO CLUE. OTHERWISE, YOU WOULD HAVE STUCK TO THE SUBJECT.
YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT ANYTHING. I ADMIT I'M WRONG ALL THE TIME. DIFFERENCE IS, I TRY NOT TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
Opps, caps were on.
Re-normalization and limit was made for one reason and one reason only. To achieve a finite answer.
DID WE NOT OBSERVE THE MATH WHICH GAVE US THE ANSWER OF INFINITY? YES WE DID! YOU WILL CAN ME A NAME NOW AS CHILD DOES.
DO WE IGNORE THE HONEST MATH?
YES WE HAVE!
Once you can admit to this fact, prove it otherwise, then we can get ahead in the debate of how to make this a better place without drama.
Basically, we all grow up!
I don't see that happening so I am preparing for the worst, economically, socially and I have no clue any more where we are headed as people cant even communicate any more with out Capt. Kirk dreamed up analogies instead of the subject at hand.
"To a mental midget like yourself, an IQ of 100"
You are the man, aren't you?
"WOW: Why, are you typing, like Captain, James T, Kirk?
YOU LOSE… GIVE UP AND I”M NOT CORRECT EITHER."
Why are you typing like HAL now???
And how the hell does that become"you lose" in anything other than insaneland?
"DID WE NOT OBSERVE THE MATH WHICH GAVE US THE ANSWER OF INFINITY?"
"YOU WILL CAN ME A NAME NOW AS CHILD DOES."
Ah, unlike your very adult "YOU LOSE", hmmm? And what is calling you a name proving? Your parents call you Jeff. That's a name. And I never called you any name. So what the hell did this come from other than your persecution complex? Which isn't, ironically, that complex.
"DO WE IGNORE THE HONEST MATH?
YES WE HAVE!"
Speak for yourself, Jeff/HAL.
"I ADMIT I’M WRONG ALL THE TIME"
But start YELLING ON THE INTERNET when someone says you're wrong.... Real adult...
"Once you can admit to this fact, prove it otherwise"
"“To a mental midget like yourself, an IQ of 100”
You are the man, aren’t you?"
watdafuq? Where did THIS come from???
Stop drinking piss and getting annoyed at the world not treating you the way you treat yourself and get over it.
WOW, you remind me of a really intelligent kid I went to school with. Unfortunately, he was also really mean spirited, making fun of everyone that didn't have his intellect. No one liked him and he didn't care that they didn't. Is that your attitude?
Slim, you remind me of a christian kid who thought that just because they said a nice thing that meant they could make up any old shit disrespecting and denigrating them and still be a nice person.
Do you have anything positive to add, or are you even less of a useful and nice person than you think me to be?
Oh, and slim, please stop alternating between calling yourself jeff and calling yourself slim.
I'm not calling myself Jeff. Looks like you have more than one cynical pen pal. By the way I kind of like Jeff as opposed to you. And also, I think we should all start calling you Sheldon Cooper. That's who you remind ME of. So long Sheldon......
seems appropriate except for the intellect part, the talent part and qualifications
intellect is definitely something mr wow lacks:
"December 21, 2015
I’m not calling myself Jeff. "
Then why are you treating comments to Jeff about what Jeff said as if you were the one who said them????
Go on, slimjeff, explain that!
Oh, and do what you can to ignore the stalking psycho I seem to have picked up. They're only pretending to care for you as a vehicle to attack me and spam this site with their crap.
insidious little creep aren't you
Okay Peak Oil, maybe he's not a real intellect but you gotta admit, he reminds us of Sheldon Cooper only meaner. No?
And to Sheldon (WOW) : as for any stalking psychos -to quote an over used saying: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
And back to the real issue that I commented on a long time ago: Since there is way more space than matter, isn't it possible that that empty space is responsible for ALL consciousness? I've heard Buddhist monks- sorry to be a name dropper- and other spiritual people imply that. I don't need a response from Sheldon.
And, hey, I admit I don't have the smarts of all you Sheldons and Leonards but I DO meditate quite a bit and when I focus on the nothingness of the universe, a great peace happens and I truly believe that consciousness creates matter. So, I apologise to WOW if you think my ego is out of control
I say, Slim; just be bloody careful with your creations ! Hmmm, something wrong there. How could you create something out of nothing? Not science.
