Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, & conservation

From: Ron McFarland <RonMcF.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 04:37:33 -0800

On 8 Nov 2003 at 20:35, Brent Meeker wrote:
…
> A balloon model neglects inhomogeneties that allow gravity to
dominate
> locally.
…
> at short range the weak, electromagnetic, and
> strong force dominate.
…
> Of course almost anything is possible at the Planck scale. What
you
> are proposing are effects of Einsteinian gravity, including a
> cosmological 'constant', at the level of strings or whatever the
most
> fundamental particles are. But current theories would say that the
> cosmological constant can't pull apart things that are more
strongly
> bound than some threshold. Since it never starts to pull them
apart,
> its negative pressure on them never increases and they remain bound
by
> the other forces.
>
> Brent Meeker

Well stated, Brent!

I would be forced to agree, but there might be an omission in that
very strong counter argument. There was a peer reviewed article
published many years ago (I think in Scientific American magazine)
that basically said that given enough time EVERY particle will
spontaneously emit energy until, eventually, there is no energy left
to emit. If I remember correctly that argument was making claim that
not only radioactive particles are unstable, and that all particles
with no exception follow the same emission rules but that some are
just almost unimaginably unlikely to do so but that they will do so.
The point being that in some near infinite but still within a finite
time every particle in the universe will have evaporated, so to
speak. Since having read that article I've never seen a disapproval
of the hypothesis presented in that article. Perhaps I've missed a
peer reviewed disapproval of the premise.

But the question in my mind at the time I read that article was: why
would a particle considered to be stable eventually decay to a point
of complete self destruction? I now believe that the answer to that
question is localized inflation of space/time being expressed at the
subatomic level. Although the nuclear binding forces are so very
strong that the consequences are that inflation is very drastically
slowed relative to a particle, inflation itself is a factor of
space/time and not of matter but matter does exert a resistive effect
against inflation. But only a resistive effect, however large that
might be, and not a total inhibiting effect. Over time, inflation
marches on regardless.

It seems to me that it is true that one reason behind a decay of any
particle (radioactive or not) is because of inflation rather than
because of fuzzy quantum chance. The argument I put forth is that any
atomic arrangement is actually 100% stable until it is acted upon by
an external force, which does include inflation but could also
include interaction with other energy sources. Barring any
possibility of interaction, eventually inflation will lead to decay
and be expressed by way of spontanious emmision of energy. Inflation
is a component of space and time, it is not granular (it is smooth)
and is not itself subject to Planck's constant. The constant is a
measure of the smallest size of an energy packet at the quantum
level, something like 6.26 x 10^-34 J-sec, and it is the only reason
why the affect upon matter by inflation occurs in discrete levels of
energy instead of linearly.

It is the very drastic localized slowing (but not the entire
elimination) of inflation that makes it appear that inflation is not
occuring at a subatomic level because of some binding force such as
gravity or [insert choice here]. But inflation is still occuring
regardless, and at some finite point in time it gets expressed in
Planck terms.

Ron McFarland
Received on Sun Nov 09 2003 - 07:42:13 PST