Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jsaldea12 on 03/02/2010 08:50:52
-
What causes acceleration of expansion of the universe
It is stated that dark matter and dark energy cause the acceleration of expansion of the universe. But dark matter pertains to fundamental particle, re-always in pair electron and positron, and when these two meet, the tendency is attract and bind, in keeping with law of opposite, , re-like repulse, unlike attract. Thus, instead of expanding, it contracts. Further, in outer space, dark matters are incredibly distant from one another. If dark matter, each particle, is the size of human beings, the distance between two persons would be 1,000 miles away, that no matter how much both shout to another another, they can never be heard, there can never be attraction nor repulsion between particles of dark matter.
Dark energy, if it has heat, can cause expansion but space is almost absolute zero, thus, the tendency is to contract, too.
It could be that the acceleration of expansion of the universe could be caused by something finer, like massless vacuum energy, which is skein of spacetime gravity of Dr. Einstein, which fills up completely all of outer space..but the outward recesses of the universe is more vacuum, thus the tendency is for vacuum energy to flow into the recesses of the universe which is more vacuum, lesser vacuum energy. It is like water seeking its own level.
Or what could account for the detected acceleration of the universe? Note that the more powerful is the astronomical telescope, it can reach farther, see farther, the farther the thicker is spacetime or vacuum energy. Light is not constant as can be seen in water or glass. The presence of spacetime which is simply the whole outer space, could affect speed of light to slow down the farther the distance, to widen wavelength of light waves, thus to become more redshift, giving the impression that the universe is accelerating farther. .that lensing of cluster of galaxies could simply be the presence of spacetime. At that distance, skein of spacetime is bound to thicken as seen from earth.
Jsaldea12
2.3.10
mod edit: Please phrase topic titles as a question. I'v done it for you, cos I'm nice like that !
-
Dark matter and dark energy are theoretical constructs used to explain that which they cannot explain. There is no experimental evidence supporting either. This thread should theoretically be in new theories.
-
Hi jsaldea12 and Ron Hughes,
The standard fare about this is the universe is expanding and it is called Hubble Expansion. One way in which the expansion is usually described is that every single point in space is expanding away from every other point in space like the three dimensional analog to the expansion on the surface of a balloon which is being slowly blown up. What this means is the further things are measured away from us the faster they appear to be moving. In this scheme the average density of matter in space is falling (the mass sequestered in space is roughly constant but the volume is increasing)... so there is less matter to attract back into it's bulk simply because that kind of spacetime is "closed" while still expanding. Naturally due to falling average density in spacetime there is still conservation of momentum so this would mean that the speed of the expansion may continue to speed up. This should not be surprising unless people cannot grasp the concept of a finite yet unbounded universe. just how much it is speeding up is the real question.
On the other hand I do not think that the notion of a "Big Bang" correctly identifies the dynamics at the beginning of time well. It suggests that the universe was created in an actual explosion which would mean that in a freely falling system the matter would expand away in an expanding shell from a single point.... like some of those pictures of supernova. This would leave the center of the universe (whatever that means) hollowed out. Depending on how big the initial "blast" was and how must space the univese occupied initially. The individual particles of this expanding shell will have either an "escape velocity" and so the universe would "expand forever" or not have "escape velocity" and eventually all fall back into the center in a big crunch. This might exist in either a closed or open universe.
Another possibility is that we are on the inside of this expanding hyper-surface not the outside... this would constrict our perspective on things somewhat?
I still think the closed uniformly expanding more or less isotropic universe is more likely while these other alternatives appear not to be the case. Locally though in these models the particles in the universe can produce the situation of universal expansion but not if we were on the surface of a "thin" expanding shell of matter there should be areas we should be able to see in which space appears to contain a large void. There is some experimental support for that model but these theories are only a subset of a much larger number of possible models and as Ron has said there is no positive identification of dark matter or even dark energy at this stage.
I think that it will all turn out to be lesser problem where somebody forgot to account for some simple dynamic and there will be a return to these older ideas rather quickly. It is interesting to speculate what the edge of our Universe might be if there is one. Even if a closed universe we would still be expanding into something... possibly "higher dimensions".
Cheers
-
Why should this topic not be combined with this previous topic?
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=28503.0;topicseen
Thanks,
Geezer (Mod)
-
Dark matter and dark energy do not exist in the way it is conceived in such enormous 94% content of the universe and matter only 4%. If ever both, as conceived of fundamental particles, exist in outer space, both would be stragglers in few number. Why? If both occupy in such volume 96%, outer space would not be TRANSPARENT.
