http://www.physorg.com/news3102.html
both are aspects of the same wave fuctions.the gravity is part of the gravitational energy,that are exchange of gravitons.how much major the concentration of gravtion in given region increase strongest the curvature in the maximal limit of extreme curvatures,breaking the symmetry,and occur desconnexion between the pas tand future and consequence of broken time of mirror-left-right handed,that is reversal time.in the limit,there is reversion topologic and appear the repulsion of the other part of the dark energy.the collapse of the gravity altere the wave functions.that permit to think the cat paradox,that can measure the broken symmetry that difference the energy of the gravitons that has it real value in the space-time,through of connexion between the particles of different helicities that determine the real space-time in the cats.
Has anyone considered the possibility that acceleration is a geometric illusion? If one uses the model of an expanding sphere (radial expansion being in the 4th dimension and the surface is our 3 dimensions), then vectors representing radial expansion have different directions. The different directions mean that when comparing one vector to a reference, there will be a component that appears as velocity in the 3 dimensions of the reference, i.e. v = c*sin(a). The angle between the two vectors is a, and radial expansion is c. The slope increases from an angle of 90 to 0, hence there appears to be an acceleration.
GRAVITY, SPEED OF LIGHT AND THE SALVATION OF RELATIVITY
Does the speed of light vary with the gravitational potential and, if yes, can it become greater than c=299792km/s? Clever relativists would answer yes and then again yes but then would save Einstein's theory by declaring that, for an INERTIAL observer, the speed of light is always c=299792km/s (not so clever relativists would save Einstein's theory by answering anything and then again anything). The solution to the following problem could clarify the situation:
A light source on the surface of a huge celestial body, where the gravitational field is enormous, sends light towards a very distant INERTIAL observer (where the field is zero). What speed of light c' will the observer measure?
In 1911 Einstein offered the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), where V is the gravitational potential difference between the light source and the observer. Clearly, Einstein's 1911 equation is a direct solution to the problem but this solution is extremely dangerous for Einstein's theory because the observer is INERTIAL. The alternative solution is c'=c but that is even more dangerous. So in the end Einsteinians would only be able to save Einstein's theory if they manage to avoid this problem forever. At least they should never choose explicitly between c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Does the speed of light vary with the gravitational potential and, if yes, can it become greater than c=299792km/s? Clever relativists would answer yes and then again yes but then would save Einstein's theory by declaring that, for an INERTIAL observer, the speed of light is always c=299792km/s (not so clever relativists would save Einstein's theory by answering anything and then again anything). The solution to the following problem could clarify the situation:
A light source on the surface of a huge celestial body, where the gravitational field is enormous, sends light towards a very distant INERTIAL observer (where the field is zero). What speed of light c' will the observer measure?
In 1911 Einstein offered the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), where V is the gravitational potential difference between the light source and the observer. Clearly, Einstein's 1911 equation is a direct solution to the problem but this solution is extremely dangerous for Einstein's theory because the observer is INERTIAL. The alternative solution is c'=c but that is even more dangerous. So in the end Einsteinians would only be able to save Einstein's theory if they manage to avoid this problem forever. At least they should never choose explicitly between c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Greg....yes.....
Yes Greg....
More please....
Yes Greg....
More please....
Logic says that if dark energy exists it was created with the alleged big bang and that there would be no more of it created. Yet we find that several billion years ago the universe apparently started expanding faster indicating that instead of the effects of a set amount of DE falling off, they are instead apparently intensifying. This does not make sense so the spin doctors have had to make up more nonsense to cover it up.
That news story is more than two years out of date. It is about a conference to discuss various theories. Now in 2007 we learn Dark energy may be vacuum, that is, "The new data shows that none of the fancy new theories that have been proposed in the last decade are necessary to explain the acceleration. Rather, vacuum energy is the most likely cause and the expansion history of the universe can be explained by simply adding this constant background of acceleration into the normal theory of gravity."
antonio pocobi: That is word salad, needing better vinegarette.
Greg Marlow: Check out "gauge theory".
Pentcho Valev: The ultimate speed c is the same for all observers, even under acceleration. A mismatch between reference frames of emitter and detector will see a red or blue shift, but the same velocity measured locally at each end. The "speed" only changes if you mix reference frames. Your clock and your ruler must be in the same reference frame, and then c is invariant. That is in fact the defining metric of spacetime.
kaneda: Space grows at a constant rate. Like compound interest, the bigger it gets, the faster it increases. As the space between galaxies gets larger, the amount of new space appearing between them every year gets larger too. Meanwhile, the galaxies are attracted via gravity. The gravity decreases with the separation. So early on, gravity brought them close together almost canceling out the expansion pushing them apart. But it was a losing battle, and at some point the expansion dominated, causing a sudden change in the shape of the curve of velocity change.
