Uneven expansion of space, caused by variations in the density of matter on an epic scale, could produce the effects that astronomers conventionally attribute to dark energy.
Image: DON DIXON
In Brief
- The universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate, implying the existence of a strange new form of energy dark energy. The problem: no one is sure what dark energy is.
- Cosmologists may not actually need to invoke exotic forms of energy. If we live in an emptier-than-average region of space, then the cosmic expansion rate varies with position, which could be mistaken for a variation in time, or acceleration.
- A giant void strikes most cosmologists as highly unlikely but so for that matter does dark energy. Observations over the coming years will differentiate between the two possibilities.
More In This Article
In science, the grandest revolutions are often triggered by the smallest discrepancies. In the 16th century, based on what struck many of his contemporaries as the esoteric minutiae of celestial motions, Copernicus suggested that Earth was not, in fact, at the center of the universe. In our own era, another revolution began to unfold 11 years ago with the discovery of the accelerating universe. A tiny deviation in the brightness of exploding stars led astronomers to conclude that they had no idea what 70 percent of the cosmos consists of. All they could tell was that space is filled with a substance unlike any other one that pushes along the expansion of the universe rather than holding it back. This substance became known as dark energy.
It is now over a decade later, and the existence of dark energy is still so puzzling that some cosmologists are revisiting the fundamental postulates that led them to deduce its existence in the first place. One of these is the product of that earlier revolution: the Copernican principle, that Earth is not in a central or otherwise special position in the universe. If we discard this basic principle, a surprisingly different picture of what could account for the observations emerges.
This article was originally published with the title Does Dark Energy Really Exist?.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
123 Comments
Add CommentDear Editor,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile it is true that a large void can simulate the effects of dark energy,it goes against the cosmoogical principle which is accepted as per current observations and calculations,based on the theoretic predictions.but if the universe has a fractal structure in spite of a large-scale homgenous nature,then voids have a place,as some have pointed out.
But there is a possibility that the problem may be with the signal itself,that light particles,or the electromagnetic wave quanta or photons that convey the information may hide the puzzle within.The photon travels at the spped of light or absolute velocity because it has zero rest mass.Why not the photon contain a deeper structure with a dark energy interior within that neutralises the mass due to its radiational energy that we measure from outside.Inside the photon could be equally balanced by dark and radiant energy principles such that it is neutralising its mass principle.In the very early universe the intense enry radiation-matter interactions might have been characterised by ultra-high energies and smaller spatial lenghts correspondingly,so as to reveal the deeper structures of photons,and its dark energy interiors.This component could have contributed to the inflation which seemed to have smoothed out the anisotropies and inhomogeneities.At the very periphery of the universe,or in certain stellar forming regions,or whwereever there are intense matter-radiation interactions,this process can repeat giving rise to dark energy effects,or what would appear as black-holes to an outside observer from a diastance,though in fact these could be dark energy stars as well.This can also explain the gamma ray bursts of intense energy in certain directions,and the observation of quasars in neighbourhood galaxies[which need not be due to gravitational lensing effects].
If photons have a structure which are revealed as a dark energy principle in high energy interactions with matter,then the energy density in universe could be accounted for by photons themselves,without having to resort to assumptions of dark energy.The large presence of electromagnetic radiations in the univers is at present accounted for only on the basis of its attractive gravitational potential ,in terms of its energy density,which may not be considerable.But if the photon opens up in high energy interactions with matter,then the dak energy component could be significant due to its repulsive gravity showing up as dark energy. vacuum energy could also be muted by virtual photon envelope.
SURESHKUMAR.NIIST
Dear Editor,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile it is true that a large void can simulate the effects of dark energy,it goes against the cosmoogical principle which is accepted as per current observations and calculations,based on the theoretic predictions.but if the universe has a fractal structure in spite of a large-scale homgenous nature,then voids have a place,as some have pointed out.
But there is a possibility that the problem may be with the signal itself,that light particles,or the electromagnetic wave quanta or photons that convey the information may hide the puzzle within.The photon travels at the spped of light or absolute velocity because it has zero rest mass.Why not the photon contain a deeper structure with a dark energy interior within that neutralises the mass due to its radiational energy that we measure from outside.Inside the photon could be equally balanced by dark and radiant energy principles such that it is neutralising its mass principle.In the very early universe the intense enry radiation-matter interactions might have been characterised by ultra-high energies and smaller spatial lenghts correspondingly,so as to reveal the deeper structures of photons,and its dark energy interiors.This component could have contributed to the inflation which seemed to have smoothed out the anisotropies and inhomogeneities.At the very periphery of the universe,or in certain stellar forming regions,or whwereever there are intense matter-radiation interactions,this process can repeat giving rise to dark energy effects,or what would appear as black-holes to an outside observer from a diastance,though in fact these could be dark energy stars as well.This can also explain the gamma ray bursts of intense energy in certain directions,and the observation of quasars in neighbourhood galaxies[which need not be due to gravitational lensing effects].
If photons have a structure which are revealed as a dark energy principle in high energy interactions with matter,then the energy density in universe could be accounted for by photons themselves,without having to resort to assumptions of dark energy.The large presence of electromagnetic radiations in the univers is at present accounted for only on the basis of its attractive gravitational potential ,in terms of its energy density,which may not be considerable.But if the photon opens up in high energy interactions with matter,then the dak energy component could be significant due to its repulsive gravity showing up as dark energy. vacuum energy could also be muted by virtual photon envelope.
SURESHKUMAR.NIIST
Dear Editor,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile it is true that a large void can simulate the effects of dark energy,it goes against the cosmoogical principle which is accepted as per current observations and calculations,based on the theoretic predictions.but if the universe has a fractal structure in spite of a large-scale homgenous nature,then voids have a place,as some have pointed out.
But there is a possibility that the problem may be with the signal itself,that light particles,or the electromagnetic wave quanta or photons that convey the information may hide the puzzle within.The photon travels at the spped of light or absolute velocity because it has zero rest mass.Why not the photon contain a deeper structure with a dark energy interior within that neutralises the mass due to its radiational energy that we measure from outside.Inside the photon could be equally balanced by dark and radiant energy principles such that it is neutralising its mass principle.In the very early universe the intense enry radiation-matter interactions might have been characterised by ultra-high energies and smaller spatial lenghts correspondingly,so as to reveal the deeper structures of photons,and its dark energy interiors.This component could have contributed to the inflation which seemed to have smoothed out the anisotropies and inhomogeneities.At the very periphery of the universe,or in certain stellar forming regions,or whwereever there are intense matter-radiation interactions,this process can repeat giving rise to dark energy effects,or what would appear as black-holes to an outside observer from a diastance,though in fact these could be dark energy stars as well.This can also explain the gamma ray bursts of intense energy in certain directions,and the observation of quasars in neighbourhood galaxies[which need not be due to gravitational lensing effects].
If photons have a structure which are revealed as a dark energy principle in high energy interactions with matter,then the energy density in universe could be accounted for by photons themselves,without having to resort to assumptions of dark energy.The large presence of electromagnetic radiations in the univers is at present accounted for only on the basis of its attractive gravitational potential ,in terms of its energy density,which may not be considerable.But if the photon opens up in high energy interactions with matter,then the dak energy component could be significant due to its repulsive gravity showing up as dark energy. vacuum energy could also be muted by virtual photon envelope.
SURESHKUMAR.NIIST
The article proposes a clever possibility, suggesting that accelleration of universal expansion is just an illusion and dark energy may not exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere may be another possibility worth exploring:
Assuming the universe is in fact flat/disc shaped rather than spherical, and acceleration of universal expansion is real and not an illusion, then there may be at least one simple explaination for effects we attribute to a mysterious dark energy:
Has anyone done the math to determine if measured acceleration of universal expansion is consistent with the possibility that the universe is in rotation around the gravitational center of the universe?
(Similar effect as dropping marbles on the center of a rotating turn table [old style record player] and viewing the accelerating expansion of the other marbles from the view point of one of the marbles. The reference marble would have difficulty knowing if it was rotating just by viewing the other marbles except that the rate of expansion of the other marbles would appear to increase as the marbles moved away from the center...)
What might that say about the mechanics of the big bang that might have set the universe in rotation?
(By the way, the prior 3 posts by "suresh10in" are repeats of the same post...)
Dear Editor,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy some error in posting there was a repetition above,which was in fact three seperate posts,which I had pasted from my file:error is regretted.I will be summarising my posts [the two that I had posted but which did not appear due to cross/erroneous posting].
if matter -enrgy interactions could have revealed the structure of photon,and caused dark energy effects to evidence,then it should be possible to verify this through the super or large hadron collider experiments ,once resumed.Assuming a mass of 10^65-70 gms for visible universe,we can postulate a similar range for radiational energy mass[at the rate of 1 photon per cu.cm].If we consider that most of this energy comes from high energy cosmic rays or gamma radiation,then we can work out dark energies larger by an order of magnitude, enveloped within the photonc structure,decaying towrds the exterior such that it is equal and opposite to the the radiant energy or charge of the photon, at the outside, as measured by an external observer.This will give dark energy densities of an order of magnitude higher than the observed energy density with attractive gravity potential,where as the internal dark energy with repulsive gravity is shrouded in the photonic structure.This will be revealed to posit dark energy effects,with densities a few times higher than baryonic mass densities,as the photon opens up in high particle interactions with energies simulating the early universe conditions when matter-radiation interactions were strong.Such strong interactions had caused the dark energy effects to evidence causing inflation in the early universe.
SURESHKUMAR.S,ADVISER,NIIST,TRIVANDRUM,INDIA
Hello suresh10in,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood creative thinking that a repulsive gravity would make sense for both universal expansion and big bank inflation. Good conjecture, probably not ruled in or out at this time, but is it the simplest explaination?
Another less complex possibility that does not require new and un-confirmed forces might also answer the related emailed question I received "please try to explain your figure...".
Solar systems are flat and disc shaped and rotate around a star (gravity of the star balances with centrifugal forces of orbiting planets).
Galaxies are flat and disc shaped and rotate around a super massive black hole (gravity of the super massive black hole balances with centrifugal forces of orbiting stars).
The Universe may be flat and disc shaped and unknown if it rotates around its center of gravity (gravity of center of universal mass opposed by centrifugal forces of orbiting galaxies).
A rotating universe does not have a fixed central point like center of gravity, the universes center of gravity expands as the universe expands.
As the universe expands outward the gravitational pull from its center of mass decreases and centrifugal forces of orbiting galaxies dominate causing an acceleration of expansion away from the center of rotation.
... another possible [simple] explaination for apparent observed acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe, assuming universal expansion is actually accelerating and it is not just an illusion as is also possible ["interpretation error concerning the infrared-effect"].