Dark matter and dark energy were conceived to explain the presence, force, and mass of universal gravitational fields that bind galaxies, stars, planets. etc. that whatever is that bind is inadvertently conceived of still fundamental particles, conceived of as dark matter and dark energy. As outer space is 99.9999% space, such mass of dark matter and dark energy is computed to consist 96%, more or less, of the total mass of the universe. Such is computation. Thus, dark matter and dark energy, as most respected, reputable physicists decide, exist. But both do not exist in outer space in such large quantity. If ever both exit, both are sparse.
What super-force and mass could account for the massive gravitational binding of all galaxies, stars, planets. In the universe, if not dark matter and dark energy of fundamental particle concept. What has been earnestly search in modern astronomical telescopes is the presence of spacetime, the skein of spacetime of Dr. Einstein. Dark energy is akin to vacuum energy, although vacumm energy is of finer concept, closest to no-mass spacetime of Dr. Einstein. NO ONE DOUBT THE EXISTENCE OF SPACETIME, that it MADE UP all of outer space and even space in atom (99.999999999999% space). What was detected in lensing of clusters of galaxies, in distant quarks, is the presence of the SKEIN OF SPACETIME. In the great, great, great, distances of galaxies, it is bound to thicken, to reveal itself, such no-mass skein of spacetime. And it did betray,reveals itself in lensing of clusters of galaxies. It is not dark matter nor dark energy in mass form, otherwise, the universe would not be TRANSPARENT.
The possibility that such thickened skein of spacetime covering the great, great distances of galaxies for electro-magnetic light to navigate to earth could be affected is plausible. It could slow light the farther the travel until ultimately light is bound to stop. Thus, from earth, ALL galaxies are made to red shift, the farther the galaxies, the greater the red shift. Light is not exactly constant. It is affected under water, glass, speed of electricity, like like light,DEPEND on power of source of electricity in electrical wiring, light cannot escape black hole, light in outer space, in reality, can be affected in outer space by skein of spacetime..
How gravitational fields bind one another is explained in detail in posted article, “Why gravity is all attraction toward earth?” (The gravity of Newton and the gravity of Dr. Einstein)
Big Bang? Is another long winding topic. But cheers.
Jsaldea12
2.6.10
-
Jsaldea12: You seem to be promoting a new theory here. This is to let you know that we will be moving this topic to the New Theories section of the forum.
Geezer (Moderator)
-
I shall be glad to have comments and/or criticism. This article is very meritorious and highly defensible. It is not dark matter and dark energy, still of fundamental particles concept, that is pushing the universe outward. Dark matter and dark energy, IF EVER they can be detected in outer space, exist sparsely, not consisting of some 96% mass of the universe, otherwise outer space would be dim. What is detected by lensing of clusters of galaxies and quasars is the SKEIN of the undeniable existence of much finer no-mass spacetime of Dr. Einstein. the MAKE-UP of all outer space and even space of atoms. More elaborations,clarifications are in posted articles, "Unified field theory", and "Why gravity is all attraction toward earth.
jsaldea12
2.6.10
-
Hi jsaldea12, Yor_on, Geezer etal,
Now this is in "New Theories" I would like to speculate just a tad about why the idea of dark energy might be explainable using a simple revision of our observations. If the explanation of Dark Energy lies in the concept of the value of the Cosmological Constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant) then for whatever reason the Universe is 'apparently" a lot bigger than it "appears" rather than assuming that this hypothetical pressure is needed to create a stable equilibrium.
The cosmological constant has negative pressure equal to its energy density and so causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate. The reason why a cosmological constant has negative pressure can be seen from classical thermodynamics; Energy must be lost from inside a container to do work on the container. A change in volume dV requires work done equal to a change of energy −p dV, where p is the pressure. But the amount of energy in a box of vacuum energy actually increases when the volume increases (dV is positive), because the energy is equal to ρV, where ρ (rho) is the energy density of the cosmological constant. Therefore, p is negative and, in fact, p = −ρ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant
The "appearance" of the size for the Universe is based on the Hubble Red Shift (http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html) and observations which "calibrates" the continuous expansion to a simple curve (see reference). What if there has been no allowance for propagation times for light back to observers to provide for an accurate "as of this minute" size for our Universe since this size depends on where we think the most distant objects are by "observation" right now. It is the "right now" size of the Universe that provides us with the cosmological constant not the density of matter several billion years ago when this light started on it way to us. The cosmological constant depends roughly on the total mass in the universe divided by it's volume. Both the mass and the volume must be measured at the "same time" to get the density.
