Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, & conservation

From: Ron McFarland <RonMcF.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 22:20:27 -0800

Thank you list for the welcome. I look forward to many congenial
debates!

On 2 Nov 2003 at 22:05, Joao Leao wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2003, at 5:16 PM, Ron McFarland wrote:
>
> > Greetings list members. This is my joining post.
> >
> > Recent headlines indicate that there is empirical evidence now
that
> > our known universe is about 13 billion years old, it is
essentially
> > flat, and that space/time continues to be inflationary (we are in

a
> > continuing big bang state) after experiencing an initial
expansion
> > phase originating from a singular point -- followed a few billion
> > years later by some sort of phase change that cause the universe
to
> > change from a slowing down expansion rate to a speeding up
expansion
> > rate. The properties of "dark energy" are postulated now to be
the
> > cause of continued and ever increasing in rate expansion of
> > space/time, the continuing big bang state.
> >
> > The properties of dark matter are postulated to be the cause of
> > observed gravitational interactions within the universe as a
whole
> > and where there is insufficient observable "normal" matter to
> > account
> >
> > for the observations. Dark matter is now said to greatly exceed
the
> > amount of matter that we are able to measure and verify as
existent.
>
> Ron
>
> I am sorry but you seem to contradict yourself below!
> You state, quite correctly as far as I can tell, what the
> outcome of the most recent cosmic observations on
> our universe is. But them you state that
>
> >
> > Neither dark energy nor dark matter has been proven by experiment

or
> > measurement to exist. Both seem as pure postulates at this
writing.
>
> Both "dark matter" and "dark energy" express little more than our
> puzzling with two sets of consistently observed effects which we
> aren't able to accommodate in the so-called "concordance model" of
> standard cosmology. What these terms designate are not (yet)
definite
> entities so it is a bit early to even call them postulates.
Theorists
> have sought to explain these effects along several distinct
> hypothetical lines but the word is still out on which one of those
> will prevail.

Correct, and I did not define my terms. By "postulate" I mean the
expression of an idea not yet represented by a defining mathematical
statement. By theory I mean an idea supported by mathematical
statement but not yet verified in all possible ways by apparent
empirical evidence. By law I mean an idea supported by a mathematical

statement that can not be ruled out by empirical evidence.

> > To me, dark energy seems to be the more important postulate. It
> > appears to me that if the universe will forever keep expanding at

an
> > ever increasing rate then within a non infinite time period no
> > elementary particle of matter will be able to interact with
another.
>
> What makes you think so?

The supposition that redshift is an observable component of inflation

of the universe. It is not the distance that contributes, it is the
relative rate of expansion that contributes to the apparent redshift
(all other factors that can contribute to redshift being ignored for
the purpose of concentrating only on the affect caused by inflation
itself). The further something is away from us, relatively speaking,
then the faster it is moving away from us. With inflation being on an

ever increasing rate, there comes a point in finite time when the
expansion rate reaches a level that causes the entire universe to
appear dark and at absolute zero in temperature in reference to all
its matter relative to itself.

In other words, the redshift at all points within the universe will
have shifted to a level of absolute zero observable energy at some
future time because the universe is then expanding (at every point
within itself) at or beyond a rate that would allow energy to find
anything in the universe that it could be relative to. In that
situation a particle would never be able to travel from any point A
to any point B, although it might try to do so for as long as it
existed. Eventually the particle could no longer exist, because it
itself would loose coherency as its integral parts moved away from
each other as a consequence of the space it occupies continuing to
inflate, and thereby move its parts away from each other until
nuclear forces could no longer maintain the attraction that keeps the

particle (of any type whatsoever) from totally disintegrating.

> > That condition seems to indicate that relativity would thus be
> > meaningless when that point in time occurs. To my logic this
> > argument
> >
> > appears to violate conservation of energy law. If the argument is
> > nonetheless true, then it follows that said law is not a real law
> > and
> >
> > that our entire theory structure is faulty at a fundamental
level.
>
> That may very well be the case but it is again, to early to tell.
As
> you have probably heard General Relativity has always had an "open
> place" for something like Dark Energy, namely the cosmological
term.
> So it may be worth our while to re-examine its implications. If our
> Universe is already dominated by Dark Energy as it seems than the
> continued acceleration may very well express the peculiar
> de-localization of energy that made GR suspect for so many years.

If you refer to the disputed cosmological constant, then I would say
that it might indeed exists but perhaps not as a constant. It might
instead be an expression related to the ever increasing rate of the
expansion of the universe. If that be the nature of reality then the
laws of physics as we know them are predictable but not knowable at a

distance, unless all points of the universe are inflating at the same

exact rate (something that doesn't seem likely considering the
apparent lack of homogeneous matter distribution in the universe -
and for which we owe our very existence).

And now the rest of the story, a postulate by my above terms! Our
universe is indeed one of potentially many universes within a so
called meta-universe. No new thoughts there! But, a meta-universe
that is at a temperature of absolute zero. Still, virtual particles
do form within it much as they do in our own universe. Sometimes
enough form, simultaneously and in one place and by pure chance with
more "normal" matter being at point A than is at point B, and an
expanding bubble results with a universe being born in the process.

But this is no free lunch, the apparent abundance of energy in our
observable universe is an illusion from the viewpoint of the meta-
universe. The expansion and resultant heat death of our universe is
one method of how the zero energy balance is maintained in the meta-
universe. This dark energy is the vehicle by which energy in our
universe is returned to the meta-universe.

Our universe is not flat, it is open. Energy can not be returned to
the meta-universe if a bubble were flat, because it would require
that a very precise number of particles exist in a universe for it to

actually be a flat universe. That number of particles is equivalent
to zero because it requires that equal amounts of both normal and
anti matter virtual particles exist within the bubble, so when a
"flat" universe spawns then the meta-universe becomes the universe
that just spawned (in result, it never happened). And in a closed
universe the energy is returned to the meta-universe by the other
available path for it to do so by - a big crunch. In our universe
some energy is returned that way, by way of black holes.

Black holes are always shrinking to a singularity, effectively
increasing distance between themselves and everything else that
exists in our universe. It's just a localized area of space/time
inflation. The matter that goes into a black hole becomes energy
returned to the meta-universe. What remains is not a "black hole" as
we think of one being, but a sort of energy potential portal into the

meta-universe. These portals are what exhibit the affect that is
being labeled dark matter. It's an attraction by the meta-universe,
its attempt to reclaim its zero energy balance.

Dark energy is the expansion of the universe into a state of zero
energy. They are but different sides of the same "thing", with the
meta-universe being what the interior of what the "thing" is made up
of. The meta-universe is made up of absolutely nothing. Only the
bubbles that it spawns contain something. A something that we call
matter/energy and space/time.

There, now I feel better after having gotten that all out of me!
Ron McFarland
Received on Mon Nov 03 2003 - 01:23:07 PST