A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

why dark energy density is small



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 14th 07, 01:34 AM posted to sci.astro
Jack Sarfatti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default why dark energy density is small


On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:26 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Our early universe has low entropy compared to present universe. Sir
Roger Penrose says this is a big problem for inflation theory - it's the
Arrow of Time problem - why irreversible aging is in same sense as
expansion of 3D space with dark energy speeding up of that cosmic expansion.

Our past universe post-inflation is not de Sitter. Our future universe
is de Sitter with

/\ ~ 1/NLp^2

N ~ 10^122 Bekenstein bits.

This gives the actually observed large-scale dark energy density

10^-29 grams/cc ~ (10^-2cm)^-4 ~ hc/NLp^4

note that NLp^4 = (Geometric mean of smallest Planck scale with largest
future Omega deSitter horizon scale)^4

i.e. 10^-2 cm ~ (10^-33 cm 10^28 cm)^1/2

this is precisely what we expect from the retro-causal world hologram in
which 3D space at our moments of perception of our entire pocket
universe on the landscape is simply a hologram image of the future 2D
deSitter horizon.

World hologram says that N area bits on the surrounding horizon are 1-1
with N interior "volume without volume" BITs.

i.e. &L ~ N^-1/6 Lp

L ~ N^1/2Lp

L^3 ~ N^3/2Lp^3

&L^3 ~ N^1/2Lp^3

L^3/&L^3 = N^3/2/N^1/2 = N

where &L^3 = volume-without-volume of quantum gravity foam bubble.
Exactly N bubbles for N area quanta - 1-1. This is the fundamental
physical meaning of the "world hologram".

In this case the horizon is not a closed spacelike surrounding 2D
surface on a 3D spacelike slice of spacetime, but is the 2D de Sitter
horizon of our future light cone of our detectors. That is, all the
converging blue-shifted advanced null signals on our telescopes and
other advanced signals back to the moment of inflation. The future dark
energy created de Sitter horizon is the world hologram. See figure 19
(i) p. 130 "causal diamond" of Hawking & Ellis "The large-scale
Structure of space-time" for a Penrose diagram picture of what I am
talking about. I mean the upper half of (i).

This solves Penrose's problem with inflation since retro-causal
measurement lowers the entropy of the past object (Alpha inflation)
being measured and raises the entropy of the future measuring apparatus
(G. Moddell, AAAS USD Retrocausality Workshop, June 2006) - Omega (far
future de Sitter horizon) - Alpha (inflation phase transition) form a
globally consistent Novikov loop of self-creation.

On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

PS Also Paul what you have been looking for is natural in this tetrad
substratum. It is not natural on the metric tensor/Levi-Civita
connection level because of bilinear tetrad cross terms.

Complete Einstein-Cartan tetrad is

e^a = I^a + B^a

Where B^a is the intrinsic curvature tetrad field - without committing
to my specific hologram model where

B^a -- N^-1/3A^a

N = (Closed Surrounding Horizon 2D Surface)/4Lp^2 Bekenstein's formula

No perturbation theory on background dependent Minkowski spacetime is
implied here. That's a Red Herring. My model is background-independent
in Lee Smolin's sense.

Nothing I say demands B^a I^a as in perturbation theory.

I^a has all the inertial force effects of non-geodesic frames in
Minkowski spacetime.

Note that

T^a(Minkowski) = dI^a + w^abcI^b/\I^c = 0 zero torsion 2-form in
Minkowski spacetime

and

R^a^b(Minkowski) = d(w^a^bcI^c) + w^ac'cI^c'/\w^b^cc"I^c" = 0 zero
curvature 2-form in Minkowski spacetime

However, cross terms I^a with A^b occur in the general case mixing
inertial with intrinsic effects.

On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:12 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The A^a q-number part is still emergent, it's just that it is the
residual q-number random zero point part.
OK, but then how can you say that this part is equivalent to a quantized
Yang-Mills field of the kind considered
by t'Hooft, for purposes of renormalization?

Because it has a very similar formal structure to the internal symmetry
Yang-Mills quantum field operators.

Positive frequency part creates a q-number A^a quantum out of the
coherent c-number A^a condensate. Negative frequency part puts a quantum
back into the c-number condensate etc. 2 independent polarizations if
massless etc.

Let's just look at the intrinsic q-part, there is a natural "Yang-Mills"
field 2-form

F^a = dA^a + w^ac'cA^c'/\A^c

With Lagrangian density 0-form ~ *[(1/4)*F^a/\Fa]

Note that A^a = A^a(condensate c-number) + A^a(q-number)

so that the bare Hamiltonian from the Lagrangian has quartic terms. Thus
is same formal structure as in Yang-Mills.