It is easy to prove that the fastest an object can "appear" to move directly away from the earth or an observer is only C/2 simply because for any earth based second of time a radially moving object at nearly the speed of light moves nearly one light second further away from the earth every second. This means a light signal from this far point takes almost one extra second to return to earth. In the meantime the object has moved a further light second away. The apparent average speed then is half what it appears to be from observations from earth. Here is a "mud map" of this function plotting the recession of a nearly light speed "rocket" away from the earth and indicating time for light to return to earth (when it is observed at a particular position). It is clear that the "speed" of a outwardly moving object will always appear to be less than C/2 (all other things being equal).
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.optushome.com.au%2Fwalshjj%2FRecession_speed_problem.gif&hash=470584cb2de1500bc182a5f0d72f1a4d)
The evaluation of a velocity (total distance over total time) is two fold... the real velocity which is shown by the upper curve (nearly C) and the observed velocity which is shown by the lower curve (around C/2). Looking horizontally across at the T = 2 observer time. Flashes of light from a near light speed rocket will reach the observer at T = 2 after the rocket has traveled for a total of 4 seconds. Two seconds to travel two light seconds distance and an extra two seconds for that light to return to the observer. The velocity the observer 'apparently" sees is 2/4 C... half the speed of light (approximately). At the actual instant this light signal reaches the observer (T =2) the rocket is actually 4 light seconds away from the observer. The light flashes will take an additional 4 seconds to return to earth... a total of 8 seconds (four seconds to reach that point at nearly the speed of light plus 4 seconds for the light flash to be actually seen by the observer on earth)... still C/2 ... etc. The further out the rocket goes the longer the light signals take to return to base.
The top curve is the 'actual" position of a fast moving object and after 8 seconds it's light takes 8 seconds to return to earth. At the same time on earth only light that was emitted after 4 seconds has had time to return to earth so the apparent velocity appears to be halved to that noted in the upper curve and the object is seen at a distance of only 4 light seconds from earth (roughly). One way to evaluate the overall size of the universe is given by "plotting" all the objects around the universe moving away from us at a speed close to C and their apparent distance according to Hubble.
From this plot you can see this may be what is actually observed... Any additional velocity of recession from C/2 to nearly C must be the result of the parametric expansion of the universe due to frame dragging this "rocket" away from the earth. The expansion on the Universe may actually "drag" distant points away from each other "faster than light" if the distance between two nominated points is so great that the space between them is increasing faster than the time light takes to traverse it. In such cases light is "left behind" over these cosmic distances leading to Rindler Foliations.
Outside of our current Rindler Foliation light from the next foliation can no longer reach us from these distances due simply from the "universal expansion" or frame dragging the most distant points apart. It could look as though this was the most distant part of the Universe... while actually it is only the most distant part of the observable Universe. This means dynamically even the gravitational effect of certain parts of an expanding universe is also "disappeared from our point of view" because gravity also propagates at the finite speed of light... distant stars become more and more red shifted and finally "blink out" as they are dragged across the foliation boundary... taking all their "influence" with them.
Packing Universes In Spacetime (http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-05/7-05.htm)
Putting this another way... Considering the universe as if it were the "two dimensional surface of a big rubber balloon" and the distance between points (as marked on it's surface with a felt pen)... is the shortest distance along the outer surface of the balloon. Also assuming there is no residual velocity such as a rocket might have on this surface. On this rubbery surface of an expanding balloon the points most distant on the balloon (opposite sides) move apart the fastest as it is "blown up" through expansion. Adjacent points hardly move away from each other at all. So this effect is not noticed over short interstellar distances but is far more important over much larger distances since this Hubble Expansion is scale dependent.
Hubble Shift uses the uncorrected Doppler Shift (according to this linked description)... Hubble Red Shift (http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html). This description is patently not enough to determine this outward velocity of frame dragged particles since the "true" velocity does not correct for the "increasing propagation distance" effect that "scale dependent" nearly light speed recession provides. The error in this 'factor" gets more and more serious as the true frame dragging velocity approaches a relative velocity of C. Current position of the actual most distant objects might be as much as twice as distant so therefore appearing to be artificially close. This uncorrected effect would expand the volume of the Universe conservatively at least by a factor of 4 times accounting for the 'Dark Energy" nicely. This is because the Doppler shift depends on only observed velocity not actual velocity. It allows for only a simple upper speed of C for the most rapidly outward moving object (that is just the way Doppler Shift works). Frame dragging is not accounted for in this simple scheme. Any observed additional velocity due to expansion between points would be an additional delay but it is only the observed motion of the source that counts here.