Think of credit card debt. If you can't quite make enough of a payment to cover interest every month, the debt will grow, at first very slowly like a dollar or two each month. But it builds up, and "suddenly" pulls away, until finally the same payment amount is really nothing compared to how much interest you are accumulating.
Greg Marlow: Check out "gauge theory".
Pentcho Valev: The ultimate speed c is the same for all observers, even under acceleration. A mismatch between reference frames of emitter and detector will see a red or blue shift, but the same velocity measured locally at each end. The "speed" only changes if you mix reference frames. Your clock and your ruler must be in the same reference frame, and then c is invariant. That is in fact the defining metric of spacetime.
kaneda: Space grows at a constant rate. Like compound interest, the bigger it gets, the faster it increases. As the space between galaxies gets larger, the amount of new space appearing between them every year gets larger too. Meanwhile, the galaxies are attracted via gravity. The gravity decreases with the separation. So early on, gravity brought them close together almost canceling out the expansion pushing them apart. But it was a losing battle, and at some point the expansion dominated, causing a sudden change in the shape of the curve of velocity change.
Think of credit card debt. If you can't quite make enough of a payment to cover interest every month, the debt will grow, at first very slowly like a dollar or two each month. But it builds up, and "suddenly" pulls away, until finally the same payment amount is really nothing compared to how much interest you are accumulating.
I'm a noob.
I was wondering if there are any links between the expansion of the universe and the potential energy-separation curves of a sub-atomic particle. Perhaps up until a certain distance, gravity is attractive, then after that - repulsive (opposite to atoms). I'm not sure if I'm thinking right. I'm sure someone will let me know why.
I was wondering if there are any links between the expansion of the universe and the potential energy-separation curves of a sub-atomic particle. Perhaps up until a certain distance, gravity is attractive, then after that - repulsive (opposite to atoms). I'm not sure if I'm thinking right. I'm sure someone will let me know why.
QUOTE (physorg.com / news 88256526+)
In modern terms the cosmological constant is viewed as a quantum mechanical phenomenon called the 'energy of the vacuum'. In other words, the energy of empty space. It is this energy that is causing the universe to accelerate. The new data shows that none of the fancy new theories that have been proposed in the last decade are necessary to explain the acceleration. Rather, vacuum energy is the most likely cause and the expansion history of the universe can be explained by simply adding this constant background of acceleration into the normal theory of gravity.
Cosmic Coincidence and Cosmological Constant Issues
There may be several possible explanations regarding the Dark Energy part
of the Universe’s energy budget:
(i)
The dark energy is an \Honest" Cosmological Constant
10 122 M4Pl,
strictly unchanging through space and time. This has been the working hypothesis of many of the best ts so far, but I stress it is not the only explanation consistent with the data.
arXiv:0708.0134v1 [hep-ph] 1 Aug 2007
LHC PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY
N.E. MAVROMATOS
King’s College London, Department of Physics,
Strand, London WC2R 2LS, U.K.
E-mail: Nikolaos.Mavromatos@kcl.ac.uk
However, there is plenty of room for alternatives; one of the most important tasks of observational cosmology will be to reduce the error regions on plots such of these to pin down precise values of these parameters.
-- http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Marc...l/Carroll2.html
Although the observational evidence for dark energy implies a component which is unclustered in space as well as slowly-varying in time, we may still imagine that it is not perfectly constant. The simplest possibility along these lines involves the same kind of source typically invoked in models of inflation in the very early universe: a scalar field rolling slowly in a potential, sometimes known as "quintessence" [22, 23, 24]. There are also a number of more exotic possibilities, including tangled topological defects and variable-mass particles (see [1, 7] for references and discussion).
There are good reasons to consider dynamical dark energy as an alternative to an honest cosmological constant. First, a dynamical energy density can be evolving slowly to zero, allowing for a solution to the cosmological constant problem which makes the ultimate vacuum energy vanish exactly. Second, it poses an interesting and challenging observational problem to study the evolution of the dark energy, from which we might learn something about the underlying physical mechanism. Perhaps most intriguingly, allowing the dark energy to evolve opens the possibility of finding a dynamical solution to the coincidence problem, if the dynamics are such as to trigger a recent takeover by the dark energy (independently of, or at least for a wide range of, the parameters in the theory).
ARTICLE
Dark energy: Seeking the heart of darkness
16 February 2007
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition:
The problem giving cosmologists their big headache goes under the name of "dark energy". This enigmatic entity - which could be some kind of a substance, or a field, or maybe something else entirely - forced itself into cosmologists' consciousness in 1998, when astronomers discovered that something is speeding up the expansion of the universe. Almost a decade later, it is beginning to sink in that there is no easy way to understand what dark energy might be. The problem has become so intractable that many now see it as the greatest challenge facing physics.
