# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?  (Read 10271 times)

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #25 on: 17/03/2012 06:46:38 »
Mike, it might interest you to read my paper very carefully when you get time.  What it shows you is that if GR is inverted, it naturally gives you attractive gravity up close, and a predictable point where it becomes repulsive, as well as how to quantize space-time via quantum harmonic oscillation modes.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #26 on: 17/03/2012 22:41:43 »
Ive been thinking a little about your idea about matter being a reduction. Maybe you can relate it to indeterminacy. Imagine that first BB, without a point, just that 'energy'. And that energy is a pressure, and a pressure should be a temperature sooner or later. A temperature though needs a 'space' to exist in as it is consisting of the 'energy' of rest mass 'jiggling' and interacting. That would place temperature as a secondary phenomena, with pressure (as we get a 'space' from it) as the first principle.

So pressure, does it need a space? Can you imagine a pressure without? Or does that follow directly from the emergence of a pressure. But 'energy' then, that 'energy' that we expect to exist before that 'space' came to be? And there we can look at QM:s interpretation of the 'vacuum energy' or 'zero point energy'. You can expect it to exist in every 'empty' point of space. A space that is observer defined, not defined as an absolute. And in we have indeterminacy, that something that we extrapolate into outcomes, gaining a arrow in those rare circumstances it express itself. So is 'space' of a earlier order than matter, containing what made matter? It seems so to me?
==

Take 'earlier' with a big pinch of salt here, you can imagine a 'empty space' at least two ways. Assume a Black hole cleaning out a 'space' of all mass. As the BH is a singularity it does not fit the physics we use, our physics end at the event horizon, the rest pure theory, Or you can assume a 'space' with 'gravity' as a result of that 'energy' pressuring on some boundaries. Or, you might assume that 'space' doesn't need a metric (gravity) to exist, even though it to me then becomes a dimension less point. What I mean by 'dimension less point' here is that I expect it to be unmeasurable practically. and what I can't measure isn't 'there' classically, although you theoretically can give it any 'dimensions' you want, excluding the arrow. Also that has to do with how I expect a existing point inside SpaceTime to exist, it should as soon as it is in a arrow be 'four dimensional'.

There are probably more ways.
=

And we have a problem with the arrow here, if I assume a 'empty space' is that enough for a arrow?
Maybe if the space is ? one dimensional, nah, at least two dimensions is needed. One for the arrow, the other for ?? Whatever you want to define it as. Strings, loops etc. Or you include 'gravity' in which case you need a 'four dimensional space', as I do. Maybe you can assume the dimensions to fluctuate at 'different points' though,  remember that distance is a meaningless concept at the origin, meaning that there are different combinations with the one we see being a 'semi stable' four dimensional continuum, including the arrow. But all of them should need the equivalent of a arrow to 'grow', as a guess.

Without the arrow we're back to indeterminacy.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2012 01:43:36 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #27 on: 18/03/2012 00:38:21 »
Hmm, maybe you need to expand on "but that WE are a reduction in mass-energy compared to the vacuum."

Are you questioning E=MC^2, or is it a statement of that, if we could measure on the vacuum properly, that we would find it of a higher 'energy density' than expected. I presumed the second, but thinking again I'm unsure?

"The greatest energy source by far consists of mass itself. This energy, E = mc2, where m = ρV, ρ is the mass per unit volume, V is the volume of the mass itself and c is the speed of light. This energy, however, can be released only by the processes of nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, or the annihilation of some or all of the matter in the volume V by matter-antimatter collisions. Nuclear reactions cannot be realized by chemical reactions such as combustion. Although greater matter densities can be achieved, the density of a neutron star would approximate the most dense system capable of matter-antimatter annihilation possible. A black hole, although denser than a neutron star, doesn't have an equivalent anti-particle form."

Is there any way to test that one? What we know is matter, and there the experiments supports Einsteins definition.

What I can say from my definitions is that indeterminacy, which I prefer, doesn't define any specific 'energy' for any 'point of space', at least not singularly. Using 'virtual particles' as your definition you can state it as there is no limit to their 'energy'. And then the question becomes if there is no limit and I made a observation of all points in a space, would that still be true?