So the simple linear equation v = H x d is inappropriate for very great distances where every point is being frame dragged away from every other point. It might even be a lot more if matter is being dragged across a Rindler Foliation "hollowing out our Universe gravitationally" accelerating the lowering of the overall density even more due to the expansion of matter beyond the Rindler radius effectively removing this material from observation and from acting on a brake on expansion. Now that would lead to an awesome size for the Universe wouldn't it?
-
Hi! You are not a tad.. You deal with dark energy, dark matter, cosmological constant, speed of light!! Looks like a merry mix-up. Please stick to issue, simplify, clarify what is your question in relation to what causes the acceleration of the expansion of the universe?.
Jsaldea12
2.6.10
-
lovely presentation GoodElf.
Some questions.
You wrote
"The cosmological constant depends roughly on the total mass in the universe divided by it's volume. Both the mass and the volume must be measured at the "same time" to get the density."
I expect you, as always, to have your basic facts right :)
That said, do you have any good links to it.
As you state the universes size and the amount of matter is definitely open for speculation.
"It is easy to prove that the fastest an object can "appear" to move directly away from the earth or an observer is only C/2 simply because for any earth based second of time a radially moving object at nearly the speed of light moves nearly one light second further away from the earth every second."
So what you're pointing out is that the light reflected will only show us the position the (light) second before and not its 'real one' at the moment of observation, right? (presumed it was one light second away at the reflection)
Then you write
"Any additional velocity of recession from C/2 to nearly C must be the result of the parametric expansion of the universe due to frame dragging this "rocket" away from the earth. The expansion on the Universe may actually "drag" distant points away from each other "faster than light" if the distance between two nominated points is so great that the space between them is increasing faster than the time light takes to traverse it. In such cases light is "left behind" over these cosmic distances leading to Rindler Foliations. "
Here you will have to explain a little more :)
Frame dragging how?
And how do you see those Rindler Foliations.
As always GE, it's a pleasure reading you.
-
Cosmological constant depends on its infinity mass but not on volume of particles content..matter. Dark matter and dark energy, as conceived as fundamental particles, that pops in and out of outer space, (re-spacetime, same cosmological constant of Dr. Einstein),, are sparse in outer space/ spacetime. Reiterating if both are that voluminous 94% of the entire mass of the universe, outer space would be more dim, but as evidence outer space is transparent proves both do not occupy that much outer space.
Cosmological constant is conceived to have repulsive energy to push the universe to expand, accelerate in expansion of same mass but volume (referring to matter, particles would be more distant from one another, thus it cannot cause attraction nor repulsion..cannot cause expansion of the universe. Cosmological constant is same with spacetime, consists of unbreakable, indivisible, though, intersectable, no-mass make-up of the universe..on which sparse fundamental particles, re-dark matter, dark energy pops in and out sparsely.
Cosmological constant could be more negative vacuum skein in the outer recesses of the universe than than the negative vacuum skein of visible universe, thus, the tendency is for universe, matter, to flow,to drag, to expand to that more vacuum recesses of the of the universe, like water seeking its own level. What could be expanding is matter that started from Big Bang.
Jsaldea12
2.7.1
-
Hi jsaldea12, Yor_on, Ron Hughes, Geezer et al,
Hi! You are not a tad.. You deal with dark energy, dark matter, cosmological constant, speed of light!! Looks like a merry mix-up. Please stick to issue, simplify, clarify what is your question in relation to what causes the acceleration of the expansion of the universe?.
You need all those things for an explanation. There is a limit to how much things can be simplified especially in Physics. The question "What causes acceleration of expansion of the universe ?" is similar to another question in the Forum... the question "Why does "dark energy" push things apart?" which is in another section. The Expansion of the Universe and it's causes cannot be covered by simply addressing the conventional explanation for the phenomenon since the expansion of the universe is "mostly" due to the "unexplained Dark Energy" which is nearly 3/4 of the total. Since this question is now in a speculative category it is appropriate to discuss the issue here.
Cosmological constant depends on its infinity mass but not on volume of particles content..matter. Dark matter and dark energy, as conceived as fundamental particles, that pops in and out of outer space, (re-spacetime, same cosmological constant of Dr. Einstein),, are sparse in outer space/ spacetime. Reiterating if both are that voluminous 94% of the entire mass of the universe, outer space would be more dim, but as evidence outer space is transparent proves both do not occupy that much outer space.]Cosmological constant depends on its infinity mass but not on volume of particles content..matter. Dark matter and dark energy, as conceived as fundamental particles, that pops in and out of outer space, (re-spacetime, same cosmological constant of Dr. Einstein),, are sparse in outer space/ spacetime. Reiterating if both are that voluminous 94% of the entire mass of the universe, outer space would be more dim, but as evidence outer space is transparent proves both do not occupy that much outer space.
