Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, & conservation

From: George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 22:50:41 -0800

Welcome to the list Ron.

Could someone please explain dark energy in simple terms : newtonian
terms + mass-energy equivalence for example using equations such as
 F= Gm1m2/r^2, F=ma and E=mc^2 . Could such equations describe to a
first approximation the forces and accelerations involved when negative
mass/energy is present?

George


Ron McFarland wrote:

>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 Wed Nov 05 2003 - 06:51:18 PST