0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mayb e you could assign entropy a ratio too then, stating that it is a direction relative a volume, so as the 'universe' grows the entropy stays the same, relative any chosen patch of measurement, not that we can measure vacuum energies as far as i know. but it still doesn't feel good enough to me. This is per definition 'new energy' if I read you correctly, from where? And do entropy allow new energies? Not in a closed system, but if the universe is open, unbounded, it just might?the key point should be to define from where we gain it I suspect, if a expansion is correct
Is it spacetime or just space?
That’s an interesting concept. Surely there are two interpretations of a zero energy universe.1. A universe that contains no energy.2. A universe which contains equal quantities of -ve and +ve energy, so the net is zero.There must be a distinction (?)
The other “as yet” unknown source of energy in space is called dark energy. There is a general consensus that it is somehow related to the energy emitted by the Big Bang, but there is no consensus explanation.
If you are open for some speculation, dark matter might include gravitational wave energy, and wave energy convergences like virtual particles. Gravitational waves were predicted by Einstein and recently have been detected by interferometers from the US (LIGO), and from the European Space Agency (ESA).The effect called virtual particles might have a “hint” of mass, that pops into and out of existence in space, which could speculatively be the result of random convergences of gravitational wave energy.
If you are still open to speculation, you have to figure that the particles that make up the matter in space, which account for only about 4% of the predicted energy in space, all have momentum, relative to the initial big bang event. Since particles formed early in the expansion of the observable universe, it would seem that they would have separation momentum imparted to them as they form. If momentum is conserved as the particles clump into atoms, and molecules, and gases, and stars and galaxies, that could account for the as yet unexplained 75% of the energy in space. If the idea of separation momentum being imparted to particles is reasonable, then the observed separation of galaxies might be the result, and that would explain the source of dark energy. Speculation, to be sure, but since there is no consensus on what causes dark energy, I submit that idea as food for thought.
Some one is going to have to speculate on the form of extra dimensions, unless you all wish to live in flat land forever. Brains or membranes in string theory, indicate they exist, ER bridges indicate they exist, Wave particle duality indicate they exist, entanglement indicates they exist. So why dont we all come clean and state the frickin obvious extra dimensions exist, and discuss what forms they take, spacial or otherwise. Here is a little pop science on the membranes http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/why-the-braneworld-theory-says-our-universe-began-from-a-white-hole. It gives some pictures of how extra dimensions would appear, I dont agree with the artists impressions. Does anyone else have an opinion. My views (all points can MAY be connected via at least one extra dimension) are aired and ignored earlier in the thread. Does anyone else have a sentient coherent opinion.
My inclination is consider the preconditions of the super massive blackhole scenario that I am referencing, to be much simpler than the brane theory, for various reasons. I am open to discussing the comparison between Brane theory and the multiple big bang landscape preconditions, if you have any interest.
Would I be close to say that it would include those a few non-science professionals who insist that the current consensus cosmology, which I think can be called Big Bang Theory, i.e., General Relativity with Guth's Inflation theory, is the Reality?
Many theories, over time, have been superseded by newer theories, newer or better evidence, better math, etc.
(however portraying multiple dimensional space is no easy task).
Yes I would like to discuss all options. I assume you are referencing the possibility of supermassive BH's losing energy out of their event horizons by a mechanism different [from] hawking radiation, rather than losing wave energy through an ER bridge into a WH and additional dimensions, which then manifest as virtual particles and the HUP.
The idea of a black hole exploding into space time, assumes that the energy/matter forming the BH existed and was compressed down in a big crunch before exploding as a BB.
This does not get around the idea of where all energy/matter comes from in the BB. Your options one and three above matter/energy has always existed or god did it does not seem as simple as a zero energy universe, whereby matter and energy comes into existence because it can.
The concepts of additional dimensions, brane theories, membranes, wormholes, etc exist in many theories, all indicate extra spacial dimensions exist. It is very simple for me to accept they exist, to accept that BH's can explode is against EFE. Einsteins field equations predicted BH's long before people believed they existed, white holes are a feature of the same equations.Speculating again White holes may explain dark energy, an additional dimension may explain dark matter via the addition of an additional long range force. I look forward to reading your thoughts on the BB from a or multiple BH's.
… but you would be closer to the truth if you stated some people believe that a mathematical model is reality, when in actual fact it only represents a approximation of reality, like bad grammar only paints part of the picture .