The link to the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant) used in my last post states that the Cosmological Constant relates to the energy density of space. Certainly it was in an article on "Dark Energy" but that is just what we need here. A more simple understanding of this "could be" the mass density of the universe which is the total mass divided by the total volume assuming the mass contains the bulk of the energy in the Universe (a figure which should be roughly the same everywhere if the "sampling" is big enough). The actual value of the Cosmological Constant may be made attractive or repulsive or even zero according to "Einstein's Biggest Mistake".
As far as I know Dark Energy and Dark Mass are nothing but simple ways to express the problem and any candidates for these "properties" have not been identified so that is a speculation right now. My "speculation" is these properties are already accounted for because Cosmologists have not accounted for a "timely" accounting for this "mass or energy density".
"The cosmological constant depends roughly on the total mass in the universe divided by it's volume. Both the mass and the volume must be measured at the "same time" to get the density."
I expect you, as always, to have your basic facts right :)
That said, do you have any good links to it.
As you state the universes size and the amount of matter is definitely open for speculation.
It follows from the speculation that mass density and energy density relates to the Cosmological Constant linked previously and noted above. It is not the same as the Cosmological Constant ... just related to it.. a proportionality factor. Since these figures are unknown in an absolute sense I simply state this relationship to assist my "speculative" argument.
"It is easy to prove that the fastest an object can "appear" to move directly away from the earth or an observer is only C/2 simply because for any earth based second of time a radially moving object at nearly the speed of light moves nearly one light second further away from the earth every second."
So what you're pointing out is that the light reflected will only show us the position the (light) second before and not its 'real one' at the moment of observation, right? (presumed it was one light second away at the reflection)
Yep! That is it... if it was a rocket moving at almost the speed of light directly away from the earth that is what you would note... a maximum velocity of recession of only C/2. These coordinates are earth coordinates of time and space... Relativity is not needed when you measure all things in the one coordinate system. If a flash was emitted by the rocket traveling at almost the speed of light... 10 earth seconds from Earth... an Earth observer will note the rocket will "visibly" be seen on Earth at that position after 20 seconds (10 light seconds distant plus 10 seconds for light to travel back to earth a total of 20 seconds). At exactly that same time when this flash is received (seen on Earth) the rocket will actually be at a position of 20 light seconds from Earth since that is how much further the rocket would have moved in the time after it emitted that flash when it was 10 light seconds from earth. Whatever distance a rocket is directly away from the earth... and as long as it is traveling at nearly the speed of light... it will be "seen" at half the distance it is actually currently at making it's apparent velocity only C/2. Since this is a 'visible" effect Observers on earth will see a Doppler Effect equivalent to only a speed of roughly C/2 not one for C This is not entirely Relativity (ignoring the Doppler Shift) and is mostly a property of the speed of propagation of light "back to base" from successive positions where a 'flash" was emitted.
"Any additional velocity of recession from C/2 to nearly C must be the result of the parametric expansion of the universe due to frame dragging this "rocket" away from the earth
Clearly since the maximum Doppler shift noted in the flash emitted by the rocket back to earth can only be seen to give a maximum apparent velocity of C/2 then since there are many very distant objects with recession velocities that give a "visible" result of nearly C this difference ( C - C/2) must be due to the overall expansion of the Universe which is additional to any "proper motion" of the rocket through the body of the universe.
The expansion on the Universe may actually "drag" distant points away from each other "faster than light" if the distance between two nominated points is so great that the space between them is increasing faster than the time light takes to traverse it. In such cases light is "left behind" over these cosmic distances leading to Rindler Foliations.
Here you will have to explain a little more :)
Frame dragging how?
All freely falling bodies in the universe are in "inertial frames". This is despite the fact that all bodies are accelerating away from all other bodies (on average) an acceleration dependent on separation. This acceleration is due to "frame dragging" in an analogous way to the way points on the surface of a balloon "appear" to accelerate away from each other simply due to "universal expansion" of the balloon being inflated uniformly... Bodies in space are accelerating away from all other points in space while all of them still being in "free fall". This acceleration roughly retains the relative directions of bodies in space while "expanding the space" they are embedded in. Hubbles Law as linked previously (http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html) states a entirely linear relationship of distance vs velocity of recession.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstarchild.gsfc.nasa.gov%2FImages%2FStarChild%2Fquestions%2Fhubble_31data.gif&hash=27084151502a67cc252c0da9cb40dae8)
The velocity of a galaxy could be expressed mathematically as
v = H x d
where v is the galaxy's radial outward velocity, d is the galaxy's distance from Earth, and H is the constant of proportionality called the Hubble constant.