Jim
Oops: "big bank inflation"... I hope not!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear people;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe light bends the gravity.
The matter produces the gravity field, and the energy of emission produces the separation field.
It is said by all the people that the gravity has the same intensity regardless of the direction of measurement and that it is isotropic. But I think that the gravity will work not only three dimensionally but also two or one dimensionally. In the two or one dimensional gravity, the gravity will be concentrated in one plane or line and will have a stronger effect than three dimensional gravity has. Then the separation forces are necessary in order to smash the gravity into two or one dimension.
Then the imaginary factor is necessary.
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html
Iori Fujita
To the Editors:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI applaud the authors' efforts to find an alternative to "Dark Energy" to explain the apparent increase in the expansion rate of the universe; to any normal scientist dark energy as a concept seems highly improbable. However, the proposed increase in the expansion rate of the universe rests upon just one observation, that far distant supernova explosions are dimmer than they should be.
There is a fundamental assumption made here, that no-one seems to explicitly acknowledge, that the rate of passage of time has remained constant throughout the history of the universe, i.e. that one second now is the same as one second ten billion years ago. We know, via Einstein, that the rate of passage of time can in fact vary under certain conditions, and that one of these is the matter density; for instance, time passes more slowly the closer one approaches a black hole. One certain fact seems to be that the amount of mass/energy in the universe, whatever its form, has not changed since the big bang, so in the early universe the matter density must have been higher than it is now.
My feeling is that these supernova observations are in fact sampling an era when time in the universe passed more slowly than it does now, and that this assumption would explain the observations as well as any "dark energy" assumption. Has anyone done any calculations along these lines? I would greatly value the authors' opinion here.
If true this has extreme implications for the history of the universe. One would be that in fact it had no beginning; since the matter density in the proposed singularity involved in the big bang would have been infinite, time would have been passing infinitely slowly. I know that those seeking a "theory of everything" do not like infinities, and will make any assumptions to avoid them; but perhaps they are unavoidable, and the universe is a kind of hyperbola.
To the Editors:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI applaud the authors' efforts to find an alternative to "Dark Energy" to explain the apparent increase in the expansion rate of the universe; to any normal scientist dark energy as a concept seems highly improbable. However, the proposed increase in the expansion rate of the universe rests upon just one observation, that far distant supernova explosions are dimmer than they should be.
There is a fundamental assumption made here, that no-one seems to explicitly acknowledge, that the rate of passage of time has remained constant throughout the history of the universe, i.e. that one second now is the same as one second ten billion years ago. We know, via Einstein, that the rate of passage of time can in fact vary under certain conditions, and that one of these is the matter density; for instance, time passes more slowly the closer one approaches a black hole. One certain fact seems to be that the amount of mass/energy in the universe, whatever its form, has not changed since the big bang, so in the early universe the matter density must have been higher than it is now.
My feeling is that these supernova observations are in fact sampling an era when time in the universe passed more slowly than it does now, and that this assumption would explain the observations as well as any "dark energy" assumption. Has anyone done any calculations along these lines? I would greatly value the authors' opinion here.
If true this has extreme implications for the history of the universe. One would be that in fact it had no beginning; since the matter density in the proposed singularity involved in the big bang would have been infinite, time would have been passing infinitely slowly. I know that those seeking a "theory of everything" do not like infinities, and will make any assumptions to avoid them; but perhaps they are unavoidable, and the universe is a kind of hyperbola.
Wait wait... you mean the universe isn't some kind giant turtle with us riding on its back?... there goes my whole worldview!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis has been my idea all along. Just because space appears to expand, doesn't mean that it does. It is only our collective assumption, based upon our visual sense. And as we all know, the senses are subject to illusory conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.thebigcollapse.net
This has been my idea for several years: just because the universe appears to expand, does not mean that it does. Localized conglomerates of matter could be shrinking, which also would account for all observations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.thebigcollapse.net if you are interested in understanding this deeper than this post will allow for.
Just because the universe appears to expand, does not mean that it is expanding. If localized conglomerates of matter are shrinking, this would account for precisely the same observational results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.thebigcollapse.net
Sorry for multiple posts. I wasn't familiar with how this posting system worked, and kept posting because I didn't see it come up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, my apologies, I wasn't attempting to spam this post.
Now i understand I need to set 'newest posts first' in order to see it. Seems I'm not the only one that is confused by this format though, I though others were spamming too.
Why does the author say that matter slows down the supposed expansion of the universe? That doesn't make any sense.... Remember the illustration of gravity, with space represented by a rubber sheet, and planets and stars as marbles and ball bearings? In that example, space is "stretched" by mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, wouldn't light have to pass through more and more stretched space the farther away it had shined from?
Wouldn't this account for redshift just as well as the theory of expansion?
Maybe the universe was never expanding at all? maybe the reason you pick-up a background radiation is that past a certain distance, you are just picking up an average, out of focus, blur....tired-out, exhausted light from parts of the infinite universe beyond that 15 billion light year range.
Is it a coincidence that the "the probability of a void big enough to mimic dark energy is less than one part in 10100" and that "dark energy has an energy density some 10120 times less than we may have naively expected"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting article, although in desperate need of a good editor and a few dozen punctuation marks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgregaither, this text was converted from the print edition, for which we *do* through editorial pains. (That's the benefit of being a paid subscriber, after all.) If you let us know about specific typos, we'll fix them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe universe would seem to expand if we are all contracting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould this be related to the article published by New Scientist on the theory of time as an illusion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI presumed at the time that if time was an artefact of aproximation then there would be consequences to the theory of dark energy.
An editor needs to go through this and fix the punctuation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn editor needs to go through this article and fix the punctuation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhysics are in a dark era, a new oscurantism, dark matter,dark energy, I could expect something more convincing about our knowledge of the universe.It seems tome like a matter of faith, anybody knows what are we talking about. A new eter perhaps?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhysics are in a dar era, a new obscurantism. Dark matter, dark energy, IU could expect something moreconvincing about our knowledge of the universe.Anybody knows what we are talking about, a new " eter" perhaps?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere ain't nothing in space! It's jambed packed filled with something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAETHER; Dark matter/dark energy, the fundamental stuff of the universe, has charge,is superamagnetic, transports EMF, causes effects of mass/inertia.
Oh yes the cosmic constant is not. Red shift can also be caused by variations in aetheral density as well as distance and relative speeds.
As we can not see the edge of the universe we must be unable to see the extent of it. Are we to far in or just unable to see it? The concept of mirror reflection is interesting, we may be seeing reflections of reflections as in funhouse mirrors.
At least this article is a desertation on science and not a political statement.
Dark matter? Dark energy? Is science becoming religion? So there is stuff we can not explain, phenonema that go against the our instincts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what; quantum physics is totally counter-intuitive, and so is a universe supended in what?, with boundaries where?
The mere existence of matter/energy contradicts some of the the basic laws of physics, so fairy tales like the "Big Bang" have been invented as pacifiers. String theory and other magic comes and goes. A unifiying theory reconciling existing models of reality proves very hard to come up with. Why don't admit we simply don't know, instead of all the important sounding humbug and far-fetched fantasies? There probably are limits to what can be known.
The idea that we might be special after all is gaining traction through observation of exoplanets. It is turning out that, contrary to the assumptions scientists have made for centuries, our solar system is actually quite unusual. The typical solar system seems to consist of hot jovian worlds in extremely close orbits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't any of you scientists play pool? When you make a break, some balls accelerate really fast, but the ones in the middle are slowed down by secondary collisions. Then you get a pool table with balls scattered all over the place. Slower balls don't move as far as the faster balls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJupiter in the corner pocket. ;)
Dark energy is double delay of time and mass. This means time for one is evolving, and how it evolves means that light is emitted, received and what light is received from say a distant explosion spinning off mass at the speed of light is first seen by the first light particle received which is the original light transmission. That original light transmission is of the first event that happened at the explosion. If mass is sent off at near the speed of light from that explosion, we still see the first moment of explosion with the first captured light signal. This means that we see the explosion taking place. What we see follows Einstein's relativity that nothing can travel faster than light. Mass cannot travel faster than light and will never be seen to travel faster than the speed of light, and since what we see is the first moment of the explosion, things will evolve in the visual field. The mass that left will travel under the speed of light in the visual field. This means that although say 10 light years passed since the explosion when we receive the first signal of light, it will take another 10 years at least for the mass traveling at near the speed of light to reach us. This effect double-delays the cosmos in the time evolution itself: all things expand in this time-evolving Universe, yet if you add up the math that's how it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgmbajszar at yahoo dot com
The expansion of the universe is really wrapped up in our fear of infinity.If we look at the 'speed of light', then at that speed we would experience no distance in no time, and therefore an end to infinity. However if we travel at any speed below this absolute, then space and time are forever being created in front of us. Perhaps as we are always finding new ways to 'see' deeper into space instead of observing the edge of the universe we are actually creating more space?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes light just continue through space forward forever until it is absorbed or could it be that it exhausts itself into dark energy?
In the study of kinetics, relative centers of gravity stimulate the development of anatomical structures. We have identified the motion of stars within a galaxy and found, (Louise Volders) that spiral galaxies do not spin as expected according to Keplerian dynamics that the average orbital speed of an object at a specified distance away from the majority of the mass distribution would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe curves do not decrease in the expected inverse square root relationship but are "flat". This extra mass required to account for the relative speed is proposed by astronomers to be due to dark matter within the galactic halo.
Another answer is that galaxies are influenced by the relative centers of gravity in mutual fields of space, something we have not examined
No. The humongous band-aids of dark energy and cold dark matter were created because the assumptions used to interpret the measurements are incorrect. E.g. the images of far-away supernovae are dimmer because of an excess of cosmic dust.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if our 3 or 4 or 5 dimensional space is the surface of a "hyper sphere" (3 or 4 or 5 plus one)? And, in this essentially closed universe, there was a big bang 17 billion years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if a sufficient portion of the mass and energy ejected from that big bang has now passed more than half way around the hypersphere from the point of the initial big bang and is becoming more dense than our own neighborhood. As it goes further around, it will get more and more dense and, in that "neighborhood", you would see blue shifts, but that concentrated mass would also exert influence on the more distant matter that was not yet half way around , causing it to accelerate towards this mass and away from the site of the big bang.
Eventually, all matter and energy would accumulate in a single antipole at the location of the original big bang and presumably repeat the process, or something similar, back the otherway.