Think of sound waves in a crystal. Sound, like gravity and torsion, is
an emergent collective phenomenon out of the individual lattice atoms
right? You can have "classical" "condensate" sound waves (many phonons
in same momentum state - I mean narrow wave packet), but also you can
detect "particle" like phonon quantum effects in the fluctuations - but
the phonon itself is a collective object out of the atomic substratum.
And these phonon quantum effects can be treated as manifestations of an
"emergent" quantized field?
Is that what you mean?

Yes. Sound is an emergent collective phenomenon. At low intensities you
get quantum fluctuations - phonon analog to quantum optics effects
Poisson noise, sub-Poisson et-al. Sound has both classical wavelike
properties and quantized particle phonon properties for different kinds
of experiments. I am saying that both intrinsic tetrad curvature ~ A^a
and intrinsic torsion ~ w^a^bcA^c are both collective emergent both
c-number and q-number like sound is. Sakharov basically had this idea in
1967 though not as detailed.

Note I suppress the possible model-dependent "hologram" N^-1/3 coupling
factors and pure Minkowski I^a terms in the above rough heuristics,





  #2  
Old September 14th 07, 06:47 AM posted to sci.astro
gb6726
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default why dark energy density is small

I assume galaxies may born from dark matter. The early Universe may be
incorrect
as the great void may be just one spot where once there was an
explosion of galaxies.
There are other smaller voids, one very close to our galaxy measuring
2 million light years
in diameter, which is not much, only 20 times the width of our galaxy.
Voids seem to be
void of matter. Once the dark matter is exhausted, galaxies fly in all
directions and the
region remains mostly empty. Some parts of the Universe are seen
giving birth to new
galaxies. Other regions seem to be cold and empty, lacking dark
matter, while regions
giving birth to new galaxies should have a lot of dark matter.

How dark matter could convert to mass? It is mass, an entity like
fluid that should
be smaller than fundamental particles like electrons, but as that it
may not be bound
to the speed of light. There is a lot of evidence that dark matter
moves faster than
the speed of light. One is the structures of black holes producing a
different magnetic
field than black hole predictions, indicating that jets do not spin
off before entering
a black hole, but come from within the black hole. The meaning of pure
energy is
not seen by dark matter reaching it's own black hole event horizon and
converting
into pure energy, light and electrons, electric and electro-magnetic
waves arise
before inertial mass collapses on itself. Jets are made of electrons.

  #3  
Old September 14th 07, 06:51 AM posted to sci.astro
gb6726
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default why dark energy density is small

On Sep 13, 11:47 pm, gb6726 wrote:
I assume galaxies may born from dark matter. The early Universe may be
incorrect
as the great void may be just one spot where once there was an
explosion of galaxies.
There are other smaller voids, one very close to our galaxy measuring
2 million light years
in diameter, which is not much, only 20 times the width of our galaxy.
Voids seem to be
void of matter. Once the dark matter is exhausted, galaxies fly in all
directions and the
region remains mostly empty. Some parts of the Universe are seen
giving birth to new
galaxies. Other regions seem to be cold and empty, lacking dark
matter, while regions
giving birth to new galaxies should have a lot of dark matter.

How dark matter could convert to mass? It is mass, an entity like
fluid that should
be smaller than fundamental particles like electrons, but as that it
may not be bound
to the speed of light. There is a lot of evidence that dark matter
moves faster than
the speed of light. One is the structures of black holes producing a
different magnetic
field than black hole predictions, indicating that jets do not spin
off before entering
a black hole, but come from within the black hole. The meaning of pure
energy is
not seen by dark matter reaching it's own black hole event horizon and
converting
into pure energy, light and electrons, electric and electro-magnetic
waves arise
before inertial mass collapses on itself. Jets are made of electrons.


The important thing is that by dark matter moving faster than the
speed
of light, matter can escape from black holes, i.e electron jets are
brought
out of a black hole from within through the inertial property of dark
matter.

  #4  
Old September 14th 07, 06:52 AM posted to sci.astro
gb6726
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default why dark energy density is small

On Sep 13, 11:51 pm, gb6726 wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:47 pm, gb6726 wrote:





I assume galaxies may born from dark matter. The early Universe may be
incorrect
as the great void may be just one spot where once there was an
explosion of galaxies.
There are other smaller voids, one very close to our galaxy measuring
2 million light years
in diameter, which is not much, only 20 times the width of our galaxy.
Voids seem to be
void of matter. Once the dark matter is exhausted, galaxies fly in all
directions and the
region remains mostly empty. Some parts of the Universe are seen
giving birth to new
galaxies. Other regions seem to be cold and empty, lacking dark
matter, while regions
giving birth to new galaxies should have a lot of dark matter.