How would you know, Jeffslim? After all, you didn't actually explain how the confusion between yourselves appears despite you insisting that you're different people (though I note that you haven't said you're different people either, just that you haven't said you're the same...) you cannot provide that explanation.
Odd that you should think that I'm not a great intellect. It's not like you've displayed anything even average in content.
"but I DO meditate quite a bit "
This doesn't mean anything, though. All it means is you've decided to "investigate" imagination rather than try support in any external verifiable reality.
If there is no external proof to point to, how the hell can you indicate your conclusions (if any, though you haven't really managed any conclusions to date) are valid?
All I'd have to do is claim I meditated and found you were wrong. Job done.
effusive little jerk aren't you
Aaaw. So hen you berate me for swearing and insulting, you're really pissed off that you're not being given the sole right.
A moron like you really needs to find a life.
self-deluded little bully aren't you
Yes, you're right PJ. It's not science. It's unexplainable. There are only so many finite words and formulas that humans can spit out. The universe and the nothingness (dark matter as you call it), is so much more vast. The scholars of ancient times were persecuted for suggesting the world was round and orbited a star. Imagine trying to teach a flea to count to 5. Why, only 60 years ago there were canals on Mars and 200 years ago bloodletting was a legitimate practice. I'm not a Christian or Buddhist, or any other religious nut but don't you believe we're not the end result of all that is? I worked for a physicist once and he told me that we were just chemicals that happened to accidentally come together and when we're gone, there is nothing. It's hard to believe when you think about it but I wish it were true.
And to The Peak Oil Poet: Thanks for taking care of WOW for me. He/ She 's really quite annoying. I'd like to visit your country some day. The fjords are really cool.
i had coined the term Malfoyesque to describe mr wow but others have used it for other purposes
sure, welcome to NZ anytime - drop a comment on my blog - and i'll treat you to a beer
i like that name "slim"
and for mr pre-adolescent wow (yes you with the personality disorder)
@ #144, Slim
Are chemicals capable of retaining specific personal memories ? (mitochondrials - [midichlorians for SW fans])
Where do the memories go after death? Seems a waste after a lifetime collecting same.
In the absolute vacuum the atoms strips the became a cosmic
powder ready to reform again to anything according to the heat presure charge and more
they became gig bosson
"I worked for a physicist once and he told me that we were just chemicals that happened to accidentally come together and when we’re gone, there is nothing. It’s hard to believe when you think about it but I wish it were true."
Slim, there is the soul and the body. The body is chemical the Soul is information all about "You".
Keep the two in perspective.
"Yes, you’re right PJ. It’s not science. It’s unexplainable"
And nonsense is, likewise inexplicable. So how do we find out whether it's nonsense or not?
This is the core problem of woomancer.
"The universe and the nothingness (dark matter as you call it)"
So why not call it dark matter, if it's the exact same thing? You need to know how to communicate, and that needs a common language. If you do not wish to use the same language as those you wish to converse with, you need to stop pretending you're trying to talk to anyone to let them learn, but are bloviating to hear yourself talk.
And everyone gets the right to call it complete bollocks.
"I’m not a Christian or Buddhist, or any other religious nut "
The religions have no monopoly over nuts.
"but don’t you believe we’re not the end result of all that is?"
Well, there's zero reason for us to be the last evolved species in the world, never mind the universe, so "Duh.".
"I worked for a physicist once and he told me that we were just chemicals that happened to accidentally come together"
No you didn't, and they didn't.
"and when we’re gone, there is nothing"
Nothing of the thing we call us. Our bits remain.
". It’s hard to believe when you think about it but I wish it were true."
What the fuck is this supposed to say?
"Slim, there is the soul and the body"
Nope, there isn't.
"The body is chemical the Soul is information all about “You”."
What the hell does that mean???
If the soul is formed by what happens to the body, then how does this immaterial thing get changed and imprinted by a material thing? If the soul is not formed by it, why does it inhabit it? Why does it stay there if it is immaterial, why not leave at will?
