Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, & conservation

From: Ron McFarland <>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 10:11:15 -0800

On 7 Nov 2003 at 10:25, Joao Leao wrote:
> OK. I get your point. That "supersolipsistic" situation is rendered
> somewhat unlikely by the fact that galaxies seem to be structuraly
> stable (the dark matter issue), in other words, they do not seem to
> berak apart with the accelerated expansion. The chances of every
> particle becoming its own disconnected universe are also made
> by what we know of microphysics. Gravitational collapse is the way
> of of space-time problems altogether.

At a small (galaxy size) cross section the effect of inflation has
not yet (for the time periods we can observe) reached the point of
causing a breaking apart. Gravity is still dominant in those local
systems. Either there is or there is not inflation, either all
objects as a result of inflation are or they are not all moving away
and increasing distance from from each other. Unless it can be argued
that inflation is not universal then it follows that ALL particles,
macroscopic and microscopic are inflating.

But, might the affect on fundamental forces also be inflating in
propertion to all other inflation repercussions!? If so, then another
argument is needed for why the universe went from a slowing down
expansion rate to a speeding up expansion rate. To imagine a cyclic
expansion rate requires that a new fundamental force be discovered.

> Well we can and have measured the dark energy distribution via
> the luminosity distance of Type Ia supernovae and the CMB
> background observations (recentlyWMAP) and it is smooth,
> uniform and "tensional"(=feels like a negative pressure).
> This is not an inference: it is as direct evidence as you can get
> the cosmological domain!

I'm not ready to agree fully accept that!<grin> We have measured that
inflation is continuing, and in relation to observation of those
supernovae the reality seems widespread and consistant. But that's a
long ways from saying that the *distribution* of dark energy is
uniform througout the entire universe.

>Dark Energy, if indeed originated in the Big
> Bang, could have had a very different distribution than and that is
> part of the problem: we don't know why it resulted in such a small
> cosmological term if it is indeed the combined energy of all the
> of the interactions we know about...

But then we don't know why any particles have the mass and energy
that they do have, either. Some say it was chance that they are as
they are (and lucky for us that things chanced as they did!) But that
argument belies that virtual particles seem to have rules they obey.
We just don't know why the rules are as they are, we just see the
game being played.

> I addressed this point you keep making above. This is really not
> worrying about. Collapse is a much more likely end for a particle
> supreme loneliness...

But how can you say that? You maybe have a thought that the universe
is not really expanding, forever and for eternity, and at all points
(even within subatomic points) within itself? What mechanism might be
involved? But maybe I do not understand what you mean by "collapse".

> It isn't quite like that! If anything QM shows you that distant
> particles
> interact in some manner or better, exhibit non-local correlations
> beyond their time-like separation, so even between disconnected
> of the Metaverse (Level 1 as the list lingo goes)there are residual
> bonds that do not care about universal expansion...

And there be the rub. Spooky is a good term. That bonding phenomenon
does seem to be empirical. The question remains to be answered
regarding if *imposed* information can be exchanged with the
phenomenon, and latest indications are that particles moving at near
light speed have a problem maintaining the bond. Perhaps the bond is
broken when the rate of inflation becomes great enough? If the bond
gets broken then a particle can not interact as it otherwise could!
There is no speed limit (such as the speed of light) being argued for
an ever increasing space/time inflation rate for the universe, is

> The worries that the Universe will reach a heat bath state left
> people very worried 2 centuries ago. I think that all the dark
> ominous as it sounds is kinda reassuring that such end is quite
> unlikely. But, if you want to be worried, I am sure you can find
> plenty of reasons, still.

Empirical evidence is all that counts, reasonings must take it into
account. My argument is that inflation must at some finite point in
time result in no particle being able to exchange energy with any
other particle in the entire universe - because the distance between
all particles (and caused by space/time inflation) is then increasing
at a rate faster than light. That's not the same as saying that a
particle evaporated, although the end result seems the same! My
arguement does not require that all particles be at the same energy
potential, it only requires that they each not be able to know what
potential any other is at and indeed be unable to know that any other
particles exist whatsoever. The end result is a universe at zero
energy, because there is no way to take a measurement (relativity
will have become meaningless). This is not at all the same mechanism
that they referred to 2 centuries ago!

Mr. Leao, I very much appreciate your conversation. Understand that I
do not attack, nor even suggest new ideas! I'm only trying to give a
viewpoint (which might be a little unique to myself, granted! or an
assembly of viewpoints that is ultimately differing in logic but
meant to explain what already appears to have been put forth by many
very highly qualified people (one of which I am not). While my
arguments are circular, it is what makes them consistent. Break the
logic at any point and if it can not be adjusted to agree with the
empirical then it is faulty logic. :)

Your turn, sir. I really do look forward to your responses! It would
be nice if others would comment on all we've both said, too.

Ron McFarland
Received on Sat Nov 08 2003 - 13:14:46 PST

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