You better define your thoughts there further :)
Also it would be worthwhile to see what definition of 'cosmological constant' you refer too?
Einsteins undefined 'equivalence' or ""By bracketing the expansion history of the universe between today and when the universe was only approximately 380,000 years old, the astronomers were able to place limits on the nature of the dark energy that is causing the expansion to speed up."
==

Rereading you "the total quantized energy of the vacuum" But there is no definition of that one, or is there?

"Canonically, if the field at each point in space is a simple harmonic oscillator, its quantization places a quantum harmonic oscillator at each point. Excitations of the field correspond to the elementary particles of particle physics. Thus, according to the theory, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure and all calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum."

But then you have Lorentz contractions, redefining that 'space', and I would assume time dilations to have an importance for the harmonic oscillators 'oscillations' too. There is no way you can define that universally in Einsteins relativity?  All definitions using 'a clock and ruler' measuring will only have a local importance, as I see it?
==

To clarify my thinking there. all measurements/experiments are done relative the local observer, using his local clock and his local ruler. That invalidates any definition of absolute universe, as long as you don't assume that the 'true measure' of the universe is strictly conceptual, as in expressed through Lorentz transformations. And if using that you will find a 'whole' universe impossibly complex to define, as you will need to Lorentz transform from each 'point' of it to each other point, to finally get some conceptual statistical average. I don't think that is possible. (And that is assuming a static 'still picture', not including the arrow, relative motion and accelerations.)
« Last Edit: 18/03/2012 01:27:14 by yor_on »

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #28 on: 18/03/2012 02:02:04 »
Great questions!

I haven't explored this part quite as in depth, but maybe you can help point out any flaws.  Not questioning at all.

Lets start with the definition of mass-energy in this other sense.  If we perceive mass as , but in the paper for the source of gravitation our perception of mass is
so our perception of energy would have to be

so what I take from this equation is that the entire perceptible energy to us includes not only the mass of the object but the gravitational field it exhibits.

"What I can say from my definitions is that indeterminacy, which I prefer, doesn't define any specific 'energy' for any 'point of space', at least not singularly. Using 'virtual particles' as your definition you can state it as there is no limit to their 'energy'. And then the question becomes if there is no limit and I made a observation of all points in a space, would that still be true?"

This seems to me to get at the heart of renormalization.  I don't see how there could not be a limitation.  If by indeterminacy, you are referring to concepts based on Schrodinger's equation, I would have to bow out of that for now.

As far as I can tell,  the cosmological constant in the original EFE with the curvature tensor G is nothing but an abstract equation.  By itself it has no physical significance, and the cosmological constant is nothing more than the constant in the equation.  However, when the curvature tensor is lined up with the stress-energy tensor, so that then it becomes a very big question of what the cosmological constant represents.  As I see it, it was fine when it originally represented the reference point of empty vacuum, but as Zeldovich realized, empty space isn't exactly empty but his calculations of the energy within it (and which should have affected gravitation) had no relationship to reality (and it is even worse now).  Whether or not there are zero-point energy fluctuations at all points in space-time seems to still be an open question.  If there were, in my view this would just slow the accelerating expansion in the same manner as during the early universe when matter was spread out.

I view the cosmological constant as nothing more than a reference point, whereby we can measure curvature of space-time based on energy differences.

"By bracketing the expansion history of the universe between today and when the universe was only approximately 380,000 years old, the astronomers were able to place limits on the nature of the dark energy that is causing the expansion to speed up."

This is a reference to the accelerating expansion phase we are in.  This would be the logical next option to pursue but I think this needs some more in depth thought on energy conservation in regards to the repulsion.

I am not sure what you mean when you say Einstein's "equivalence".  Do you mean the equivalence principle?  I think we might be able to make some headway into why inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass.

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #29 on: 18/03/2012 02:22:57 »
Sorry, just read this again and see what you mean by indeterminacy. Still not quite sure I follow, but let me put something to you about your energy and pressure analogy.  If the metric is a property of space-time, and the positive energy of space-time has a positive pressure, but in order for any structures to exist within that energy they must be a decrease.  Therefore, those structures would see themselves as having positive energy and positive pressure, but from the point of view of the space-time they are a decrease in energy within that positive pressure.  This would be where the opposing signs come from in the metric.  When velocities increase, energies contents increase, length contractions occur and from the point of view of the universe the energy decrease is getting deeper (as well as my analogy heh).  I am trying to boil some things down to simplicity but could easily run into some logical errors in my thinking.