What if our 3 or 4 or 5 dimensional space is the surface of a "hyper sphere" (3 or 4 or 5 plus one)? And, in this essentially closed universe, there was a big bang 17 billion years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if a sufficient portion of the mass and energy ejected from that big bang has now passed more than half way around the hypersphere from the point of the initial big bang and is becoming more dense than our own neighborhood. As it goes further around, it will get more and more dense and, in that "neighborhood", you would see blue shifts, but that concentrated mass would also exert influence on the more distant matter that was not yet half way around , causing it to accelerate towards this mass and away from the site of the big bang.
Eventually, all matter and energy would accumulate in a single antipole at the location of the original big bang and presumably repeat the process, or something similar, back the other way.
What if our 3 or 4 or 5 dimensional space is the surface of a "hyper sphere" (3 or 4 or 5 plus one)? And, in this essentially closed universe, there was a big bang 17 billion years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if a sufficient portion of the mass and energy ejected from that big bang has now passed more than half way around the hypersphere from the point of the initial big bang and is becoming more dense than our own neighborhood. As it goes further around, it will get more and more dense and, in that "neighborhood", you would see blue shifts, but that concentrated mass would also exert influence on the more distant matter that was not yet half way around , causing it to accelerate towards this mass and away from the site of the big bang.
Eventually, all matter and energy would accumulate in a single antipole at the location of the original big bang and presumably repeat the process, or something similar, back the other way.
Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies, most recently by the WMAP satellite, indicate that the universe is very close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to a certain critical density. The existence of dark energy, in whatever form, is needed to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe. The total amount of matter in the universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured by the CMB, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%. The most recent WMAP observations are consistent with a universe made up of only 4% ordinary matter, 23% dark matter, and 73% dark energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEver since the presentation of Einstein’s theories of both special and general relativity with the many earth shaking scientific advances based upon the precepts, there are still many unanswered questions. Both Maxwell’s hypothetical “ether,” suggested to facilitate the propagation of electromagnetic energy, and Newton’s gravitation theory based on observed laws of motion, have fallen into disregard based on Einstein’s suggestions of no need for an ether if you abandon the necessity for absolute time and that gravity is not a force like other forces but that mass follows a geodesic path in a “curved space,” based on the supposition that space-time is not flat as had been previously surmised, but is curved, or ‘warped,’ by the distribution of mass and energy in it.
Constrained by those accepted precepts we have never discovered the actual means by which light is propagated or the quantum mechanics of gravitational force, and we have no proven origin of matter or shape of the universe theories. And now we have measured evidence of dark matter with the question of what is the substance of dark matter, and what is the composition of an implied necessary form of dark energy. I suggest the answers are all causal related.
Based upon an in-depth analysis using all proven data of now known properties of radiated EM energy, I propose the composition and functionality of Maxwell’s ether can now be defined, consistent with all experiments testing the phenomena of special relativity, general relativity and relativistic quantum mechanics,. As scientifically defined the ether is the “dark energy” glue that ties all four interaction forces in Nature together, bonding all atomic components in atomic masses in a quantum entropy pattern of motion that sustains their composition and interdependent coexistence; facilitates all the propagation principles of EM radiation, and accounts for the ongoing formation of new matter to maintain an unending “steady state” continuance of the universe. The atomic components thus formed constitute the substance of “dark matter.”
A Library of Congress copyrighted full disclosure 11 page paper is available for all interested.
Maps of Dark Matter? What physicists are really mapping are locations in the universe where our understanding of the laws of nature breaks down in the real world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA question from a lay person. Could the rate of expansion be faster than the speed of light in some region thus causing some region to be invisible, or to seem like a void?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSunsphere; I would interested to see if your postulation on unified forces is simular to the one that I developed to get a handle on mass/inertia and the gravity effect. My primary interest is to create a EMF based true space drive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispgtruspace@hughes.net
1.The authors suggest that about 70% of the cosmos consist of dark energy.Biological systems (e.g. mammals ) also consist of 70% of a relatively inert matter, water.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. It is also suggested that the cosmos is undergoing an accelerated expansion, that will eventualy lead to its destruction. Similarly, in the biological systems, there is a phase of accelerated expansion (youth-growth ), followed by a steady state(adult) , then decline and death(old).
3. The authors suggest that different parts of the universe expand at different rates producing an "uneven baloon". In the biological systems there is also an uneven growth in the development of an individual.
4. The above are only a few of the many similarities between the biological and cosmic systems, that led to the formulation of an unifying hypothesis for birth and development of the universe . This hypothesis suggests explanations and predictions for its formation and fate( Raphael Kleinman, J. Micro and Macro Cosmos, vols. 1(2007) and 2 (2008)
( http://journals.sfu.ca/jfs ) .
Considering the essential elements simplistically, at cosmological scales the effect of gravity is to localize matter while expansion increases space. While the localized effect of gravity militates against expansion, as matter becomes increasingly localized and space expands in time gravitys universal influence should be diminished, resulting in an increasing rate of universal expansion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames T. Dwyer
I was at work the other day and all of a sudden I thought if two suns were in proximatey to each other, meaning
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthey were both within the same gravity radius to one another, and each sun was effecting a FTE event on each other
at the time of each suns collapse into a blackhole, would the gravity transfer down the FTE cylindrical tunnel
thus creating a bridge between the two black hole's where they would constantly pull on one another creating a
wormhole? I have been looking into this for the last several days and would like some others inputs on it.
According to how a black hole works it seems possible.
First we must look at three events in this spacial event. These are the Sun and how it works, the collapse of
two suns located within the same solar system into a black hole and the Flux Transfer Event.
The first is how the sun works.
Basically the sun is a constantly changing spherical shape. When the hydrogen atoms collide with each other they
create an energy release as well as changing each others path. The atoms push and pull against the other hydrogen
atoms proton's and electron's orbital paths, based on how like fields of electro magnetic fields repel each other
and opposite fields attract each other, they are constantly repelling and attracting one another. The neutrons do
not have a chage and do not interact very much with the surrounding medium. What the neutron does is it creates a
balance in the electromagnetic field between the electron and proton, in that the neutron when it passes between
two opposite fields that are attracted to each other, the neutron creates a momentary break between the two that
allows the hydrogen atom to continue on its path. If the neutron were not present then the two atoms would become
a solid as the bond between the two would be permanent until effected upon by another force that is greated then
EM bond between the two hydrogen atoms. At the core of the sun where the greatest pressure resides is a result of
the hydrogen atoms being confined to a small space. As they travel the next layer above them creates a barrier
where the hydrogen atoms at the core are constantly being bounced back and force in the core based on the EM field
specifics of like fields repel and opposites attract each other. As the distance of the atoms at the core is
limited they combine at a higher rate of occurance thus causing plasma to form out of the charge neutral material
of the protons and electrons. The reaction that takes place in the core of the sun when the hydrogen atoms slam
together and do not stay in a state of repelling and attracting creates helium through nuclear fusion This occurs
at every layer of the sun with each corresponding layer that is encountered going away from the sun having a
larger distance for the atom to traverse meaning that the gravity and radiation generated would be substantially
lower then the layer below it. This process creates the four layers of the sun, the Core, the Photosphere,
Chromosphere and the Corona.
Now we will look at how a black how is formed from the collapse of a sun. Now we know that the neutron is a
neutral element in the make up of the hydrogen atom that keeps the electrons and protons of two or more atoms
from attracting to one another creating helium. At high velocities however the neutron is unable to keep the
electrons and protons from from attracting to one another. Now since the core operates in this manner of
overcoming the neutron and thus creating plasma, when the core has used up its energy source, the mass of the
other three layers collapse in on the core at faster then light velocities. This is because the neutrons do not
posess any attractiveness or repullsion to to keep the plasma at the core of the planet from expending itself.
This can be refernced to in a similiaty only to how a gasoline engine works. In order the vehicle to go forward
the engine needs fuel, the engine of the sun would be the core where the combination of hydrogen atoms into helium
creates the fuel. As the fuel of the core is distributed to the engine or the other three layers of the sun, the
fuel is slowly depleted. When the core of the sun cannot create any more nuclear reactions, meaning that the
proportion of helium to hydrogen is greater, which the core needs hydrogen to create helium which is the fuel
source, then the nuclear reactions cease to exist. It would be the same as running on fumes which most of us have
most likely done at one time or another, the engine sputters a few times and then stops, locking all mechanics of
the engine or the core into a singularity. Now since the core of the sun is now empty the remaining three layers
would occupy the empty space of the core. There would be trace amounts of plasma at the core but as the other three
layers use the remaining fuel left, the interior of the core is no longer able to maintain the immense pressure of
the three layers above it. The other three layers which are still producing energy would collapse into the void
where the core was at a faster then light speed velocity. The extreme rate of velocities at which these
collisions take place create an immense release of energy that needs to go somewhere but because of the nature
of how + and - EM fields work the three layers are then released outwards. Now you are probably wondering how the
pull of the center of the black hole works. Since the collapse of the core of the sun occurs at faster then light
speed velocities a small portion of the remaining core plasma would be ejected from the core at faster the light
speed velocities. The plasma would travel together across space. The result would be like a tub full of water that
has a drain at the center. The drain is not occupied by any medium so when the drain or the core is opened or uses
all of its energy the remaining layers then occupy the emptiness or the void of the drain. The drain pipes or the
conduit created by the ejected core plasma then sucks the escaping release of energy back into the core or the
drain. This creates the spinning effect around the core. The black hole at the center of the black hole that is
not visible is in fact the area of the suns core that contained the plasmsa.
Now the pull of gravity at the center of the black hole would depend on how much of the suns plasma was ejected
during the collapse and how large of a conduit was formed. If the escaping plasma held a tight bond to itself
during the ejection process then the ejection would create a smaller conduit in which remaining suns material
would have a lesser amount of gravity placed upon it, meaning that the black hole's material would be able to
spread out alot faster while being pulled back to the drain at a slower rate. A less cohesive ejection of plasma
would still create a gravitational pull towards the center of the black hole but at a faster rate due to the
larger conduit created. What is also important is how far the plasma disperse's once it is ejected from the core.
So a tightly bonded ejection could in fact spread apart creating a smaller pull on the material or it could create
a greater pull on the material remaining even though the conduit created would be smaller. This part of theory is
based upon how much plasma was ejected from the core and how much of a pull it effected upon the remaining
material left behind. This part of the collapse could be in any amount and is not based on any criteria but is a
random event. Now eventaully the ejected plasma would run out of energy because of the lack of hydrogen present
to create more plasma This may be in fact what dark matter is, the spent plasma that had been ejected from a
collapsed sun.
Now if the core's ejected plasma would encounter a gas cloud containing more hydrogen , the plasma may
actually pull that hydrogen to the plasma creating another sun or it may even fuel the plasma traveling through
it giving the plasma more energy to continue to fuel the black hole and it's path across the universe. This would
create a waypoint in the conduit, meaning a point where the black hole would pull energy from the gas cloud while
fueling the ejected plasma.