If your soul is running the body, how does it make it do things, given one is material and one immaterial? If it doesn't make your body do things, what is?
You need to keep reality in mind and the mystic BS in perspective.
Not mystic BS. But I can't agree with you more WOW. There is a consciousness -soul as you call it- and there is form, stuff, including the body and all material stuff that will eventually go away when the universe contracts and another big bang can happen but consciousness, mine, yours, everybody's, is one, not several, and it will survive infinitely to form more STUFF.
And your consciousness -soul- doesn't control your body. Your mind does. If your consciousness can get control of your mind and make it quit thinking so incessantly you would see that.
And why do you say "no you didn't" referring to my comment about working for a physicist? What the fuck do you know about who I worked for. That's like me saying you worked for a transvestite letting him stick you with a dildo for 6 months non stop, which is probably more true than me not working for a scientist and that's why you're such a shit. You're really a hard person to be nice to WOW. I'd like to see you way in the future on the other side so you can eat your words.
By the way WOW Merry Christmas( You know originally it was a Pagan celebration (I'm sure you do, you know everything)).
"Not mystic BS. "
It is, unfortunately. If you can't state the system and process in a concrete way so that others can understand, it's not able to be something other than BS.
And you are stuck at nonsense.
Make some sense.
"And why do you say “no you didn’t” referring to my comment about working for a physicist?"
Because their claim is a lie.
"That’s like me saying ..."
No, not in any way at all.
i once worked for/with a professor of medicine (specialist in nutrition, head of a national nutrition foundation) - i know little of nutrition and not much medicine
i once worked for, all at the same time, a professor of physics, a professor of chemistry and a professor of mathematics
yet, though i had no qualifications whatsoever, they all agreed to follow my lead on an area of research for which i had zero academic background - to the extent that their organisation save some millions of dollars using what i had conceived and which they described as "brilliant" and from which came some studies on the branch of mathematics i had expressed (with no prior knowledge)
i think we had 3 meetings together before i concocted my approach
i could go on but the point is made
and it's not about me (because i really could go on and on and on - including anecdotes about other people i know who did stuff for various professors et al)
it's that calling someone a liar for making a statement simply on your gut feeling and your egotistical judgement of others is a tad, hmm, hasty
no matter how much a person might know, no matter what they might have been good at at some stage of their life, no matter how deep their understanding of some field or other,
we are all ignorant and can have at best only a shadowy glimpse of what "truth" is
so far, from reading a lot of the comments on this blog i have glimpsed just one truth
that mr wow is either a 12 year old with developmental issues or that mr wow is a fading old has-been academic with little to do but hang out here - even on Christmas day (come on, i ask you WHO has no life at all such that they hang out here on Christmas day?)
pretty sad mr wow don't you think?
i'd be interested to read some of your publications mr wow - don't let how much math they might involve bother you - i'm sure i can get another 12 year old to explain it to me
i could go on but the point is made
good point, i forget it's open, in a way (get yee behind me Freud)
to mr wow
"i once worked for/with a professor of medicine "
Aaaand even if this were true, it would be 100% pointless.
"i once worked for, all at the same time, a professor of physics, a professor of chemistry and a professor of mathematics"
Yeah, bullshit and still 100% pointless.
"it’s that calling someone a liar for making a statement simply on your gut feeling "
"I worked with..." isn't a "gut feeling", moron.
"we are all ignorant "
However, if someone bothers to say you are ignorant when you're not the one saying it, you will go apeshit stalker on them...
"i have glimpsed just one truth"
And, weirdly enough, come to the conclusion you wanted to all the time...
must be a lonely lonely life for you mr wow
took the bait, proved at least to me without any doubt
that you're ugly, totally ugly, inside and out
have a happy lonely holiday creep
Geez, POP, you trying to prove empty space has more energy than everything in the universe, combined? You're doing a fine job of it !
I must first confess that my ignorance is only exceeded by my years...that means it's well entrenched. However I find the proposal that "empty" space contains energy quite palatable. In fact, I believe "space" itself, forces, matter and everything else to be forms of energy. For an example, before the big bang there was no distance or volume to be measured, no time, no matter or forces to act on it. Therefore this things must have come from the energy itself and all created through entropy.