Ive been thinking a little about your idea about matter being a reduction. Maybe you can relate it to indeterminacy. Imagine that first BB, without a point, just that 'energy'. And that energy is a pressure, and a pressure should be a temperature sooner or later. A temperature though needs a 'space' to exist in as it is consisting of the 'energy' of rest mass 'jiggling' and interacting. That would place temperature as a secondary phenomena, with pressure (as we get a 'space' from it) as the first principle.

So pressure, does it need a space? Can you imagine a pressure without? Or does that follow directly from the emergence of a pressure. But 'energy' then, that 'energy' that we expect to exist before that 'space' came to be? And there we can look at QM:s interpretation of the 'vacuum energy' or 'zero point energy'. You can expect it to exist in every 'empty' point of space. A space that is observer defined, not defined as an absolute. And in we have indeterminacy, that something that we extrapolate into outcomes, gaining a arrow in those rare circumstances it express itself. So is 'space' of a earlier order than matter, containing what made matter? It seems so to me?
==

Take 'earlier' with a big pinch of salt here, you can imagine a 'empty space' at least two ways. Assume a Black hole cleaning out a 'space' of all mass. As the BH is a singularity it does not fit the physics we use, our physics end at the event horizon, the rest pure theory, Or you can assume a 'space' with 'gravity' as a result of that 'energy' pressuring on some boundaries. Or, you might assume that 'space' doesn't need a metric (gravity) to exist, even though it to me then becomes a dimension less point. What I mean by 'dimension less point' here is that I expect it to be unmeasurable practically. and what I can't measure isn't 'there' classically, although you theoretically can give it any 'dimensions' you want, excluding the arrow. Also that has to do with how I expect a existing point inside SpaceTime to exist, it should as soon as it is in a arrow be 'four dimensional'.

There are probably more ways.
=

And we have a problem with the arrow here, if I assume a 'empty space' is that enough for a arrow?
Maybe if the space is ? one dimensional, nah, at least two dimensions is needed. One for the arrow, the other for ?? Whatever you want to define it as. Strings, loops etc. Or you include 'gravity' in which case you need a 'four dimensional space', as I do. Maybe you can assume the dimensions to fluctuate at 'different points' though,  remember that distance is a meaningless concept at the origin, meaning that there are different combinations with the one we see being a 'semi stable' four dimensional continuum, including the arrow. But all of them should need the equivalent of a arrow to 'grow', as a guess.

Without the arrow we're back to indeterminacy.

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #30 on: 18/03/2012 02:58:12 »
This might help to, take a look at around the 20:55 point.  I view those bright virtual particle colors as decreases in energy with respect to the vacuum.

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #31 on: 18/03/2012 03:56:17 »
Here is a thought that might help.  In the equations of general relativity, keep all of the formalism and accuracy but mirror the magnitudes of everything. Then with the cosmological constant rewrite the Newtonian equation.  In any way you view this, the cosmological constant and the Newtonian gradient end up with opposing vectors.  At some radius, the two end up being equal, and in our current view some mysterious force is attributed to the cosmological constant that causes an acceleration in the expansion in addition to no path of how to match this up with quantum field theory.
The vectors in the mirror image though, just show that at the point of when they become equal, the repulsion is no longer reduced enough to keep them from moving apart.  The combined curvature lessens until it becomes equal to the back ground curvature, and nothing to keep them together.

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #32 on: 18/03/2012 04:36:23 »
Another note: I have no idea if the flyby anomaly is related or not, but it is interesting to see the similarities between the precession of the perihelion in the picture here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem_in_general_relativity [nofollow]

and in this video I made with a negative mass ring (represents the repulsive gravity)

I don't have the background to do the calculations that would be needed for the flyby anomaly or the pioneer anomaly (as someone earlier asked, sorry for the late reply).