To take relativity and to state dark matter which has never been detected must exist, is not 100% believable. A more believable explanation might be to predict a new type of long range force. The few optical effects attributed to dark matter could be explained away via space dust.
Perhaps MOND, or QLG or one of the many other theories around will be able to explain away dark matter. There was an attempt a lot of years ago adding an extra dimension to relativity to incorporate electromagnetism. All these theories are all trying to explain the world using different techniques etc. Zelots supporting one theory above another often try to prevent discussion of anything other than space time, which is boring. I think as long as people stay reasonably close to standard models and actual observations in any discussion people learn something at each pass. White holes and extra dimensions sound believable to me, and help explain the few things I mentioned on previous posts on this thread. Visualizing how those dimensions might appear in our space time "flatland" is intriguing.
It is not difficult if you keep it simple to start with. Eg all things are connected via a none spacial dimension, waves can exist at all points in space, explaining wave particle duality, spooky action at a distance is no longer spooky, the strong force is easily explained, an additional force transmitted via this dimension mighty explain away dark energy, and the BB which originated from a Mass less BH ER bridge is still happening, and expanding space time all around you via this extra dimension. The artists impressions on the link show things separated they are not they should be overlayed and interlinked. Bla Bla etc.
Here is my pitch on dark matter:https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg537864#msg537864https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg542143#msg542143
It is not difficult if you keep it simple to start with. Eg all things are connected via a none spacial dimension, waves can exist at all points in space, explaining wave particle duality, spooky action at a distance is no longer spooky, the strong force is easily explained, an additional force transmitted via this dimension mighty explain away dark energy, and the BB which originated from a Mass less BH ER bridge is still happening, and expanding space time all around you via this extra dimension.
This discussion is starting to move from the general towards your personal theories and those would be best continued in the new theories section.
White holes are derived from EFE which have proven to be accurate to date. Is it possible to continue the discussion ref white holes and ER bridges, which have not been discussed in any depth yet.
It is not difficult if you keep it simple to start with. Eg all things are connected via a none spacial dimension, waves can exist at all points in space, explaining wave particle duality, spooky action at a distance is no longer spooky, the strong force is easily explained, an additional force transmitted via this dimension mighty explain away dark energy
The HUP borrows energy from somewhere,
Remember, also that white holes are a mathematical construct with no evidence they exist.It is worth bearing in mind that you won’t reach any real conclusions because you don’t really have the background to discuss this definitively. I say that because you were not aware of Alan Guth’s work and that in itself would require a few years of detailed study before you could make use of it. White holes, ER bridges and inflation are very involved mathematical subjects and you really do need a full toolkit to do them justice otherwise you are just groping in the dark.
Einsteins Field Equations are the mathematical construct that suggest a White hole might exist, they also suggested Black holes might exist long before any one took them seriously.
I guess no one wants to discuss white holes as a possible explanation for the expansion of the universe or the source of dark energy. As for discussing what might come out of a ER bridge and how it might manifest itself, no one sentient is going to have a go.
Alan Guth has apparently written more than 60 papers on an expanding universe. Which paper would you suggest starting with? Do you have a copy you could post.
I notice he made the same comment re HUP that I did and you rejected it, which will be why he hasn’t joined the discussion.
The real problem on this forum is finding people with enough understanding of theoretical physics to be able to discuss the matter meaningfully.
Quote from: Colin2B on 10/06/2018 11:20:31I notice he made the same comment re HUP that I did and you rejected it, which will be why he hasn’t joined the discussion.I did not reject the comment, it was a correction I accepted, but did not comment on.
Quote from: Colin2B on 10/06/2018 11:20:31The real problem on this forum is finding people with enough understanding of theoretical physics to be able to discuss the matter meaningfully.Yes I started a thread on new theories "what space is", hoping to discuss meaningfully the nature of space and gave up, I was hoping for a more meaningful less speculative discussion with this thread by discussing white holes.
I have looked into white holes. At one point I considered them likely. Not in this universe though. If we had a contracting universe then maybe. This however is speculative and not mainstream. It can be discussed as such as long as it is not promoted as mainstream thought. You need some level of study to justify such speculation. This does not mean you need to be a qualified scientist. Although if you are not qualified it is incumbent upon you to justify your assertions with reliable evidence. In such a case you also need to take on board the comments and criticisms of those who are qualified.