So from a theorectical standpoint this is the how tail of the black hole could become a conduit, tunnel ect across
the galaxy or to other parts of the Universe. The suns spends its remaining fuel at the core causing a collapse of
the matter contained within the reamining layers into the empty core. The remaining plasma is then ejected at
faster then light speed velocities in a random direction taking with it a certain amout of the remaining matter
from the collapse of the sun. As the plasma speeds away from the core at FTL speed velocities the matter that was
pulled out of the core with it would follow the flow of the motion of the plasma engine. The conduit would stay
intact for as long as the plasma engine (the greatest part of the mass of the plasma ejected from the core)
maintained a gravitional pull on the matrix of the atoms contained within the conduit itself. Once the plasma
engine exhausted it's energy the conduit would start to collapse back towards the black hole from the point where
the plasma engine exhausted it's energy. This collapse could be instant or take years to occur and would be based
upon the distance from the plasma engines exhausting point back to the black hole. Now two possible outcomes could
effect the plasma engine trailed by the conduit as it travels through space. The first would be encountering a
hydrogen gas cloud. The second would be encountering another black hole.
If the plasma freight train (the engine would be the greatest amount of plasma mass ejected from the core and the
freight cars would be the matter pulled from the collapsing star as the plasma was ejected) passes through a hydrogen
gas cloud and creates a swirling type motion causing the gas to collide at light speed velocities then this could
create another core of a young sun. If a new sun is created then the plasma conduit from the center of the black hole
would lead directly into the new forming suns core. The gravity of the new sun's core would pull matter from the
blackhole into the center of the suns core via the conduit. As the blackhole draws any available matter within
it's gravitational pull and its mass grows the matter that is drawn into the center of the black hole would
transfer to the new forming sun's core via the conduit, thus increasing the sun's mass. Eventually the suns mass
may possibly grow so large that it would create a larger gravitational pull upon the blackhole itself thus causing
the matrix of the conduit that is connected to blackhole to pull the matter from the black hole into the suns core,
thus causing the black hole to cease to exist, except in the form of a nebulae or possibly dark matter.
If the result of the plasma conduit passing through the hydrogen gas cloud is not enough to create a swirling
motion that would create a new solar core, the swirling motion could create a new wormhole entrance point. As the
plasma engine passes through the hydrogen gas cloud it would pick up new hydrogen thus adding fuel to the plasma
engine allowing the plasma engine to continue it's travel through space. The result would be that the now swirling
vortex that was created as the plasma engine passed through it would have created a certain amount of gravity,
that if the gravitational field is strong enough, would be able to grab ahold of the black holes tail and keep it
in place, relative to If the plasma freight train (the engine would be the greatest amount of plasma mass ejected
from the core and the freight cars would be the matter pulled from the collapsing star as the plasma was ejected)
passes through a hydrogen gas cloud and creates a swirling type motion causing the gas to collide at light speed
velocities then this could create a another core of a young sun. If a new sun is created then the plasma conduit
from the center of the black hole would lead directly into the new forming suns core. The gravity of the new sun's
core would pull matter from the blackhole into the center of the suns core via the conduit. As the blackhole draws
any available matter within it's gravitational pull and its mass grows the matter that is drawn into the center of
the black hole would transfer to the new forming sun's core via the conduit, thus increasing the sun's mass.
Eventually the suns mass may possibly grow so large that it would create a larger gravitational pull upon the
blackhole itself thus causing the matrix of the conduit that is connected to blackhole to pull the matter from the
black hole into the suns core, thus causing the black hole to cease to exist, except in the form of a nebulae or
possibly dark matter.
Copyright dwighthuth 2009
Dear Editor,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUpon reading this article once can only wonder if the weirdness is not in the universe but in the minds of those who attempt to do the interpretation... Where can we find in the universe a true void or empty space, aka vacuum? Answer: nowhere (am i wrong?). Why would the observations lead to the conclusion that the universe does not to follow the current [mathematical abstract] model[s]? Let us see, what are the basic assumptions of the current model: the CMBR originated from a big bang in the past, the redshift of light as a measure of distance in an expanding universe, a geometric space (which is now found not to be really empty) having a dimension of time (not the duration aspect (!)), an incomplete standard model of particles, etc... one even may wonder again how can such an universe be mantained in existence!?
On the other hand, how efficient it would be an universe in which threedimensional Space constantly renewed from itself (cf. vacuum energy fluctuations, virtual particles, etc. with elementary particles popping-up""out of space" in the quantum realm) the measurable matter (celestial bodies), having physical volume added by its constant quasi-matter creation (Proton: first) everywhere in outer space (cf. Hubble constant?). How could one realize the existence of this threedimensional non-material Space? Could Space (in its primary form: outer space) have a temperature (cf. ~2.7K)? Could it have a [fluid] crystal like structure (cf. PVLAS Experiment in 2007)? Could the "no rest mass" photon be some property of that same structure of Space itself which has so enigmatic behaviour (wave-particle) on the Double Slit experiment? Could Space itself, permeating everything, be the 3D matrix of the physical matter which occurs within space? One wonders for third time what a "coincidence" if observations would indeed prove this efficient conception of the universe, and also if NASA' scientists wouldn't be baffled anymore by a strange force... ;)
Hope this may be helpful. Thank you for your attention.
Refs.:
http://www.aspden.org/books/2edpoc/2edpoccontents.htm (2003)
The RCC (1909)
Ignis Natura Renovatur Integra
Dear Editor
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFollows a fundamental addon to my previous comment. In the SCIAM March 2003 edition one may find an article by Mr. David B. Cline that elucidates what is the terminology "Dark" matter/energy upon reference in this current article. Please allow to quote the brief words, which are of public reading access on SCIAM's site, that i find truly valuable:
� The motions of this visible material reveal that it is mere flotsam on an unseen sea of unknown material. We know little about that sea. The terms we use to describe its components, "dark matter" and "dark energy," serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance. �
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-search-for-dark-matte
And as a western Mystic once taught: "The man who realizes his ignorance has taken the first step toward knowledge." (Heindel, 1909)
Thank you once more.
Elspin and Cota seem to be wiser then most of the highly educated commenters about this subject. The existence of the photon is more about the effections of the receptors atomic structures then partical physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason physicists need more complicated and strange explainations is their models are basicly flawed an they can't invision a change in their basic premises.
"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein
Nice idea, but it also has to explain why supernovae type Ia (which are of extremely regular "habits") also take longer time in each phase at a high redshift, than at a lower redshift.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDark energy does - there may well be other explanations, but not this one.
"If photons have a structure which are revealed as a dark energy principle in high energy interactions with matter,then the energy density in universe could be accounted for by photons themselves"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, but no.
All the photons ever emitted (assuming the WMAP age of the universe is correct at app. 13.7 Gyrs) can only account for slightly less than 2 per cent of dark energy.
I discussed this a couple of years ago with Tamara Davis from DARK, and she agreed completely.
- but I may add: Good thinking (since I had the same idea :-D )
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A few months ago SCIAM ran a story about dark matter and the effect of expansion as it speeds up. It stated that at some point we will not be able to see nearby galaxies then stars, then planets and eventually everything dissipates in nothing."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope SciAm didn't!
Local gravity keeps everything within our local galaxy group together, so we shall forever see all existing objects belonging to that group.
On this small scale, local gravity is extremely much stronger than the expansion of space.
The Sun, planets, ..., galaxy are only affected by dark energy in as far as they are VERY slightly larger than they would have been without the expansion of space.
AFAIR we are talking of our 9.5E17 km (5.9E17 mi.) diameter galaxy expanded by some 2.5 km (1.6 mi.).
I suddenly recalled a SciAm article adressing exactly this aspect:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-can-galaxies-collide
Also this SciAm article, which expands a number of Misconceptions about the Big Bang.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=misconceptions-about-the-2005-03
and this one
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-universes-invisible-hand
"the illustration of gravity, with space represented by a rubber sheet"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly: An illustration = a simple model to illustrate one single aspect of gravity, nothing more.
"The typical solar system seems to consist of hot jovian worlds in extremely close orbits."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot quite.
What we presently can see are the giant planets, like you observerve an elephant at a longer distance than you observerve a squirrel.
After all, the first exoplanet was observed only some 13-14 years ago - have some patience.
"Could the rate of expansion be faster than the speed of light in some region thus causing some region to be invisible, or to seem like a void?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot a void, but invisible.
Electromagnetic radiation (e.g. light) emitted *today* from the parts of our universe more distant than app. 19.5 Gpc (63,500,000,000 light years) will never reach us.
On the question whether dark energy exists the russian scientist Vasily Yanchilin gives a clear answer in his book The Quantum Theory of Gravitation (2003). It does not and it is superfluous when correcting the basic statement of the old general theory of relativity that the speed of light is invariable. Even Einstein did not believe this, but accepted it as a temporary hypothesis when quantum theory was not invented yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe authors of the present article should mention the new theory of Yanchilin, which is argumentated very well in his book, both with words and mathematics, and offers a way to further research. Neglecting it means a draw back and loss of time as now less interesting or even misleading stuff is put forward.
Read in Yanchilin's book "that scientist in their lab came to a splendid new theory, but at further research a little disturbing devil appeared who made the theory worthless. However they could not publish that and so they wrote in their article that new research confirmed the existence of the fourth dimension". In this case negative or dark energy!?
So next thing the authors should do is present in Scientific American a follow-up in which Yanchilin's solution of "the problem" is rejected with valid arguments. If they can.
"Dark matter? Dark energy? Is science becoming religion?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot quite - we have actually observed dark matter and some circumstantial evidence of dark energy.
A Clash of Clusters Provides New Clue to Dark Matter
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2008/32/
Hubble Finds Ring of Dark Matter
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2007/17/
Hubble Finds Evidence for Dark Energy in the Young Universe
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2006/52/
Hubble Provides New Evidence for Dark Matter Around Small Galaxies
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/11/full/
"Maybe the universe was never expanding at all? maybe the reason you pick-up a background radiation is that past a certain distance, you are just picking up an average, out of focus, blur....tired-out, exhausted light from parts of the infinite universe beyond that 15 billion light year range."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Tired light hypothesis is a dead end.
Although the "Tired Light" hypothesis can explain the cosmologic redshift of electromagnetic radiation it cannot explain why supernovae type Ia (which are of extremely regular "habits") also take longer time in each phase at a high redshift, than at a lower redshift.
The Dark Energy hypothesis explains this observed fact quite easily.