#### MikeS

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1044
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #33 on: 18/03/2012 05:29:42 »
clip
"A black hole, although denser than a neutron star, doesn't have an equivalent anti-particle form."

Perhaps it does.  A white hole.  Do white holes exist in our Universe?
No we would not expect them to as the Universe is made essentially from matter.
Maybe they did at the start of the Universe.  That would account for quasars.

#### Ęthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 358
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #34 on: 18/03/2012 15:57:53 »
If you are a mathematical physicist, you might be horrified at my lack of formalism, so instead allow me to pose some questions to the readership at large (but feel free to pipe in of course!).  It might be helpful if you are familiar with some simple calculus and vector analysis.  You can find my derivation at http://vixra.org/abs/1203.0025 (arxiv rejected it).

I've only just started reading your paper. At first I glanced the OP quickly and gave you my answer.

#### Ęthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 358
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #35 on: 18/03/2012 16:20:27 »
Ok, I've read some of it. One equation at least so far seems to appear to be wrong.

First of all, your dimensions here are suspicious.

rho = E/V = 1/V sum 1/2 hbar  omega

Does this place use tex?

Anyway, rho is

M/V

You have equalled this to Mc^2/V. Also, what was you motive for moving V outside the summation with a 1 over it? That effectively removed the volume from your equations. For instance, imagine I had

A = partial^2 psi/partial x^2

and B = e^-ikx e^i omega

Thus

A = -sum 2m omega a*(k) B

It is customary to remove the 2m, and by doing this one does

1/2m A = -sum omega a*(k)

Just a quibble so far. I haven't seen that equation before in the context you have given it. the rest of the oscillator equation seems familiar.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #36 on: 18/03/2012 19:56:29 »
Heh, we both seems to 'get of' on thinking :) And when I do it keeps growing and one finds it a he* of a problem to stop before it grows too unruly, to those not being inside my mind seeing how it grew.

Before I forget. Take a look at this one.
Determining dynamical equations is hard. It seems to have such a relevance to my thoughts about 'static and dynamic systems' as Lorentz transforming a 'system'.

And the 'undefined' equivalence I was referring to was the original cosmological constant in where I gather he took the opposite 'force' of what he expected was necessary to stop all mass to fall in on itself. Maybe 'undefined' is wrong there? But as an assumption you don't need the exact value, you just need an 'equivalent' factor keeping the invariant mass and universe 'static', as was his first thought, before the 'expansion'?

But the equivalence principle is GR, so you're right, haven't thought about that one yet, still trying to understand where this might take me :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #37 on: 18/03/2012 20:03:01 »
"I am trying to boil some things down to simplicity but could easily run into some logical errors in my thinking." Nothing wrong in that. If you can make it follow logically in words there's a greater chance that your math has something to say too. As long as we expect the universe to follow a logic of some sort, 'emergence', non-linear or/and linear.

If it doesn't all math can be questioned.
==

Hmm, I wrote "Maybe if the space is ? one dimensional, nah, at least two dimensions is needed. One for the arrow, the other for ?? Whatever you want to define it as. Strings, loops etc."

Why I find it hard to see it as one dimensional is that it 'jiggles', and is under tension. Both tension and jiggling presumes an arrow to do in as I see it, if you don't want the arrow to come out of the very fact that 'tension/jiggling' comes to be?

But that seems to me as me lifting myself by my hair, if you see what I mean? Not logically following, if I don't presume an 'emergence' for both the arrow and the tension. But where would that 'emergence' build up?
In what?

0uch, string theory is hard to follow.
==

There is one possibility more naturally, but then we're back to 'two dimensions', assuming that 'the arrow' and 'time' are two concepts, where the arrow rests in 'time'. That would make 'time' hidden to us, but allowing what we see to be 'one-dimensional'.

( And every time I wonder over that one, I end up wondering about indeterminacy :)
« Last Edit: 18/03/2012 20:24:00 by yor_on »

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #38 on: 18/03/2012 20:53:57 »
Which equation number was this? I want to make sure I can check my notes to see what my motive was.  Use the the word "tex" surrounded by [] to start and "/tex" surrounded by [] to end.

Ok, I've read some of it. One equation at least so far seems to appear to be wrong.