~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
Also, I will throw this in before I hear something that is too anoying as something when it is nothing!
Particle physicist Steven Weinberg and astrophysicist Martin Rees had this to say in reply to questions by readers of New Scientist: “Popular accounts, and even astronomers, talk about expanding space. But how is it possible for space, which is utterly empty, to expand? How can “nothing” expand? ‘Good question,’ says Weinberg. ‘The answer is: space does not expand. Cosmologists sometimes talk about expanding space—but they should know better.’ Rees agrees wholeheartedly. ‘Expanding space is a very unhelpful concept.’ ” (See: "All you ever wanted to know about the big bang..." New Scientist, 17 April 1993, pp. 32-3).
http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/
Cosmic Coincidence and Cosmological Constant Issues
There may be several possible explanations regarding the Dark Energy part
of the Universe’s energy budget:
(i)
The dark energy is an \Honest" Cosmological Constant
10 122 M4Pl,
strictly unchanging through space and time. This has been the working hypothesis of many of the best ts so far, but I stress it is not the only explanation consistent with the data.
arXiv:0708.0134v1 [hep-ph] 1 Aug 2007
LHC PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY
N.E. MAVROMATOS
King’s College London, Department of Physics,
Strand, London WC2R 2LS, U.K.
E-mail: Nikolaos.Mavromatos@kcl.ac.uk
However, there is plenty of room for alternatives; one of the most important tasks of observational cosmology will be to reduce the error regions on plots such of these to pin down precise values of these parameters.
-- http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Marc...l/Carroll2.html
Although the observational evidence for dark energy implies a component which is unclustered in space as well as slowly-varying in time, we may still imagine that it is not perfectly constant. The simplest possibility along these lines involves the same kind of source typically invoked in models of inflation in the very early universe: a scalar field rolling slowly in a potential, sometimes known as "quintessence" [22, 23, 24]. There are also a number of more exotic possibilities, including tangled topological defects and variable-mass particles (see [1, 7] for references and discussion).
There are good reasons to consider dynamical dark energy as an alternative to an honest cosmological constant. First, a dynamical energy density can be evolving slowly to zero, allowing for a solution to the cosmological constant problem which makes the ultimate vacuum energy vanish exactly. Second, it poses an interesting and challenging observational problem to study the evolution of the dark energy, from which we might learn something about the underlying physical mechanism. Perhaps most intriguingly, allowing the dark energy to evolve opens the possibility of finding a dynamical solution to the coincidence problem, if the dynamics are such as to trigger a recent takeover by the dark energy (independently of, or at least for a wide range of, the parameters in the theory).
ARTICLE
Dark energy: Seeking the heart of darkness
16 February 2007
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition:
The problem giving cosmologists their big headache goes under the name of "dark energy". This enigmatic entity - which could be some kind of a substance, or a field, or maybe something else entirely - forced itself into cosmologists' consciousness in 1998, when astronomers discovered that something is speeding up the expansion of the universe. Almost a decade later, it is beginning to sink in that there is no easy way to understand what dark energy might be. The problem has become so intractable that many now see it as the greatest challenge facing physics.
~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
Also, I will throw this in before I hear something that is too anoying as something when it is nothing!
Particle physicist Steven Weinberg and astrophysicist Martin Rees had this to say in reply to questions by readers of New Scientist: “Popular accounts, and even astronomers, talk about expanding space. But how is it possible for space, which is utterly empty, to expand? How can “nothing” expand? ‘Good question,’ says Weinberg. ‘The answer is: space does not expand. Cosmologists sometimes talk about expanding space—but they should know better.’ Rees agrees wholeheartedly. ‘Expanding space is a very unhelpful concept.’ ” (See: "All you ever wanted to know about the big bang..." New Scientist, 17 April 1993, pp. 32-3).
http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/
I've not been following this entire post, but my readings and research has lead me to conclude that gravity is not one of the primary forces of the universe. When the universe was created at the Big Bang, there was no gravity. Gravity came about through an evolutionary process (I haven't been able to categorize how this process works, yet) and once it came into existence, it organized the universe and created what we see at galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets. I would term our "known" universe to be gravitationally organized matter, to distinguish it from the rest of the universe which we now call dark matter and dark energy. The idea of gravity as an emergent property (something that comes about through evolutionary process but is unlike the things it evolved from - think life or intelligence, for example) has some support in the works I've read, namely:
1. With emergent properties, the "universe" affected by this new property is a subset of the original universe. For example, the amount of living matter on the Earth is a small percentage of the entire mass of
the universe. So we see that dark matter is much more prevalent than matter that was effected by gravity. We would also see that dark matter would not be effected by gravity, but may have some other properties in common with gravitational matter (like quantum properties).