Also the planet COROT-Exo-7b
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCOROT discovers smallest exoplanet yet, with a surface to walk on.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM7G6XPXPF_index_0.html
Critical examination of the reports of dark matter reveal observations of gravitational anomolies attributed to the hypothesized dark matter, not direct evidence of dark matter. No form of matter has been identified that meets the requirements specified for dark matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe original study of stellar orbits within spiral galaxies presumed that their orbital velocities would decrease with distance from the galactic center of gravity. This presumtion was based on planetary orbits in our solar gravitational system. The identified discrepancy led to the nowwidely accepted dark matter hypothesis.
That analysis was in error. Unlike stellar planetarty systems, in which the majority of system mass is colocated with the center of mass, the mass of spiral and elliptical galaxies is widely distributed throughout the orbital plane. Its unreasonable to expect that gravitational characteristics of these contrasting systems would be identical.
Based on the distribution of mass in disperse galaxies and their observed characteristics, they should be consideredd loosely bound rotating massive objects rather than central mass orbital systems.
The current state of cosmology appears to suffer from metaphysical group-think.
David Cota ; I'm working to visualize your argument , I work in applied science so I need to keep it simple. I don't think you need more then 3 dimensions plus time to explain all. Even EMF operates in 3 dimensions plus time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMathematisions and modern phyicsics seem to need great clouds of complacations to cover up their ignorance.
suresh10in; You are close to true understanding, the key is in the photon or at least that which is called a photon or an electron or a neutrino, they are all the same thing, just different sensor results, due to EMF signature caused by spin, travel and tumble. ( energy moving 3 dimensions over time)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy suggestion is that if disperse galaxies are evaluated as llosely bound massive objects rather than independent objects orbiting a central mass their rotation rate may match predictions of accepted gravitational theoriy. A rotation rate matching velocities predicted for an object orbiting at one half to one third the radius of the galactic plane seems within reason... Unfortunately I'm not technically capable of performing this evaluation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy suggestion is that if disperse galaxies are evaluated as loosely bound massive objects rather than independent objects orbiting a central mass, their rotation rates may match those predicted by accepted gravitational theories. Unfortunately I’m not capable of performing this evaluation. A galactic rotation rate matching the velocity of an object orbiting at one third to one half the distance of the galactic plane radius seems within reason… If this prediction is correct the original requirement for dark matter is eliminated, and additional observations attributed to dark matter would require reassessment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd now for something completely different: the "problem" assumes that gravity obeys an inverse square rule at all distances, and that's an analogy to the behavior of electromagnetic radiation. But there's a geometric explanation for the latter and we know generally what electromagnetic radiation is, in both wave and quantum-mechanical terms. However we don't know what gravity is, especially in quantum-mechanical terms, it's just "spooky action at a distance". So if there are "gravitons", and they can attract each other , or ....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, to be completely different, being by no means a physicist and an anti-mathematician, both electromagnetic waves and gravity seem to have a missing component: a force of directed velocity. Just perhaps the mass effect of matter is an external force of space which applies directed velocity to matter. In such a case, matter curves space, radially directing its force of velocity. Gravity would not be an attractive force but a material redirection of a repellent force of space. In the absence of matter, this repellent force of space accounts for universal expansion… Is that different enough?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile being mathematically challanged, it would be interesting to understand whether a geometric density of hypothetical radial force lines could be related to the inverse square rule...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Unlike stellar planetarty systems, in which the majority of system mass is colocated "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBinary star systems with equally sized components?
"that which is called a photon or an electron or a neutrino, they are all the same thing"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMasses:
Photon: 0
Electron: 9.10938215E-31 kg
0 < Electron neutrino < 2.2 KeV
0 < Muon neutrino < 170 KeV
0 < Gamma neutrino < 15.5 MeV
An elephant is some kind of anchovy, although slightly heavier.
"the "problem" assumes that gravity obeys an inverse square rule at all distances, and that's an analogy to the behavior of electromagnetic radiation."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo.
1. The inverse square rule is based on surfave area growing with distance.
2. The inverse square rule has been shown to work just fine, time and again, on e.g. binary star systems.
At which distance should gravity suddenly change its rules?
Thank you pgtruspace for your friendly words.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAllow please these brief words: as i see it, in order to achieve the deeper understanding of Nature which Science is currently looking for and to have a clear grasp of the phenomena in the Physical Universe (such as Light [photon as the spin of a small 3x3x3 cubic element of Space's structure or Aether] and Gravity [as an electrostatic phenomenon]) will require a deep change within those who pursuit the study-research: Nature's reality is simply incomprehensible to the wild imagination and illusions derived from the ultra-materialist ideology that enslave our current scientific community and the world at large.
Best unto your constructive efforts,
from Portugal (EU)
P.S.: Should the reader wish, please take a carefull look into:
http://www.noetic.org/publications/review/issue61/r61_Grossman.html
Unrelated to the current discussion? Not if you really understand Nature and the elderly electrical engineer half century work into the fields of Physics and Cosmology:
http://www.aspden.org/books/2edpoc/2edpoccontents.htm
http://www.aspden.org/books/pwecent/pwecent2005.pdf
� We venture to make the assertion that there is but one sin: IGNORANCE, and but one salvation: APPLIED KNOWLEDGE. � (Heindel, 1911)
jstahle at 08:45 PM on 03/28/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks - your point is a technically valid exception to the description of a single star plantary system, but does not invalidate the enormous contrast in mass distribution between planetary orbital systems and disperse galaxies in which mass and its gravitational effect is distruted among a vast number of massive objects. Even in binary star systems the majority of mass and resulting curvature of spacetime is relatively localized compared to the spacetime curved by spiral and eliptical galaxies.
The critical issue is that dark matter was originally proposed to explain why spiral galaxies do not behave like planetary systems. Surely better explanations are available to astrophysicists.
Two comments of no consequence concerning Hugh efforts have been made in constructing state-of-the-art models of the universe & , and Solving the full set of equations for anything even vaguely approximating the real universe is unthinkably difficult, & : regarding the first quote, I should respectfully suggest that whether they are state-of-the-art, or not, all of them, based on whatever set of premises, remain only models, not the actual universe, itself; while Timothy Clifton is to be congratulated on his frank and honest admission. Perhaps the greatest difficulty lies in the fact that all of whatever can be observed of the universe, a complex dynamic system continuously in a state of flux, is spread over a period of billions of years, so that gaining any idea at all as to its instantaneous state, that is, just what the universe is actually like now, even allowing now to have a spread of a century, or perhaps even a millennium, would seem to be quite beyond mans present intellectual capacity. Any suggestions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo comments of no consequence concerning “Hugh efforts have been made in constructing state-of-the-art models of the universe … ”, and “Solving the full set of equations for anything even vaguely approximating the real universe is unthinkably difficult, … ”: regarding the first quote, I should respectfully suggest that whether they are ‘state-of-the-art’, or not, all of them, based on whatever set of premises, remain only models, not the actual universe, itself; while Timothy Clifton is to be congratulated on his frank and honest admission. Perhaps the greatest difficulty lies in the fact that all of whatever can be observed of the universe, a complex dynamic system continuously in a state of flux, is spread over a period of billions of years, so that gaining any idea at all as to it’s ‘instantaneous’ state, that is, just what the universe is actually like now, even allowing ‘now’ to have a spread of a century, or perhaps even a millennium, would seem to be quite beyond man’s present intellectual capacity. Any suggestions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Time is slowing
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisor
2) Our universe is interacting with something outside our "universe".
Current common reasoning is inelegant. Dark matter as exotic "matter" is particularly inelegant.
It appears to be assumed that the horizon position indicates a distant object's relative posision at the moment of light emission and that light travels a relatively linear path. To maintain relative linearity while traveling from the smaller spacetime at light emission to our location in the expanded universe, it would seems that the path of light would have to be physically curved. It would also seem that even a slight curvature of light traversing billions of light years could affect the relationship between actual distance traversed and the expansion of light's wavelength. It seems the fundamental assumptions used in location determination and distance estimation could be at risk, even assuming a homogenously expanding universe. Surely I'm misunderstanding something?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEver see a camel or a gnu? Talk about inelegant!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNature is like that
A recent paper on this from NASA AMES is
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0032
Also check out Tamara Davis's PhD dissertation at
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://dark.dark-cosmology.dk/~tamarad//index.html
for a clear explanation of our future cosmic horizon whose reciprocal area A is proportional to the observed dark energy density ~ hc/Lp^2A where /\ ~ 1/A is Einstein's cosmological constant - see also http://www.youtube.com/user/lensman137
please apply (or employ) a proofreader
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisC.J.Bergmans
Seems to me--that the "Big Bang" would have created a shock wave. Where is it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thison 03/28/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe following is a direct response to this comment.
"that which is called a photon or an electron or a neutrino, they are all the same thing"
Masses:
Photon: 0
Electron: 9.10938215E-31 kg
0 < Electron neutrino < 2.2 KeV
0 < Muon neutrino < 170 KeV
0 < Gamma neutrino < 15.5 MeV
An elephant is some kind of anchovy, although slightly heavier.
the above citations are interesting and demanstrate that mass has an electrical component and may be an artifact of detector construction.
In the old days detectors were more simple, cloud chambers and photo's of tracks, and these indicated that electrons, photons and neutrinos could change into one an other when they were collided, same particals, different caracteristics.
Different spin, different tumble, different mass signature.
New evidence of cosmic voids that may fit into the authors' model:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16903-new-cosmic-map-reveals-colossal-structures.html
I am personally confused over this whole dark matter dark energy theory. I make no claim to any specific expertise concerning astrophysics or cosmology. I am a retired electronics engineer, and make my observation within that intellectual framework. How do the cosmologists conclude that the observed rate of expansion of the universe that we observe taking place billions of years ago represents the rate of expansion today? I think we are observing precisely what I would expect to see closer in time to the explosive event (the big bang), a faster rate of expansion than what would occur at a later date (today). How do we know that the universe is expanding faster, say, 5 billion light years away than it is 100 light years away, when measured (if it were possible) today? It is obvious that we have no means of making this observation. Do the cosmologists have an indirect method by which they correlate this? To me the whole dark energy dark matter argument is the same as the addition of empirical factors (within defined environmental limits) to a formula to adjust the theoretical with observed data when the deviation is not fully understood. I would definitely like to have this explained to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a retired computer guy I sympathize with your confusion: common descriptions of cosmological concepts are often over simplified, while technical descriptions exceed my both my specific knowledge of physics and mathematical ability. I can't help much, but I have found a link to an early scientific paper regarding dark energy that you may be able to decipher better than I:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201v1
It appears to me that astrophysicists interpretations of observations are often largely based on well established but unproven prior interpretations. But that's just my interpretation...