What I am saying is this factor "d" is "off" by a tad and it should be larger "correcting" the spatial density factor for the Cosmological Constant. This has the benefit of retaining the original conclusions by providing a dropping mass density for "space" that we can "see" within our universe. As this density factor falls due to some of this outer matter falling into the next Rindler Foliation the outward radial component of velocity of any residual mass will increase providing the noted additional acceleration as the Universe ages. This woould be similar to an effect that might occur if the mass of the earth was continuously reducing somehow over time the moon would eventually escape from earth orbit because of conservation of momentum.
And how do you see those Rindler Foliations.
Well I suppose you can't actually "see" them but you would note the things we are noting about our Universe right now... a "sudden" increasing outward "pressure" increasing the former acceleration on all objects away from all other objects since a point in time when some of our once "local matter" in the universe reached the first Rindler foliation and "popped out of existence" from our point of view both optically and gravitationally. That was referenced in the link here... Rindler Foliations (http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-05/7-05.htm).
I can't help but put the quote from Mathpages here...
All experience is an arch wherethrough
Gleams that untraveled world whose margin fades
Forever and forever when I move.
Tennyson, 1842
It has always been a pleasure to discuss things with you too yor_on... and also everyone here. Remember... this is simply a speculation.
Cheers
-
There was a time when lensing of clusters of galaxies was claimed it was the skein of spacetime that was detected. Now it is claimed it is dark matter and dark energy .The defect is that it is conceived as fundamental particles. Think if the entire universe is 96% dark matter and dark energy, will the universe be transparent. Will we be able to see distant galaxies and quasars? As long as the concept of dark matter and dark energy is conceived fundamental particles, in these great, great, great distances of galaxies and quasars, it is bound to dim the universe, I doubt if light will be able to ;ass through, just like London fog, some 100 years ago. No one can deny that the spacetime of Dr. Einstein exists, that even on earth orbit, it was claimed that skein of spacetime was observed dragged.
Reiterating, the dark matter and dark energy was conceived of to explain what is that force, there must be enormous mass that holds, locks the super-speed rotations of stars around galaxies, for at such super-speed orbit of stars (some 1,000,000 miles per/sec.), the stars orbiting the galaxies should fly off, and not orbit the galaxies. Thus, based on computation, considering further that space is 99.999% of the universe, such force must have mass of 96%, plus. Now what really causes that super-super force that locks billions of stars to orbit galaxies. Computing, it cannot be due to gravity? But the truth is it is the skien of spacetime of Dr. Einstein that permeates all of outer space that is being stretched unbreakably by such super-super force...Unless we accept that spacetime has positive and negative property that can turned into electro-magnetism, then, we will never arrived, will not account where that supper-super strong force that hold stars came into being. Such force is now suspected as dark matter and dark energy. Have you notice when your hand is electrocuted, how difficult is it to let hold your hand. Something is gripping, pulling your hand tight, it is because your hand has electro-magnetic property and exposed electrical wire has equal electro-magnetism. In outer space, the spacetime of Dr. Einstein, has inherent magnetic property (Dr. Einstein revived ether and said that it is impossible to conceive of space without ether on which light propagates. Dr. Einstein should have added it has magnetic and electro-magnetic property., just as he conceived of black hole.) that can turned into electro-magnetism by the MOTION, THE SUPER-ORBIT, thus, the faster the motion of orbits of stars around galaxies, the stronger is the attraction gravity of Newton, binding positive to negative of stars to mother galaxy.
I am inclined to believe that Big Bang, a proton-sized, was matter in biggest explosion/inflation, whichever. Without convass, there can be no painting, thus, without spacetime, there can be no space for matters, originating from Big Bang, to occupy.. Spacetime was emanated ahead of Big Bang., of matter. Even in intuitional religion, heaven was created ahead of matter. ..that outer space which is not perfect void, all physicists like us, agree.