The Dark Matter
The dark matters forms hallos around galaxies and do not collapsing to form stars and black hols. So, perhaps it is just space energy with simply weights as mass is equal to energy. Empty space may be more and less energetic. So, more energetic space congregate with galaxies as the dark matter and less energetic forming gigantic bubbles between them. If time flows quicker in empty space, these bubbles accelerate in grow, so one do not need any dark energy for explanation of the acceleration of cosmic expansion. In short it may be just space/time property.
Secrets of the Universe
In the beginning was infinite geometric space. This space became filled with Static Time at absolute rest and absolute cold. Static time is strictly quantitative, and does not differentiate between past, present and future. Being quantifiable and measurable, static time is a scientific concept. Static time of 0.0033 microseconds per meter will be measured regardless of the direction chosen.
Stars move through static time, which does not disrupt their motion. Static time exists but is imperceptible. Static time is the deepest secret of the universe.
Static time fills all infinite space, eliminating the possibility of a vacuum. Static Time Waves (STW) travel through static time. The speed of STW is 300,000 km/second.
Aetzbar in amazon
The Newtonian universe is based on matter and force.
The Einsteinian universe is based on matter and energy.
The Aetzbarian universe is based on static time and energy.
There is no gravity, and there is no gravity waves.
There is Static Time , and there is Static Time Waves. (STW)
There is a particles of Static Time.
Static Time is real and measured.
Everyone knows the Dynamic Time.
It is time to recognize the Static Time.
I have changed my decision o my dears.I may continue the discussion as it may be.Due to non English speakings my errors and omissions may kindly be regarded.I am moderator.The topic is outstanding.To great extent the knowledge will be shared.
I'm a simple guy: instead of "dark energy" or "vacuum energy" can I just say "space repels mass"?
It would have to be fairly weak, and was overcome by deceleration around the Big Bang. Now it is getting stronger. Stars at the edges of galaxies, repulsed by surrounding empty space, stay with the galaxy when conventional physics says they should be flung off.
In what way is that any different, other than being very vague and worthless?
At least dark energy is the appearance of energy from the repellence.
We don't call "Centrifugal force" "Whirling things like to run away". Even if that's the RESULT of the centrifugal force. The former we can assign a predictive formula to, the latter we can't.
Same with your desired nomenclature.
Hence no, we can't, and you can't and remain being thought of as in any way involved in intelligent discourse on the subject.
"In the beginning was infinite geometric space."
"This space became filled with Static Time"
" at absolute rest"
"and absolute cold. "
And it doesn't get any better either.
Perhaps with the coming realization, backed by the hard evidence of lab induced quantum entanglement, the concept of an 'absolute' vacuum' may become a player on the physical stage.
Its imposition upon our mas/energy universe has been discussed back and forth for years, among a group of us. For brevity and to avoid it being confused with 'not-so-empty', we refer to it as 'subspace'.
Briefly, we see subspace a an overlay on the Universe; it has no mass, energy, temperature or time. Under specific circumstances it imposes a gravitational induction upon space.
Anyone who may be interested can join the discussions here:
A vivid scenario that would be a direct result of subspace, can be seen here:
The expression at serial number 171 "Perhaps with the coming realization,backed by the hard deviance of lab induced quantum entanglement.the concept of 'an absolute' vacuum' may become a player on the physical stage."
As we know that time is flexible, measured in nuclear decay. In order to be relative, so space must be, in the cosmos and in the micro-cosmos. Mass isn't constant, it doesn't let us. I think that mass doesn't exists and that they are bubbles that appear at EM fields crossings where the space that the EM field occupied chance to infinity. Calculated for blue light a spike of 10 to the power 24 m/s2. Time wil correct this by creating a bubble at the EM crossing of infinite time. Because it is a different time tempo, we detect it as mass. So, for me, dark energy is space itself and dark matter is time-energy that functions as a lens thru we see the universe. As for the gods, people create them at there convenience and people destroy ME.
Your serenely, Wodan, God of the North.