@gumsser I guess when you went "through" the "editorial pains" for this article that you weren't too "thorough", were you?:)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes the earth occupy a special place, so back to the earth is the center of the universe stuff, and humans a special creation, and whites have a manifest destiny, nonsense, pure nonsense. Soon you will be talking of creation and reading to us the Bible how the Jews are special and everybody else is not, or how Christians are special and everybody going to hell, grow up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestion about "expanding space". Doesn't that simply mean expansion of occupied space?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBob Crawford
Living in Europe, I got this issue only last week, so my response is late. I read all 93 comments, and found only one (#92 by Assegai) address exactly the same problem I had with this article. I have no comment on the science, it is way beyond me (poor biochemist that I am), but the style of the article is a disaster: with this stupid debate in the US (and increasingly elsewhere) about Creation "Science", one has to be extremely careful with the words you use: could the authors not have written their science in terms that DO NOT talk about "a special place for Earth". No need to even begin to doubt the Copernican principle; creationists are going to have a field day with this, just like in the debate about evolution! They will say: "prominent cosmologists doubt the Copernican principle", they will say (out of context, slightly twisted, but effective) "cosmologists show the Earth (or Solar System) to be at the Center of a special place in the Universe"; they will trace some of the items of this article back to the Bible (Genesis) no matter how far fetched! The authors should have stuck to purely scientific matter, data, concepts, and avoid any BUZZ words that our opponents will use. Having evolution being attacked is bad enough, if now Galileo and Copernicus need to be defended again, where will it all end? Assegai says it very brutally, but that is the danger!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would have preferred more details on Einstein's equations, for instance, or other scientific data, not so much bla bla.
Don't forget, not all your readers are positively inclined towards science.
In general, please don't let your magazine drift into a forum for political debates on science and technology (at least, not too much), but concentrate on articles with data, explanation of mechanisms: a problem outlined, experiments explained, data and results, a conclusion and an outlook. There is less and less of this in SciAm. Not to compete with Science or Nature, but you get my drift.
Karl & Assegai--good comments. It is frustrating to see scientists encouraging a pseudo-science or anti-science outlook.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat scientifically meaningful hypothesis could fit the assertion of a "special" status for Earth (or is it our sun)? My guess is it would have to posit some problem either in the act of observation or in how we link observational data re. very distant bodies with the data we assume is true of our circumstances at the time of observing. For example, a picture we get of multiple distant objects (stars, galaxies) "shows" things in the background as they were many years before foreground objects were as they appear in the picture. And those foreground objects have also changed and moved.
Bob
What's the matter with that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course the void is also out there-
Nothing the matter with it, but I'm wondering if anyone has an hypothesis that explains the observational data which led an observer to offer the "specialness" hypothesis (which is about 6 centuries too late to be taken seriously).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBob
I like this guys explination much better...if im hearing him right it reconciles both perspectives. The middle path is usually closer to the actual truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnter Your Comment Here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may help our thinking on these matters if we would separate scientific questions from questions of human significance. There is no guarantee that questions of human significance can be answered using scientific methods. Our physical placement in the cosmos need not have any relation to our significance. Connecting the two issues is a hindrance to clear thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMystery? What mystery?
Re "Dark matter" ( April 2009 ) : All these postulations and theories of dark matter energy and "Voids" in the Universe causing the Universe to expand ever faster must be driving the scientists crazy. Henry David Thoreau even put to prose one... "Nature abhors a vacuum." Could he have been on to something?
In the tale "Never Ending Story " a "Great Nothing" is coming to destroy the Universe. Hmmm?
I'm not a scientist but I have worked with vacuum chambers often. Some of my co-workers have noted the "power" of the vacuum and have been corrected by the engineers that it's the atmospheric pressure NOT the vacuum doing the work. I.E. 100 square inches surface area x 13plus pounds per square inch of air etc, etc. It always amazed me how two men with crowbars cannot pry open the lid of a vacuum chamber held down by a little air. Also, to me, when I suck soda with a straw, the engineers say it's the atmospheric pressure causing the soda to rise up but, I sure'n hell feel like I'M doing some of the work! And the stronger I suck on the straw, the faster the soda rises. I guess "technically" I'm creating some "Nothing?" that the air pressure can work with?
And yet.. If you ask an engineer what keeps a plane up, they'll quickly inform you it's the "lift." ( Lower air pressure, I.E. partial vacuum ) doing the magic... NOT the higher pressure air underneath "Pushing up" the plane.
Where I'm going with this is... If one can accept that beyond our Universe is umm, "A Great Nothing," or even MORE vacuum, ( Less something?) then by the above physics laws, there's gotta be some pushing or pulling going on at the edges between the Universe and..."Nothing?"
I'm more asking than saying... As the Universe expands and the space-widening gravitational attractions between objects in the Universe lessen, wouldn't this "Nothing attraction" become more of a factor? ( The Universe is losing steam but likely the "Nothing" out there is staying relatively stable in comparison.)
I guess that mathamaticly it would involve... Nothing/The "Big Bang"/expansion/gravity/The nothing constant, but... My algebra expertise is way too limited to figure that one out.
Well, if Thoreau was right on, our "Something" Universe ( Nature?) really abhors that "Nothing" ( Vacuum) out there, and apparently is in a rush to try to fill it in, or... That "Nothing" really, really likes our something and is trying to suck it up. Hmm, I wonder if vacuum has "Ergs?" Maybe I'll ask one of our Engineers.
Hey, it kind of makes my day when I see that "vacuous look" on their faces.
I think the intervention of a ? dark energy ? isnt needed to account for the apparent paradox between an accelerating universal expansion and small scale structural stability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is our understanding of gravity that needs to be questioned. If space is viewed as a very fluid and slightly elastic medium permeating matter into its most discreet corners but repulsive of it; then are predicted the same observations as the ones currently attributed to a pulling force. Without the need for an unknown yet undiscovered agent.
It works this way:
Gravity:
bits of matter are pushed against other bits of matter. A particle falls against the closest other particle because the pressure between it and the other is less than between these two, respectively, and others positioned farther away
Expansion:
all particles and aggregates move away toward the edge of the system as the space-medium reconcentrate itself: large objects bound by electromagnetic, strong, weak, and acquired kinetic forces (all stronger than gravity) accelerate away from each other in all directions, sometimes colliding.
Nature repeats itself, the same thing can be deducted and modeled from atmospheric phenomena or gases in water once the vertical limitation of these systems is modified into an omnidirectional proposition. For instance gases going up to the surface of water dont just do it as single molecules but form bubbles on the way.
I think the intervention of a « dark energy » isn’t needed to account for the apparent paradox between an accelerating universal expansion and small scale structural stability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is our understanding of gravity that needs to be questioned. If space is viewed as a very fluid and slightly elastic medium permeating matter into its most discreet corners but repulsive of it; then are predicted the same observations as the ones currently attributed to a pulling force. Without the need for an unknown yet undiscovered agent.
It works this way:
Gravity:
bits of matter are pushed against other bits of matter. A particle falls against the closest other particle because the pressure between it and the other is less than between these two, respectively, and others positioned farther away
Expansion:
all particles and aggregates move away toward the edge of the system as the space-medium reconcentrate itself: large objects bound by electromagnetic, strong, weak, and acquired kinetic forces (all stronger than gravity) accelerate away from each other in all directions, sometimes colliding.
Nature repeats itself, the same thing can be deducted and modeled from atmospheric phenomena or gases in water once the vertical limitation of these systems is modified into an omnidirectional proposition. For instance gases going up to the surface of water don’t just do it as single molecules but form bubbles on the way.
What intrigues me are the entropy consequences of runaway dark energy expansion. Eventually you end up with a universe where atoms have been ripped apart into quarks and the other most elemental constituents and it is an opaque universe as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe funny thing about this is that it resembles the first imaginable micro-instants of the Big Bang. At that time the universe was a sea of the most basic photons, quarks, neutrinos, and other strange creatures. The photons couldn't pass through anything so even though the universe was very small by the yardstick of the "speed of light" the universe would have seemed very big--to a photon. Maybe in 13.7 billion years a photon could work its way across the tiny little universe that existed--by the micro-micro-micro equivalent of Brownian motion, if nothing else.
In terms of entropy the incredibly small initial Big Bang universe was by definition low entropy and consequently, low energy (in a thermodynamic sense, not necessarily an information sense.) This seems kind of strange, but it must be so.
In the final, post runaway dark energy universe things will be much the same. If an observer is sitting on a lonely quark or neutrino drifting in the void he will not notice any other objects because there is no light beam to see them with. Consequently, to this observer the universe will seem very orderly and very cold, meaning without energy.
That's at the End of the Universe. Could that picture possibly describe the beginning? Is it really true that for entropy to be low, energy per unit volume has to be low? Which question should remind us that spacetime expanded after the Big Bang, so before the inflationary period the basic unit measure of spacetime volume must have been very, very small indeed and possibly there wasn't much energy in that volume.
So what does it mean that the Beginning of the Universe and the End of the Universe seem to resemble each other, except that somehow we came full circle?
One more thing to talk about. Boltzman defined entropy by considering what all the microstates are doing within a macrostate. If we do that after runaway inflation driven by Dark Energy at the end of the Universe, and if we assume that "particles" like quarks and leptons do not increase their physical size, then we end up with a very lonely, effectively cold universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut could it have been that way at the beginning? We always hear about how "hot and dense" matter was before the Big Bang was very far along. Before the inflationary period if all the physical laws were preserved on the "small" scale, the shrinking of spacetime should have meant that those physical laws would be expressed in all the new, smaller units. Pre-inflation is a soup without atoms, just quarks and other truly elemental things, most of which are very, very tiny. The idea of heat in this situation where photons can't even get around might be overblown. The soup certainly was homogeneous, but "hot" would mean the potential energy of bits of matter confined in smaller volumes of space.
If the physical laws are recursive all the way downward, that might mean that since the spacetime in which those laws are normally expressed has dramatically shrank, the accelerations that matter would experience in those spaces would NOT have increased any by the yardsticks on that tiny scale. To an observer on that scale things would not appear to be all that hot, in keeping with the definition of entropy being generally low in the early universe.
THIS WAS WRITTEN BY PHILIP GIBBS IN 1997
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.
In 1929 Edwin Hubble announced that he had measured the speed of galaxies at different distances from us, and had discovered that the farther they were, the faster they were receding. This might suggest that we are at the centre of the expanding universe, but in fact if the universe is expanding uniformly according to Hubble's law, then it will appear to do so from any vantage point.