How dark matter could convert to mass? It is mass, an entity like
fluid that should
be smaller than fundamental particles like electrons, but as that it
may not be bound
to the speed of light. There is a lot of evidence that dark matter
moves faster than
the speed of light. One is the structures of black holes producing a
different magnetic
field than black hole predictions, indicating that jets do not spin
off before entering
a black hole, but come from within the black hole. The meaning of pure
energy is
not seen by dark matter reaching it's own black hole event horizon and
converting
into pure energy, light and electrons, electric and electro-magnetic
waves arise
before inertial mass collapses on itself. Jets are made of electrons.


The important thing is that by dark matter moving faster than the
speed
of light, matter can escape from black holes, i.e electron jets are
brought
out of a black hole from within through the inertial property of dark
matter.


It is the theory of flows.

  #5  
Old September 14th 07, 07:27 PM posted to sci.astro
Bob[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default why dark energy density is small

Could dark matter be decaying into matter? By which process? And how
would the CMB and the redshifting of distant objects fit into this
picture?


On Sep 14, 6:52 am, gb6726 wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:51 pm, gb6726 wrote:



On Sep 13, 11:47 pm, gb6726 wrote:


I assume galaxies may born from dark matter. The early Universe may be
incorrect
as the great void may be just one spot where once there was an
explosion of galaxies.
There are other smaller voids, one very close to our galaxy measuring
2 million light years
in diameter, which is not much, only 20 times the width of our galaxy.
Voids seem to be
void of matter. Once the dark matter is exhausted, galaxies fly in all
directions and the
region remains mostly empty. Some parts of the Universe are seen
giving birth to new
galaxies. Other regions seem to be cold and empty, lacking dark
matter, while regions
giving birth to new galaxies should have a lot of dark matter.


How dark matter could convert to mass? It is mass, an entity like
fluid that should
be smaller than fundamental particles like electrons, but as that it
may not be bound
to the speed of light. There is a lot of evidence that dark matter
moves faster than
the speed of light. One is the structures of black holes producing a
different magnetic
field than black hole predictions, indicating that jets do not spin
off before entering
a black hole, but come from within the black hole. The meaning of pure
energy is
not seen by dark matter reaching it's own black hole event horizon and
converting
into pure energy, light and electrons, electric and electro-magnetic
waves arise
before inertial mass collapses on itself. Jets are made of electrons.


The important thing is that by dark matter moving faster than the
speed
of light, matter can escape from black holes, i.e electron jets are
brought
out of a black hole from within through the inertial property of dark
matter.


It is the theory of flows.



  #6  
Old September 14th 07, 09:48 PM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,590
Default why dark energy density is small

Could dark matter be decaying into matter? By which process? And how
would the CMB and the redshifting of distant objects fit into this
picture?


The way I imagined is that near black holes in the center of galaxies
dark matter forms it's own event horizon. Dark matter is strange
because I imagine it to be faster than light, so a black hole mass
containing dark matter at the core of the galaxy would be smaller.
Once dark matter reaches it's event horizon, something in another
dimension takes place, the formation of this mass energy into
electrons,
as the process runs into dimensional transformations and electrons
can be spilled out through jets, now bound to the speed of light.
Since dark matter is faster than the speed of light, dark matter
currents
are able to drive matter out straight from inside black holes,
meaning
repell matter as it is more dense, matter which it forms from the
chaotic collapse energies. Dark matter pours into the core of the
galaxy, the way I see it is that spiral arms trap dark matter which
localizes in patches on the arms and flows inward. Dark matter can
slow, and can speed up above the speed of light as it is not bound
to the dimension of spacetime the same way, but flows invisible
below subatomic particles, even below light in makeup. Dark energy
is multi-dimensional, and can shift, unlike moving particles.

Dark matter is static energy, as that carries a radiation, and
may be the source of CMBR. The way the great void was found
is that it lacked CMBR, and what else did it lack? Dark matter.

Radioactivity may give rise to matter out of dark matter, a
combination
I do not understand.

The redshift would be a result of all spiral galaxies building up
inertia
from a runaway effect, meaning galaxies accelerate on their tracks
like trains and the result is inflation galaxies everywhere are
gaining
speed from their trapped energies (swirling systems feed on their
own energies, and as they feed on theor own energies, a galaxy
that swirls gains significant strength and speed of it's own, that is
a property of swirling systems).

Dark matter wouldn't decay, I think black holes are needed in rich
regions with dark matter to produce matter that would become bound
to Einstein's theories, but not with dark matter around where shifting
of gravitational properties change the known physics of black holes,
etc.

A theory.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why the dark energy is small gr-qc/0602022 Jack Sarfatti Astronomy Misc 7 July 14th 07 04:18 PM
Question about the energy density of hydrogen fuel cells. Evgenij Barsukov Astronomy Misc 0 June 12th 06 05:15 PM
Updated TOE explains Quarks, Magnetism, Dark matter and Dark energy and how they are related [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 April 22nd 06 07:05 AM
Astronomical effects of negative vacuum energy density Ed Keane III Astronomy Misc 2 April 15th 04 07:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.