Light is visible from its source and object it comes in contact with…thus, galaxies are seen but in between in outer space, it is black. (when speaking of transparent universe, we are referring to visibility of non-twinkling galaxies, stars, inspite of distances, Thus, we can see galaxies, quasars, and everything around us in earth wherever light falls but in-between, especially in outer space, light in-between is INVISIBLE. Why. Because light is super-thin, 1/160,000 miles, per sec.. Unlike on earth, light hits at 186,000 miles LENGTH per sec. is CONCENTRATED, thus it is visible. But though light, emanating from galaxy, travels millions, billions of light years to reach earth, that by the time light reaches earth, the moving galaxy is not there anymore. What we see actually is IMAGE of source of light of galaxy, not the source, itself, the truth is, everything that we see are images of source of light, not the source itself, Chances, subject to the curvatures of outer space, the lighted image of galaxy that is seen is there in the original position where light emanated from source galaxy.
Jsaldea12
2.7.10 .
-
Kindly permit to elaborate: Why the night is dark when it should have been bright considering some 13 billion galaxies in the visible universe ? That anywhere one points a finger in the sky, there is a galaxy, a star, not to mention, planets thereat, thus, the night should have been bright. The main explanation given is because light cannot reach us because it is moving outward at such tremendous speed closest to speed of light that light does not reach us at all. But galaxies can be seen through astronomical telescope, meaning it reaches us. Here is, perhaps, another plausible explanation: Light speeds through outer space at such terrific speed of 186,000 miles/sec, invisibly as there is no particles, nothing in outer space for light to come in contact with!! The reason why light is visible on earth is because 186,000 miles length of concentrated light hits earth per/sec., thus such impact on surface of earth makes it visible. Reiterating, light is visible from its source and the object it comes in contact with, but in-between like in outer space, light travels like no-mass, it is invisible. If there are dark matter and dark energy at such enormous quantity in outer space 96%?, light would have collided with it and night would have been made bright..
Jsaldea12
2.7.10
-
You know GE, sometimes it's almost like poetry :)
"All freely falling bodies in the universe are in "inertial frames". This is despite the fact that all bodies are accelerating away from all other bodies (on average) an acceleration dependent on separation."
I love it, it's a perfect description of uniformly moving 'inertial frames' and the 'acceleration away' we observe is then the 'expansion' coming into play. I thought of it in a somewhat similar way also as they (heavenly objects) being truly 'inertial' relative the 'expansion', assuming that that 'expansion' would be equally in all points in 'space' surrounding them. As a general factor that is, I'm still not sure how this expansion is thought to 'work' though? Through dark energy according to some, and only in 'outer space' according to others?
Wish I knew.
Jsaldea you wrote "Without canvass, there can be no painting" not a bad idea.
But if you look at the idea of 'emergence' then just as water can become ice and gain totally new properties, SpaceTime too might have that ability. If it has the real problem, as I see it, will be how to back track SpaceTime to the 'place and time' (sort of, but not really:) where those properties 'manifested. And if we assume that SpaceTime has a fractal behavior then its iterations won't be possible to backtrack, at least not in a 'linear' manner.
===
Rereading myself. I should clarify that one. We have an arrow of time, no matter its 'plasticity' it won't point 'backwards' macroscopically. And that you might call a sort of 'linearity' generally speaking. But assuming that we had a Big Bang, then that might be what I would call an 'Emergence' of SpaceTime with its specific 3D + times arrow symmetry, well, loosely speaking that is. As for why I think it's a symmetry CPT violations notwithstanding? It's my own idea assuming that there is only a part of the 'system' possible for us to observe, the other one, half whatever, I suspect to be a 'hidden parameter'. But this is just my view, ready to change at a instant if you show me some experimental proof :)
Another part of why I think so is because I see SpaceTime as 'whole object', and to be that I expect it to be a symmetry too
==
I have another post where I discuss a holographic approach to gravity involving Entropy as the common nominator (as I understand it today, hey, I might change my mind as I learn more:) made by two physicists simultaneously (well almost).
If you like you could take a look at those for a similar idea, as they too seem to speak about 'emergences'. As for why we have an Olbers Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox?) where the stars should be unbearingly bright if all light would reach us :) Another good question that we can't guarantee an answer too, but there are some main stream ideas though.
I will have to read up on your link GoodElf about Rindler foliations, be cool u2 and its very good to see you and Farsight both posting here:) My brain will have to work overtime now, and that I suspect will mean that it most probably will overheat. I mean, how much energy can two braincells handle?
-
That if the light of half a billion? stars in milky way should reach earth, the night would be bright simply show that the strength of source of such light, the stars, is not that powerful to reach us.. it shows the speed of light is not constant, in the long run, even in outer space which is not perfect void, there is the skien of spacetime that interferes with light that will ultimately stop.. Rather, light generally has speed of 186,000 miles per/sec. in outer space. Light is affected: speed of light differs: under water, inside glass and in electricity, speed varies depending on power of source. A candle light will not reach 10 miles.