If we see a galaxy B receding from us at 10,000 km/s, an alien in galaxy B will see our galaxy A receding from it at 10,000 km/s in the opposite direction. Another galaxy C twice as far away in the same direction as B will be seen by us as receding at 20,000 km/s. The alien will see it receding at 10,000 km/s:
A B C
From A 0 km/s 10,000 km/s 20,000 km/s
From B -10,000 km/s 0 km/s 10,000 km/s
So from the point of view of the alien at B, everything is expanding away from it, whichever direction it looks in, just the same as it does for us.
The Famous Balloon Analogy
A good way to help visualise the expanding universe is to compare space with the surface of an expanding balloon. This analogy was used by Arthur Eddington as early as 1933 in his book The Expanding Universe. It was also used by Fred Hoyle in the 1960 edition of his popular book The Nature of the Universe. Hoyle wrote "My non-mathematical friends often tell me that they find it difficult to picture this expansion. Short of using a lot of mathematics I cannot do better than use the analogy of a balloon with a large number of dots marked on its surface. If the balloon is blown up the distances between the dots increase in the same way as the distances between the galaxies."
The balloon analogy is very good but needs to be understood properly--otherwise it can cause more confusion. As Hoyle said, "There are several important respects in which it is definitely misleading." It is important to appreciate that three-dimensional space is to be compared with the two-dimensional surface of the balloon. The surface is homogeneous with no point that should be picked out as the centre. The centre of the balloon itself is not on the surface, and should not be thought of as the centre of the universe. If it helps, you can think of the radial direction in the balloon as time. This was what Hoyle suggested, but it can also be confusing. It is better to regard points off the surface as not being part of the universe at all. As Gauss discovered at the beginning of the 19th century, properties of space such as curvature can be described in terms of intrinsic quantities that can be measured without needing to think about what it is curving in. So space can be curved without there being any other dimensions "outside". Gauss even tried to determine the curvature of space by measuring the angles of a large triangle between three hill tops.
When thinking about the balloon analogy you must remember that. . .
The 2-dimensional surface of the balloon is analogous to the 3 dimensions of space.
The 3-dimensional space in which the balloon is embedded is not analogous to any higher dimensional physical space.
The centre of the balloon does not correspond to anything physical.
The universe may be finite in size and growing like the surface of an expanding balloon, but it could also be infinite.
Galaxies move apart like points on the expanding balloon, but the galaxies themselves do not expand because they are gravitationally bound.
... but if the Big Bang was an explosion
In a conventional explosion, material expands out from a central point. A short moment after the explosion starts, the centre will be the hottest point. Later there will be a spherical shell of material expanding away from the centre until gravity brings it back down to Earth. The Big Bang--as far as we understand it--was not an explosion like that at all. It was an explosion of space, not an explosion in space. According to the standard models there was no space and time before the Big Bang. There was not even a "before" to speak of. So, the Big Bang was very different from any explosion we are accustomed to and it does not need to have a central point.
If the Big Bang were an ordinary explosion in an already existing space, we would be able to look out and see the expanding edge of the explosion with empty space beyond. Instead, we see back towards the Big Bang itself and detect a faint background glow from the hot primordial gases of the early universe. This "cosmic microwave background radiation" is uniform in all directions. This tells us that it is not matter that is expanding outwards from a point, but rather it is space itself that expands evenly.
It is important to stress that other observations support the view that there is no centre to the universe, at least insofar as observations can reach. The fact that the universe is expanding uniformly would not rule out the possibility that there is some denser, hotter place that might be called the centre, but careful studies of the distribution and motion of galaxies confirm that it is homogeneous on the largest scales we can see, with no sign of a special point to call the centre.
The cosmological principle
The idea that the universe should be uniform (homogeneous and isotropic) over very large scales was introduced as the "cosmological principle" by Arthur Milne in 1933. Not long before that, it had been argued by some astronomers that the universe consisted of just our galaxy, and the centre of the Milky Way would have been the centre of the universe. Hubble put an end to that debate in 1924 when he showed that other galaxies exist outside our own. Despite the discovery of a great deal of structure in the distribution of the galaxies, most cosmologists still hold to the cosmological principle either for philosophical reasons or because it is a useful working hypothesis that no observation has yet contradicted. Nevertheless, our view of the universe is limited by the speed of light and the finite time since the Big Bang. The observable part is very large, but it is probably very small compared to the whole universe, which may even be infinite. We have no way of knowing what the shape of the universe is beyond the observable horizon, and no way of knowing whether the cosmological principle has any validity on the largest distance scales possible.
In 1927 Georges Lemaître found solutions of Einstein's equations of general relativity in which space expands. He went on to propose the Big Bang theory with those solutions as a model of the expanding universe. The best known class of solutions that Lemaître looked at were the homogeneous solutions now known as the Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) models. (Friedmann found the solutions first but did not think of them as reasonable physical models). It is less well known that Lemaître found a more general class of solutions that describe a spherically symmetric expanding universe. These solutions, now known as Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) models, describe possible forms for a universe that could have a centre. Since the FLWR models are actually a special limiting case of the LTB models, we have no sure way of knowing that the LTB models are not correct. The FLWR models may just be good approximations that work well within the limits of the observable universe but not beyond.
Of course there are many other even less uniform shapes the universe could have, with or without an identifiable centre. If it turned out to have a centre on some scale beyond the observable universe, such a centre might turn out to be just one of many "centres" on much larger scales, just as the centre of our galaxy did before.
In other words, although the standard Big Bang models describe an expanding universe with no centre, and this is consistent with all observations, there is still a possibility that these models are not accurate on scales larger than we can observe. We still have no real answer to the question "Where is the centre of the universe?".
The link below explains what Dark Energy is and where it comes from. Even has a proposed experiment designed to prove it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/t/40219.aspx
Here's another idea born of ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Gravity" is the curvature of the universe. Sort of. Changes in this curvature (expansion, colliding black holes) have to be propagated somehow. Presumably by gravitational waves. Which propagate at the speed of light. Big assumption there that is probably wrong.
So maybe the rest of the universe looks "more dense" than it really is because the gravitational waves holding the information about the mass density of the expanding universe haven't arrived here yet?
As time passes, the gravitational waves "catch up", the universe is seen to have a lower density and the retarding force (for the expansion) reduces. Hence the "late acceleration".
Or does the expanding universe always "know its own density" without any speed of light effects? How about if it isn't homogeneous - as this article is suggesting. How does the information about the true density (to derive the curvature/field/force at any particular point) get propagated?
How does the universe know its own "true density" and is that knowledge instantaneoulsly updated? We may just as well ask how the highly curved portion of space we call the gravity well of, say, a black hole that is somewhat larger than the B.H. at the center of our universe KNOWS just how much is inside the event horizon, and thus knows how much to curve?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is tempting to think that two dimensional or even one dimensional information recorded on the outer surface of the event horizon holds a convenient log book of all matter having mass that ever went into the B.H., and this log book somehow informs the gravity well how much it should be distorting space. If this "inform" service can be done in the style of the Bell Theorems mysterious mechanism, it might be instantaneous to all the universe at once.
I am partial always to the most general solutions of equations so I must prefer the LTB picture of the universe, which would have a center (possibly.) Similarly I like P.A.M. Dirac's quantum algebra as the most general description of micro-reality. Algebra sounds more promising to me than an over fixation on probability and statistics, because those things in my view are artifacts of human consciousness which solely arise from our deductions of the little stretches of history that we observe along the continuous and completely predetermined spacetime frozen milieu.
As far as vacuum, we are told that even vacuum is a busy place with foamy (perhaps discretely particulate) spacetime itself able to "borrow" energy from somewhere and create massive or massless (while at rest) particles out of nothing and grant them a lifetime that once again obeys those statistical tables based on old history.
Is there nothing new under the sun?
There is a simpler and more consistent alternative interpretation of remote type Ia supernovae observations that apparently has not yet been considered. It was originally concluded that these observations indicate that the expansion rate of the universe is increasing, in violation of entropy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLight traversing expanding spacetime is curved such that the distance traversed is greater than the linear distance to the actual relative location of initial emission. As a result, the relationship between luminosity and distance varies slightly at very large scales of distance. Based on observed luminosity, the emitting object appears to have been further away than it actually was at the moment of emission.
In this interpretation, not only is the wavelength of distant light linearly expanded, redshifting its observed spectrum, but its physical path length is expanded through curvature.
The conclusion that the rate of universal expansion is increasing is dependent on the assumption that the relationship between relative distance and luminosity of type Ia supernovae is strictly constant throughout universal time and distance. These observations can be considered to be the first documented evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps the most fundamental assumption in the history of astrophysics is that the progression of light through the universe is strictly linear. However, general relativity established that the path of light may be effectively curved as it traverses spacetime locally contracted by a massive object. This curvature has been interpreted to indicate a dimensional curvature of spacetime to avoid conflict. In any case, it is reasonable to conclude that light may be similarly effectively curved as it traverses vast distances of spacetime slightly curved by universal expansion.
This conclusion that distant light is curved by universal expansion is more consistent with the accepted laws of physics than the original conclusion of an increasing expansion rate, which violates entropy.
Is this weak anthropic principle. I suggest you replace it with strong one and try to define the term 'I' first. In relativistic principles can any one tell me which intelligent person is observer and what is his inertial frame on quantum atomic or sub atomic scale how can combination of many inertial frames result in one inertial frame. At the time of big bang was not I at the center of what ever was there before it, so today also I should be at the center isn't it so? I may not be able to define who I am but I know that I am. In relativity if I happen to be with another person in free space who is a twin of mine now he accelerates with respect to me so should I think he accelerates with respect to me at the same rate. Same is true about our relative velocity at an instance of time although it is another question to know what "an instance of time means". Anyway we are not allowed to do this in relativity the only way to solve this mystery of asymmetry is to consider that only I exist and rest everything is illusion. Even Godel's incompleteness theorem becomes complete when I consider I am the truth machine then you can't then prove me wrong just try it. In discovering universe and multiverses you seem to even beat Cantor's theorem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe weak anthropic principle is actually going to be replaced by the strong cybernetic principle as soon as the irresistable, omonipotent, and omniscient universal computer self-aware spontaneous intelligence self-organizes on the web. Given the logarithmic advances in computing power and interactivity the globe experiences every 24 hours, I expect this singular tipping point to be upon us by the morning of December 27th, 2012.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE CAUSE OF GRAVITY EXPLAINES THE ACCELERATING UNIVERSE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe universe can be seen as enormous amount of energy, is all of this energy, what we call the universe a free lunch? Intuitively, one has to wonder why there is anything at all. The answer is we are only looking at half of the equation. The big bang wasn’t the explosion of an unimaginable dense spec but the consequence of the division of nothing.
