|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
It seems that as Dark Energy increases, Dark Matter decreasesastime goes on
On 24/12/2012 10:07 AM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan: On Monday, December 24, 2012 1:24:25 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote: On 18/12/2012 11:21 AM, dlzc wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2012 6:07:45 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote: On 19/11/2012 3:09 PM, dlzc wrote: OK, but this is not required, is not detectable in the laboratory, and violates the laws of physics not changing over time. I doubt that this law has been absolutely proven. Nothing is Science can be. It may hold true within our current era, but that's just a localized phenomenon. Fine structure constant does not change as much as 1 part in 10^8 over the displayed history of the Universe, and the observations you have drawn your conclusions on *assume* no change in physics over that time. It's hard to tell what the laws of physics were like during the Inflationary Big Bang period. We can only see as far back as the CMBR, The observation that started this post was clearly this side of the CMBR. And the observation *assumed* the laws of physics did not change over that time, to reach their conclusions. Yes, it may have started about post-CMBR universe, but quite obviously it's quite clear we're now discussing pre-CMBR too. i.e. 300k years after the BB, which would already be too late after the Inflationary period. By the time of the CMBR, the Universe had already settled into its current stable state. The Fine Structure Constant was pretty much already at the current level, give or take a few parts per whatever. However, during Inflation that FSC might have been quite wildly different. Sure. And the CMBR might be what our container Universe looks like, and there was no Big Bang. When you say, "no Big Bang" are you talking about a constantly Inflationary universe without Big Bang, or are you talking about good old Static universe? Gravity is often thought of as negative energy. Incorrectly so, since it is energy-neutral. No idea where you get that. Gravity just changes "energy of position" to "energy of motion", net energy does not change, until friction kicks in. Never knew that standing still had any energy at all. As Newton said, "things at rest, remain at rest; things in motion, remain at that same motion." No energy needed for those. If it was not already matter, no push was required. The matter would've had to come later, after Inflation ended. That which is being "pushed", is space itself. Which arises from matter / energy, and cannot exist without it. Which is why it plays such a strong role in the curvature of spacetime. Or more likely matter-energy requires space-time, and cannot exist without it. I don't even think this is just another classic chicken/egg problem, I agree here, however... I think it's quite plainly obvious that energy condenses out of spacetime, and that matter condenses out of energy. I think spacetime is the basic building block, and energy and then matter come out of that. Time evolves from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and space evolves from conservation of momentum and multiple bodies. So to me it is most likely that they all cooked out *precisely* together. The laws of thermodynamics is probably a macroscopic end-effect of the laws of quantum mechanics. Time's direction likely is another end-effect. As for space being just whatever is between two objects, is a bit old-fashioned. It's quite clearly an object in and of itself these days. Yousuf Khan |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
It seems that as Dark Energy increases, Dark Matter decreasesastime goes on
Dear Yousuf Khan:
On Thursday, December 27, 2012 2:29:23 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote: On 24/12/2012 10:07 AM, dlzc wrote: On Monday, December 24, 2012 1:24:25 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote: On 18/12/2012 11:21 AM, dlzc wrote: .... Fine structure constant does not change as much as 1 part in 10^8 over the displayed history of the Universe, and the observations you have drawn your conclusions on *assume* no change in physics over that time. It's hard to tell what the laws of physics were like during the Inflationary Big Bang period. We can only see as far back as the CMBR, The observation that started this post was clearly this side of the CMBR. And the observation *assumed* the laws of physics did not change over that time, to reach their conclusions. Yes, it may have started about post-CMBR universe, but quite obviously it's quite clear we're now discussing pre-CMBR too. Not based on this observation, this finding, this original post. i.e. 300k years after the BB, which would already be too late after the Inflationary period. By the time of the CMBR, the Universe had already settled into its current stable state. The Fine Structure Constant was pretty much already at the current level, give or take a few parts per whatever. However, during Inflation that FSC might have been quite wildly different. Sure. And the CMBR might be what our container Universe looks like, and there was no Big Bang. When you say, "no Big Bang" are you talking about a constantly Inflationary universe without Big Bang, or are you talking about good old Static universe? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/oz1.html .... if behind our event horizon is an identical Universe, then "beyond" the CMBR, is the Universe that contains ours. Just another option, still outside the realm of this discussion. Gravity is often thought of as negative energy. Incorrectly so, since it is energy-neutral. No idea where you get that. Gravity just changes "energy of position" to "energy of motion", net energy does not change, until friction kicks in. Never knew that standing still had any energy at all. Water behind a dam has no energy? A pendulum at the top of its swings, has no energy? As Newton said, "things at rest, remain at rest; things in motion, remain at that same motion." No energy needed for those. Missing the examples above, aren't we? .... Which arises from matter / energy, and cannot exist without it. Which is why it plays such a strong role in the curvature of spacetime. Or more likely matter-energy requires space-time, and cannot exist without it. I don't even think this is just another classic chicken/egg problem, I agree here, however... I think it's quite plainly obvious that energy condenses out of spacetime, and that matter condenses out of energy. I think spacetime is the basic building block, and energy and then matter come out of that. Time evolves from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and space evolves from conservation of momentum and multiple bodies. So to me it is most likely that they all cooked out *precisely* together. The laws of thermodynamics is probably a macroscopic end-effect of the laws of quantum mechanics. Nope. Quantum mechanics does not "predict" either the 2nd law, nor time. Time's direction likely is another end-effect. I find no convincing evidence. As for space being just whatever is between two objects, is a bit old-fashioned. It's quite clearly an object in and of itself these days. I find no convincing evidence. David A. Smith |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
It seems that as Dark Energy increases, Dark Matter decreases as time goes on
In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes: Isn't it true that the reasons for the CMB spectrum are complete guesswork? No, I wouldn't say that's true. Given a model, the expected CMB spectrum can be calculated. Most models disagree with observations. The Mixed Dark Matter model fit the CMB just as well as Lambda-CDM did, and it still does, Reference, please? I'd be astonished if mixed dark matter fits the WMAP spectrum. (The key is that neutrinos don't cluster the same way dark matter does.) -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
It seems that as Dark Energy increases, Dark Matter decreases as time goes on
In article , I wrote:
I'd be astonished if mixed dark matter fits the WMAP spectrum. (The key is that neutrinos don't cluster the same way dark matter does.) Maybe I should be prepared to be astonished; apparently some models in this class are still considered worth discussing. At least a quick search turned up one paper discussing them: D. Anderhalden et al. JCAP 10, 047 (2012). I didn't see anything about comparisons with WMAP data, though. One thing obvious even to a non-expert like me is that such models introduce two new free parameters: the mass of the putative warm particles and the fraction of the overall dark matter they constitute. That makes mixed models unattractive unless data show a clear need for the extra component. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BBC documentary about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Dark Flow | Yousuf Khan[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 3 | March 13th 10 08:14 AM |
Complete dark matter theory opens door to weight/energy potential(Dark matter is considered to be the top mystery in science today, solved,really.) And more finding on dark matter ebergy science from the 1930's. | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 14th 08 03:03 AM |
Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & Weak NuclearForces | Yousuf Khan | Astronomy Misc | 17 | December 8th 07 08:42 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 |