But reiterating, what is visible is the source of light and the object, particles, matter, it comes in contact with. In outer space, the thinness of light per sec. per miles is computed as follows: 1/186,000 miles per/sec. while on surface of earth, the impact of concentration of light is 186,000 miles/ 1 second. That night is dark is just added evidence that outer space is not 96% dark matter and energy.
.jsaldea12
2.8.10
-
You're right GoodElf. Rindler wedges are interesting, but gives me a headcahe Rindler wedge in 1+1 dimensional Minkowski and anti de Sitter space (http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0310120)
===
I can't help but feel that this pdf and Erik Verlinde have a lot in common as I read the conclusion made "If the horizon entropy is either infinite or zero the conflict is resolved."
-
I can't find the exact wording of Dr. Einstein but the tenor is something like this: unless you can make simple, make sense to that which is complex and perplexing, it is nothing.
thus, hope you can simplify your dialogues that I can catch up and make sense out of it.
jsaldea12
2.10.10
-
Okay, you're right in a way. Ultimately everything should be explainable without mathematics, possibly :) preferably ::))
A Rindler observer is a observer that relative you are in uniform acceleration. If you accept that uniform motion won't tell you anything about your speed and that the only definitions you will reach are arbitrarily, relative what other frame you compare. Then only non-uniform acceleration will, in a 'black box', tell you the difference between 'accelerating away' and living on a planet. With uniform acceleration you could, according to the equivalence principle, just as easily have your 'black box' placed on a planets surface of the same constant 'gravity'. What this reasoning leads to is a 'Rindler observer'.
That kind of 'observer' is traveling relative you (distant observer) uniformly accelerating. Now, 'according to you' I said, right :) But remember that you also could look at him, from his own point of view, as being in a constant 'gravity field (a. k. a Earth at one G.)
This is a crucial difference allowing you, if you now was teleported into his frame, to see it from inside that windowless box as if you were at rest on that planet. You can't tell the difference.
So, the Rindler observer can, from his own frame of observation be seen as being at rest, but what he sees traveling, relative you, at 99.99~ the speed of light in a vacuum will be vastly different. For one thing he might see 'virtual photons' as being real, as they from his frame will be real observations, at the same time that it versus the distant observer can't be real.
I'm still trying to understand the complications of this :) but what you also might notice about this idea is that the universe Rindler observers live in, if we now, just for my pleasure, gives different 'uniform accelerations' the differentiation of 'emergences' will be different universes, simultaneously existing, depending on uniform acceleration. In one way you could see this idea as a proof of 'virtual photons' being just as 'real' as 'real photons'.
That as you can imagine a multitude of Rindler Observers, all being at rest relative each other, seeing the exact same type of universe, all agreeing on the photons to be real and existing. But as you know from your frame of uniform motion on earth ' aka being at 'rest' as distant observer, being totally untrue as they to you won't even exist as they to you will be under Planck time.
===
Which btw gives me a real bad headache as they are 'accelerating' relative us, and therefore should observe us as being blue shifted and 'speeded up' versus themselves, including those 'virtual particles'? Or??
==
Now, this is how I understand it, and that may change with 'time' :).
But 'emergences' is fastly becoming, with 'fractal behaviors' as the second addition my favorite way to look at this universe we live in.
Hope I made it understandable.
Not really (as I look at it now:)
==
There are two types of accelerating. One is called uniformly which I for now will define as having a constant G-force, that type of acceleration is the equivalence to what we see as gravitation, and also the type of 'rest frame' a 'Rindler observer' will experience. The other type is non-uniform and will be the one you can say is not what you would expect from a planet f.ex.
Uniform motion in itself is an idea of a 'free fall'. All planets I can think of have a uniform motion. Free falling through SpaceTimes geodesics (dips and heights sort of) and all choosing a path of less resistance/energy spent. And the only way you can define a uniform motion as a 'speed' is by comparing with somewhere else, another planet f.ex- Which then as all 'speeds' as defined by you will be different depending on your 'frame of reference', like the moon f. ex or a comet 'rushing by', will give you different answers.
So there is only two ways to gain 'mass'. Acceleration or invariant mass (matter). And uniform acceleration defines something indistinguishable from a planets gravity. Uniform motion in itself though is the opposite, defining an negation of 'weight', as long as you are in a 'free fall' you weight nothing :) That we are on a planet being in a 'free fall', and still weight 'something' have to do with that the planet is made of invariant mass.
-
……I enjoy reading, yes I am getting to understand. Time and motion are relative, especially at outer space..
Jsaldea12
2.13.10