Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, & conservation

From: Ron McFarland <>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 21:07:29 -0800

On 3 Nov 2003 at 16:45, Joao Leao wrote:
> Part II:
> >It is not the distance that contributes, it is the
> > relative rate of expansion that contributes to the apparent
> > (all other factors that can contribute to redshift being ignored
> > the purpose of concentrating only on the affect caused by
> > itself). The further something is away from us, relatively
> > then the faster it is moving away from us. With inflation being
> > 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
> > its matter relative to itself.
> If the acceleration persists, which is may or not be the case, that
> surely a possibility, depending on some other features of the
> concordance model being verified or not. But we are still not sure
> that the acceleration is forever...

That's both an astonishing and maybe just a little bit of a scary
thought. Is there some hint of any kind that the acceleration of the
universe might have a limiting factor?

> > In other words, the redshift at all points within the universe
> > have shifted to a level of absolute zero observable energy at
> > future time because the universe is then expanding (at every
> > within itself) at or beyond a rate that would allow energy to
> > anything in the universe that it could be relative to.
> I don't quite understand this last sentence.

Assume that at some distant time the inflation rate of space/time has
exceeded the speed of light. At that moment, and forever thereafter,
no particle within that inflation region could interact with another -
- because the distance between particles is increasing faster than a
particle can transverse any distance at the speed of light or below.
That leads to the conclusion that the affected particle is then no
longer relative to anything but itself. As far as that affected
particle is concerned it IS the entire universe and nothing else
exists. This of course is an illusion, from the larger viewpoint of
the meta universe. But I argue that when the particle becomes in that
way relative only to itself then it has in fact melded with the meta
universe, meaning that its energy has in fact returned to the meta
universe from which it was spawned during the big bang.

>But it may be worth
> pointing
> out that dark energy is uniformely and isotropically distributed so
> that

It is? That would infer a homogeneous distribution of energy that
does not appear to hold true with any other observation of the
universe. If the big bang had resulted in an observable universe that
is uniform in structure or composition throughout then one might
expect the same of dark energy, but this does not appear to be the
case. I would argue that when/if we are able to measure (as opposed
to just infer) dark energy then we will find it to be distributed in
much the same way as is energy that we can now measure.

> it seems to be something akin to the largest scales of
> distribution, for example, inertial mass distibution (dark and lit)
> better still, curvature or torsion. There are several models of DE
> proposed along these lines...

Perhaps. As you say, it's too early to know. But our closed universe
has of late been attributed to have a shape that is NOT a smooth
spheroid. Amazingly, it appears to be composed of interlocking shapes
that are not that of a sphere, but because the universe is closed the
aggregate appearance is theat of a non smooth spheroid. Maybe this is
not so amazing, since no perfect sphere seems to exist in nature.

> > In that
> > situation a particle would never be able to travel from any point
> > 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
> > itself would loose coherency as its integral parts moved away
> > each other as a consequence of the space it occupies continuing
> > 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.
> Well, I can't quite make out what you are saying here! I don't
> the "integrity of particles" is threteaned by universal

Perhaps not if indeed a particle, once the inflation rate has reached
a rate relative to a particle so that the particle can no longer
itneract with any other particle, then the particle has indeed melded
with an thereby returned its energy to the meta universe from which
it originated to begin with.

But if it does not, then ALL points in space relative to that
particle, including at all points within and exterior to the
particle, keep increasing in expansion rate. In that case the
distance between bound quarks (for example) keeps distancing, and at
some point they suddenly become unbound because of a nuclear force
being unable to influence a binding force over that much of a
distance. The particle completely disintegrates.

> That the Universe has causaly disconnected regions, as it stands,
> undeliable but Dark Matter seems to define the largest regions that
> are able to be structured if that is what you are talking about.

No, it's just that at this current stage of expansion rate we are
only able to observe the expansion over cosmic distances. In time, if
one lived long enough, it would be observable at quantum distances.

> The local inhomogeneities, such as you and I, do not betray the
> high degree of homegeneity the Universe displays at the Megaparsec
> scale. The cosmological term may cease to be constant at some
> that is true, and it would be most interesting to know which one
> it is to early in the game for that.

It is too early! But I argue that a high degree of homegeneity does
not equate to homegenity. Our universe could not have planets, stars,
and other items such as people if it were homogeneous.

> A lot of the approaches to DE assume a cosmological term varying
> with some cosmic scalar field (quintessence) or some clever
> of state (quartessence). These address time variation rather than
> spacial variation because that is where the weirdness remains...

A varying comological term probably does exist in reality, although I
might argue that the term is an effect rather than an affect. I think
such a term would represent an exponential inflation rate factor (an
observation at a point in space at a specific point in time).

> I am afraid I cannot offer much comment on what you say here. I
> presumme you are expounding your own ideas but each one of your
> paragraphs contains assumptions that are not quite consistent with
> each other, beyond what is believe known. I have specail trouble
> your insistence on a "metauniverse of absolute temperature zero"
> your language of energy exchange between each universe and the
> metauniverse!!! Not my thermodynamics there!

I'm merely refering to a universe that has reached ultimate and total
heat death, when I refer to a meta universe. A universe that is at
100% equilibrium throughout all of its points. I am not sure that
there can be only one meta universe, but it seems to me that a meta
universe by that definition must be a singularity of nature. Perhaps
the only real singularity that ever has, does, or will exist.

There is no real energy exchange from the viewpoint of the meta
universe, for it is at average and over infinite time at equilibrium.
It is only due to quantum effects (however unlikely they are, they do
still have an eternity to occur within) that the creation of virtual
particles within the meta universe can lead to the (temporary)
formation of a universe similar to ours. No matter if the resultant
universe is open, flat, or closed ... by one way or the other those
virtual particles are returned to the meta universe; those methods
being via black holes and/or the expansion of a universe at an ever
increasing rate (they are both really one and the same thing from the
viewpoint of the meta universe). What we, bound in our universe,
perceive as energy is but an illusion from the viewpoint of the MU.

Ron McFarland
Received on Fri Nov 07 2003 - 00:15:42 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:08 PST