First of all, your dimensions here are suspicious.

rho = E/V = 1/V sum 1/2 hbar  omega

Does this place use tex?

Anyway, rho is

M/V

You have equalled this to Mc^2/V. Also, what was you motive for moving V outside the summation with a 1 over it? That effectively removed the volume from your equations. For instance, imagine I had

A = partial^2 psi/partial x^2

and B = e^-ikx e^i omega

Thus

A = -sum 2m omega a*(k) B

It is customary to remove the 2m, and by doing this one does

1/2m A = -sum omega a*(k)

Just a quibble so far. I haven't seen that equation before in the context you have given it. the rest of the oscillator equation seems familiar.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11978
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #39 on: 18/03/2012 20:58:09 »
I expect this thread to grow organically :)

And yes Mike, I wondered about that too, but??
Lets pick Messengers ideas apart (ahem:) first, and see where it goes :)
==

" If the metric is a property of space-time, and the positive energy of space-time has a positive pressure, but in order for any structures to exist within that energy they must be a decrease.  Therefore, those structures would see themselves as having positive energy and positive pressure, but from the point of view of the space-time they are a decrease in energy within that positive pressure. "

What you are referring to here is the notion in QM that 'space' isn't the lowest state of 'oscillation', as an assumption, Space becoming something of a 'Mexican hat' according to Brian Greene (if I remember right). And you turn it around suggesting that we, to 'space' would contain a lower state of 'energy'? Or maybe I could see it as that this concept would be wrong too, possibly?

But "researchers in quantum optics have created special states of fields in which destructive quantum interference suppresses the vacuum fluctuations. These so-called squeezed vacuum states involve negative energy. More precisely, they are associated with regions of alternating positive and negative energy."

And Negative Energy: From Theory to Lab.  Hmm, rereading this I find some rather far-fetched conclusions, that I won't agree too. Sorry about that, was looking for a online source, describing squeezed states in more detail, but got sloppy.

This one seems more to the point.. But I will see if I can find something more descriptive later.

« Last Edit: 18/03/2012 21:18:38 by yor_on »

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #40 on: 18/03/2012 21:02:15 »
"I am trying to boil some things down to simplicity but could easily run into some logical errors in my thinking." Nothing wrong in that. If you can make it follow logically in words there's a greater chance that your math has something to say too. As long as we expect the universe to follow a logic of some sort, 'emergence', non-linear or/and linear.

If it doesn't all math can be questioned.

Good point.
==

Hmm, I wrote "Maybe if the space is ? one dimensional, nah, at least two dimensions is needed. One for the arrow, the other for ?? Whatever you want to define it as. Strings, loops etc."

Why I find it hard to see it as one dimensional is that it 'jiggles', and is under tension. Both tension and jiggling presumes an arrow to do in as I see it, if you don't want the arrow to come out of the very fact that 'tension/jiggling' comes to be?

But that seems to me as me lifting myself by my hair, if you see what I mean? Not logically following, if I don't presume an 'emergence' for both the arrow and the tension. But where would that 'emergence' build up?
In what?

0uch, string theory is hard to follow.

My eyes glaze over, are you able to follow some of it?
==

There is one possibility more naturally, but then we're back to 'two dimensions', assuming that 'the arrow' and 'time' are two concepts, where the arrow rests in 'time'. That would make 'time' hidden to us, but allowing what we see to be 'one-dimensional'.

( And every time I wonder over that one, I end up wondering about indeterminacy :)

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #41 on: 18/03/2012 21:04:46 »
I expect this thread to grow organically :)

And yes Mike, I wondered about that too, but??
Lets pick Messengers ideas apart (ahem:) first, and see where it goes :)
==

" If the metric is a property of space-time, and the positive energy of space-time has a positive pressure, but in order for any structures to exist within that energy they must be a decrease.  Therefore, those structures would see themselves as having positive energy and positive pressure, but from the point of view of the space-time they are a decrease in energy within that positive pressure. "

What you are referring to here is the notion in QM that 'space' isn't the lowest state of 'oscillation', as an assumption, Space becoming something of a 'Mexican hat' according to Brian Greene (if I remember right).