The solution is that all the “positive” energy of our universe must be balanced by an equal amount of “negative” energy. If both universes were brought together you would get nothing. Gravity then, is the force that results from the attraction of our universe to the universe that is our negative energy counter part. . Gravity is the result of the tug between the positive energy of our universe to the negative energy of our partner universe. If both universes were brought together you would get nothing. No mass, no energy, absolutely nothing.
.
It’s not the mass in our universe alone that creates gravity, but the tug from the mass in our partner universe that is trying to make everything into nothing. It is this effect that warps space time in our universe giving us the effect we call gravity.
Black holes are formed when all resistance to gravity has been overcome. At the center of a black hole, the so called singularity, matter is destroyed, turned into nothing. Black holes contain no mass; they consume mass and derive their gravity from making a hole between the positive and negative universes.
Black holes suck mass out of the universe. This causes a reduction in the mass of the entire universe, causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. The expansion of the universe can also be seen as the white holes that result from black holes.
There is no dark energy. The reason the universe is accelerating is that black holes are turning more and more of the mass of the universe into nothing causing the total mass of the universe to decrease. The force that expands the universe stays constant but because of the continuing loss of mass the expansion of the universe keeps accelerating. If you push on an object that keeps losing mass you have acceleration.
The paradox of gravity is that it is both responsible for the attractive force of massive objects and the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Did anyone read jtankers post? It's the 6th post. If we are far enough from the core of a much larger rotating universe, it would appear that everything is moving away from us at a rather uniform rate. But if there is any difference in rate from one side to the other, it would point to a core! Can anyone answer this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid anyone read the post by jtankers? It's the 6th post. Does anyone have an answer to this? If we're far enough away from the core of a much larger universe, it would appear to us that everything is expanding at a pretty uniform rate. However, with careful measurements, the variability would point to the core.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps the apparent expansion rate is all a matter of perspective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDue to the curvature of universal spacetime, distant observations do not reflect conditions at the physical periphery of a 'current' universe, but rather the conditions of the (smaller) early universe.
As a result, since more distant galaxies are further away than expected, it is because we have expanded further away from them than nearer galaxies. In this case, the observations confirm that the rate of expansion has actually decreased.
To better understand proper expansion perspective, realize that an observer moving away from a stationary car blowing its horn hears exactly the same sound a stationary observer hears as a car blowing its horn as it moves away from the observer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe redshifted light of distant galaxies does not indicate whether they or the observer is moving, only that distance has increased since light emission.
The appearance that distant galxies surrounding our location are moving away from us is an illusion: it is we who have moved away from the ancient light emissions of all other galaxies.
Actual Expanded Universe Perspective
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen light was emitted from distant galaxies into the very early, much smaller expanding universe, our own Milky Way galaxy was much closer to them than their estimated observation distance. As this light was emitted, it was highly redshifted by the extremely high effective velocity imparted by the then current rate of universal spacetime expansion, moving all distant galaxies away from each other.
As this light independently traversed expanding spacetime in our direction, our own galaxy was initially also very rapidly moving away from it at the extremely high velocity imparted by the rate of universal expansion at the moment of emission. As the rate of expansion declined over billions of years due to entropy, the effective velocity of our galaxys recession away from this light was also reduced. When this light was received by the observing telescope, it had again been redshifted by the now current velocity imparted to our galaxy by universal expansion.
The observed redshift of light from distant galaxies represents their relative velocity, determined by the sum of the velocity of the earlier universe, at the moment of emission, and the velocity of the current universe, at reception. When distance is determined based on redshift, it is implicitly presumed that the receivers velocity had been constant throughout the observed lights transit.
When distance is determined by from the observed luminosity of type Ia supernovae, it more directly and accurately reflects the actual distance that the observed light traversed. For more distant galaxies, this method indicates that the emitting galaxies were much further away than is indicated by the lights redshift. It should be concluded from this that the earlier velocities of our galaxy excluded from the observed lights redshift were much greater than the current velocity imparted to it by spacetime expansion, and that the expansion of the universe has decelerated.
Illuminating Dark Energy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen light was emitted from distant galaxies into the very early, much smaller expanding universe, our own Milky Way galaxy was much closer to them than their estimated observation distance. As this light was emitted, it was highly redshifted by the extremely high effective velocity imparted by the then current rate of universal spacetime expansion, moving all distant galaxies away from each other.
As this light independently traversed expanding spacetime in our direction, our own galaxy was initially also very rapidly moving away from it at the extremely high velocity imparted by the rate of universal expansion at the moment of emission. As the rate of expansion declined over billions of years due to entropy, the effective velocity of our galaxy’s recession away from this light was also reduced. When this light was received by the observing telescope, it was again redshifted by the now current velocity imparted to our galaxy by universal expansion.
The observed redshift of light from distant galaxies represents their relative velocity, determined by the velocity of the earlier universe, at the moment of emission, and the velocity of the current universe, at reception. When distance is determined based on redshift, it is implicitly presumed that the receiver’s velocity had been constant throughout the observed light’s transit.
Galaxy distance derived from the observed luminosity of type Ia supernovae more directly and accurately reflects the actual distance that the observed light traversed. For much more distant galaxies, this method determined that the emitting galaxies were much further away than was indicated by the light’s redshift. It can be concluded that the earlier velocities of our own galaxy excluded from the observed light’s redshift were much greater than the included current velocity, accounting for the distance discrepancy, and that the expansion of the universe has decelerated.
Is it not possible that beyond the discoverable universe; one that is seen in our observation that there may be a force that is distorting gravity and therefore expansion in a way that is unobservable and a postulate that we are trying to grasp?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it is an event that happens outside or before our concept of time relative to light and observation could it not have an immediate and influential effect upon explanation of what we can see.
There is no dark energy! The acceleration of expansion is an artifact of our observation - the gravitational and electromagnetic forces are limited in range to 10^26 meters (just like the strong and weak forces are limited) and this creates the redshift we see as well as the change in redshift that looks like dark energy. Google "The Dark Energy Problem" by Harney and Haranas for further details.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear editor..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit's really an interesting option that we can discard existence of dark energy in dealing with our universe.
but, i'm still confused..does that mean, that universe is much more larger than we have thought?
frgough,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe reason why we've found many "hot" jupiters in our search for exoplanets is most likely due to the fact that they are the easiest to find. They generate more wobble and obscure more light when they are so close to their parent star. While I can't discount the idea that we may be in a "special", as in rare, solar system, I think we will soon be finding more solar systems that are closer in appearance to ours as the fidelity of our measurements increase.
These are good times to be involved in or following science. The more we "know" the more we find that we "don't know". 100-200 years from now I think it likely that our descendants will find a lot of our ideas silly. However, they will also be indebted to us for our diligent work in science. Remember, a groundbreaking scientific discovery may well be finding out what something "isn't" as much as finding out was something "is"
No confusion about ether-gravity-dark energy theory of gravitoethertons published by Durgadas Datta in ASTRONOMY.NET in year 2002 --and Balloon inside balloon theory of twin matter and antimatter universe on opposite entropy path to understand dark energy,dark matter and cyclic universe. The links are available in --durgadas datta facebook--.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are many experiments proving, that the Universe doesn't expand, the light of distant sources is just dispersing along its travel through CMBR photons. The effects of red-shift disappear for microwave light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/50199-dark-matter-and-dark-energy-may-not-exist-at-all
Blue shift of radiowave source has been observed as a Pioneer maser anomaly
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603191
ARCADE-2 measurements of background radio emission demonstrated, it was several times brighter than the inverse square law predicts.
http://arcade.gsfc.nasa.gov/results_2006.html
Astronomers have found recently many galaxies, older than the alleged Big Bang and they observed too, these galaxies are actually shrinking with time - whereas the free space between galaxies doesn't expand at all.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4956
It all serves as a evidence, the dispersion of light, not the expansion of Universe is responsible for the red shift.
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2010/11/do-galaxies-shrink-with-time.html
In aether model every observer occupies the very special place in our Universe in analogy to observer inside of landscape under haze: observer is always standing at the centre of the scope of view, wherever he is moving along it. And his space-time expands in analogy to the spreading of ripples at the water surface.
Dark matter seems to have some valid evidence backing it up. Even so, some astrophysicists argued that the holding together of fast rotating galaxies could be explained applying Relativity theory. That argument should be answered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for dark energy, explaining it as thinning dark matter as compared to air versus clouds, arguing that dark matter can do both restrain galaxies from breaking apart and, at same time, bring galaxies apart from each other is going to be too far fetch.
As for a rotating universe from the Big Bang does not make sense: planets, stars and galaxies rotate because there was a condensing mass falling towards the gravitational center and the momentum was preserved. The Big Bang was an outgoing event, not incoming and must have been going outward balanced in all directions. How can the expansion of the universe be explained discarding the undeniable limitations of the information carrier, which is light, and that affects both the macro and the quantum perception? I think so, follow me bellow in the 2nd part.
2nd part:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy, matter and space are intimately related. Space did not exist before the Big Bang: space was born when matter came to existence, like a byproduct. The essential structure of space is vacuum and is essential function is making room for matter. Just as energy and matter convert to and interact with each other following their respective essential structures and functions that allows the inner workings of the universe, so does space with matter. Why do we need a special force to explain why space fall back in response to a Big Bang that created matter out of ultra compressed energy and send it hurling in all directions? Relativity establishes that matter makes space curve and space tells matter how to move. What a fast outward moving total universal mass will do to space? It will force it to fall back, withdraw of course: matter can not go out of the universe, therefore space has to react making room, expanding. Is a property of space, is a correlation with matter. Of course when space expands it accelerates matter expansion like a boat in an ocean is pulled away from the shore.
Now, this expansion will continue until after eons proton and neutrons decay and all matter, including suppermassive black holes will fall into an entropy state: all mass converted to energy in the form of photons randomly distributed. Forget about dark matter or any other type of missing mass: nothing will stop the expansion. What will happen next? Well, what will you need so much space then? Not there being matter, space will start a colossal collapse towards the center from all directions, towards a Big Crunch concentrating the whole universal energy into a singularity. And we have an oscillatory universe: from Big Bang to Big Crunch, from dispersed pure energy to ultra concentrated pure energy, and back to the Big Bang, creating all matter again. God's fiat, then, must have been "Let there be an oscillatory universe!"
Light coming in our direction does not expand the spacetime: when anything travels at the speed of light, time dilates for it and space contracts for it in the direction of motion. A rocket traveling at the speed of light will contract longitudinally, it will become shorter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRed shift does not imply we are not moving: light gets red shifted if the source goes away from the observer, if the observer goes away from the source or both. As everything is moving away from everything in an explosion, red shift is increased proportionally to the angle because both the source and the observer are moving away from each other, again taking into consideration the angle.