2. The pace of evolution increases by about an order of magnitude once the emergent property is entrenched. I don't have all of the data, but I'd bet that the time create galaxies and solar system is an order of magnitude shorter than the previous (non-gravitational) epoch.
3. Most, maybe all, gravitational models approach a singularity as the model approaches the "Big Bang." If gravity did not exist at the Big Bang, then the singularity is eliminated.
One of the things I haven't seen any research on would address the question: "Was there a point in the universe history where gravity didn't exist?"
1. With emergent properties, the "universe" affected by this new property is a subset of the original universe. For example, the amount of living matter on the Earth is a small percentage of the entire mass of
the universe. So we see that dark matter is much more prevalent than matter that was effected by gravity. We would also see that dark matter would not be effected by gravity, but may have some other properties in common with gravitational matter (like quantum properties).
2. The pace of evolution increases by about an order of magnitude once the emergent property is entrenched. I don't have all of the data, but I'd bet that the time create galaxies and solar system is an order of magnitude shorter than the previous (non-gravitational) epoch.
3. Most, maybe all, gravitational models approach a singularity as the model approaches the "Big Bang." If gravity did not exist at the Big Bang, then the singularity is eliminated.
One of the things I haven't seen any research on would address the question: "Was there a point in the universe history where gravity didn't exist?"
I have a curiosity question... we assume that the universe must reach a conclusion like the big chill or the big crunch and now the possible big rip, but is it not possible that we reach some in-between state where the forces act equally upon each other? Where we end up with a 50/50 reaction of (i.e.) gravity reacting to dark matter (or all unknown factors reacting in tandem to 50/50 state)?
GR predicts that all energy is levity (as in ‘dark energy’).
e=mc2 demonstrates that mass is in verse energy by spacetime constant; m=e/c2
Inverse means equal and opposite.
Mass is a particle; energy is a wave.
The natural state of mass is rest; the natural state of energy is velocity max.
Mass is gravity; energy is levity.
As mass velocity exceeds 50% velocity max; properties of wave and levity predominate over the properties of particle and gravity.
f=ma defines force as acceleration
f=ma fixes space and time
e=mc2 fixes (‘warps’) space by relative time
f=(e/c2)a accelerates (‘the warp of’) space toward mass
Dark stuff is required only as space is not recognized as also fluent.
Spacemonkeys
Consider the breed of space monkeys called by some as gravitons. Though infinitesimal by size, they are infinite by number. Some claim them even as space itself.
Yet rest assured that the flight of these pesky monkeys is always straight and true and constant... unless, of course, spacetime bananas are involved.
Spacetime bananas are found in two inverse (equal and opposite) flavors: mass and energy. Like moths to a flame, these pesky space monkeys curve toward increasing flavor of mass even as they flee from increasing odor of energy.
Yet hold no doubt, these monkeys do in deed exist. For although these particular space monkeys have yet been shown directly; the waves of their flight en mass are easily observed and quantified and in verse predicted.
Peace
rwjefferson
e=mc2 demonstrates that mass is in verse energy by spacetime constant; m=e/c2
Inverse means equal and opposite.
Mass is a particle; energy is a wave.
The natural state of mass is rest; the natural state of energy is velocity max.
Mass is gravity; energy is levity.
As mass velocity exceeds 50% velocity max; properties of wave and levity predominate over the properties of particle and gravity.
f=ma defines force as acceleration
f=ma fixes space and time
e=mc2 fixes (‘warps’) space by relative time
f=(e/c2)a accelerates (‘the warp of’) space toward mass
Dark stuff is required only as space is not recognized as also fluent.
Spacemonkeys
Consider the breed of space monkeys called by some as gravitons. Though infinitesimal by size, they are infinite by number. Some claim them even as space itself.
Yet rest assured that the flight of these pesky monkeys is always straight and true and constant... unless, of course, spacetime bananas are involved.
Spacetime bananas are found in two inverse (equal and opposite) flavors: mass and energy. Like moths to a flame, these pesky space monkeys curve toward increasing flavor of mass even as they flee from increasing odor of energy.
Yet hold no doubt, these monkeys do in deed exist. For although these particular space monkeys have yet been shown directly; the waves of their flight en mass are easily observed and quantified and in verse predicted.
Peace
rwjefferson
[COLOR=blue]
In a theory that explains the current value of the Hubble constant and the deceleration parameter, the dark energy is the entropy density of spacetime.
This is explained in arXiv:0806.1277v1 [gr-qc].
In a theory that explains the current value of the Hubble constant and the deceleration parameter, the dark energy is the entropy density of spacetime.
This is explained in arXiv:0806.1277v1 [gr-qc].
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.