And you turn it around suggesting that we, to 'space' would contain a lower state of 'energy'?
----
Ah! Nice visual, yes!
---
Or maybe I could see it as that this concept would be wrong too, possibly?

But "researchers in quantum optics have created special states of fields in which destructive quantum interference suppresses the vacuum fluctuations. These so-called squeezed vacuum states involve negative energy. More precisely, they are associated with regions of alternating positive and negative energy."

And Negative Energy: From Theory to Lab. [nofollow]

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #42 on: 18/03/2012 21:15:20 »
Ah, I see, with the quantum harmonic oscillator.  That was an equation from reference [12]
S. E. Rugh and H. Zinkernagel, Studies In History and
Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies In History and
Philosophy of Modern Physics 33, 663 (2002)
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/398/1/cosconstant.pdf [nofollow]
Eq. 6

I was using it as an example of how we might be able to match up the energy density from the harmonic oscillator to the energy density from the metric equation.  I will have to examine it more in depth to make sure I didn't transcribe it incorrectly.  Note that in the reference, I think that there is a typo on the order of magnitude, as I think it showed and I assumed it was actually supposed to read 114, as that was more in line with what I had read elsewhere (looks like it was fixed in this version, think I also looked at the arxiv version).  I think the number is more of a demonstration of how incorrect something must be rather than a precise estimate.

Ok, I've read some of it. One equation at least so far seems to appear to be wrong.

First of all, your dimensions here are suspicious.

rho = E/V = 1/V sum 1/2 hbar  omega

Does this place use tex?

Anyway, rho is

M/V

You have equalled this to Mc^2/V. Also, what was you motive for moving V outside the summation with a 1 over it? That effectively removed the volume from your equations. For instance, imagine I had

A = partial^2 psi/partial x^2

and B = e^-ikx e^i omega

Thus

A = -sum 2m omega a*(k) B

It is customary to remove the 2m, and by doing this one does

1/2m A = -sum omega a*(k)

Just a quibble so far. I haven't seen that equation before in the context you have given it. the rest of the oscillator equation seems familiar.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2012 21:21:18 by Messenger »

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #43 on: 18/03/2012 21:49:43 »
And now that I think of it, I need to fix that reference placement so it is more evident where the equation came from. Woops.

#### Ęthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 358
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #44 on: 19/03/2012 02:00:02 »
Right, I checked the link. It appears to be the sixth equation in your reference. I am still a bit confused, never -- not once have I seen a density be described as

[1]

rather you always see it as

[2]

Which would mean this is not a usual density? Which still doesn't add up... for me at least.  If equation 2 has dimensions of density, then equation 1 cannot? No, is there something I am missing? Am I being stupid here?

#### Ęthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 358
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #45 on: 19/03/2012 02:15:28 »
Ok I have a new criticism. You say that on page 5 that the equation of state has for a single dimension. What you really meant is that accounts for the three dimensions of space? Fair, or did I mix you up. Is this really what you meant?

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #46 on: 19/03/2012 03:28:42 »
Right, I checked the link. It appears to be the sixth equation in your reference. I am still a bit confused, never -- not once have I seen a density be described as

[1]

rather you always see it as

[2]

Which would mean this is not a usual density? Which still doesn't add up... for me at least.  If equation 2 has dimensions of density, then equation 1 cannot? No, is there something I am missing? Am I being stupid here?

Hm, I hadn't looked at that in depth.  Might not be on here for a few days but I will look at that when I get back.

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #47 on: 19/03/2012 03:30:34 »
Ok I have a new criticism. You say that on page 5 that the equation of state has for a single dimension. What you really meant is that accounts for the three dimensions of space? Fair, or did I mix you up. Is this really what you meant?

Yes, I modeled that after the same reason for the 3 in the Friedmann equation for a single dimension, but now looking at it again that should have been , no?

#### Ęthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 358
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #48 on: 19/03/2012 03:58:56 »
Yea, that would read the density expressed in three dimensions.

#### Ęthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 358
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #49 on: 19/03/2012 04:01:30 »
Yea, that would read the density expressed in three dimensions.

Maybe I should add that the equation of state in the Friedmann model has a constant in it. So the full equation is really

then

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #49 on: 19/03/2012 04:01:30 »