PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: A Connection Between Dark Energy ...



Fraser
2004-Jul-02, 05:45 PM
SUMMARY: The concepts of Dark Matter (hidden mass that surrounds all galaxies) and Dark Energy (an accelerating force on the Universe) are still largely mysteries; astronomers have detected them, but they have no conclusive idea what they are. A new theory by Vanderbilt University researcher Robert Scherrer proposes that they are actually two aspects of a single, unknown force, called a K-essence field. Under some conditions, this field would have the repulsive force of dark energy, while in other conditions, it would appear to clump together and mimic the effect of invisible particles.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

Guest
2004-Jul-02, 09:26 PM
I do not understand how something can have properties of both mass and energy at the same time. How is this fluid "k essence" supposed to be keeping stars from flying out of their orbits in galaxies and pushing distant galaxies apart at the same time???

Guest_Peter
2004-Jul-02, 11:59 PM
Hmmm. Beginning to sound more and more like the original "aether" - fifth essence - of the ancients (as opposed to the turn of the century Michelson-Morley variety). For an up to date and fascinating explanation of its attributes, see "The Loom of Creation" by Milner and Smart. Helps to have an open mind and a world-view not wedded to the scientific mainstream.

Prime
2004-Jul-03, 04:01 AM
Acually there are no false concepts as dark matter, or enegy.
These ad hoc theories are more fudge factors, steering man away from what's happening.
It's a coverup, from the word go;

http://www.holoscience.com/news/bigbang.htm

Prime

Josh
2004-Jul-03, 07:00 AM
While there is still a big mystery surrounding Dark Matter/Energy, it has already been discussed here and shown that the theory advocated by Prime just doesn't work. For a thorough reading of the debunking of the plasma universe see here (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1919&hl=).

jamerz3294
2004-Jul-03, 01:48 PM
If the K Essence field does exist, and could be shown to react as both Dark Matter and Energy, then we would be a quantum (all pins intended) leap further in obtaining the Theory of Everything.

howard2
2004-Jul-03, 03:12 PM
:rolleyes: There should be no surprise that our bubble universal expansion is accellerating. Hubbles law is not a linear function but an exponential one. From the moment of the Big Bang, when our universe was infinitely hot and infinitely dense. It has been expanding and getting less dense. By definition, there must be a constant force applied for there to be a constant accelleration.
I propose that there is no need to look for dark matter to supply the energy required to account for the rotational velocities of the galaxies we observe. This energy is supplied by the gravitational tidal forces crossing our event horizon from the outside, as we are streached into a volume of much lower density that I call the G.B.N. ( The Great Big Nothing)

Manchurian Taikonaut
2004-Jul-04, 11:58 AM
This sounds like a great idea but where is the solid evidence. There must be newer plans to try and prove or falisfy this theory, how can we check it out ? :blink:

howard2
2004-Jul-04, 03:11 PM
[COLOR=blue] :unsure: Well so far I cannot call it a theory. It is just an hypothesis, a thought experiment.
If you observe the natural world arround us. You will see that everything is cyclic.
This is fundamental.
I always try to focus on the biggest picture, so that I can have an image in my mind to relate to.
That is why I always look for the big picture first and don't try to make the big picture from the details
There are two fundamental proposals I use.
1. Nothing is absolutly right or wrong, but everything is necessary.
2. Nature works with infinite quantities and an infinite variety of those quantities. That which works , works. That which doesn't, doesn't.
This can be observed everywhere, from the garden to the cosmos.

My orange theory. Goes like this;
If you have never seen an orange ( The fruit ) in your life, and you go to a chemistry lecture. The lecturer points to a row of test tubes in which there are the chemicals that make up an orange. He has fancy names for each chemical. He then tells you that these chemicals are the constituant parts of an 'Orange.'
You wouldn't have a clue to nature of an orange. There are an almost infinite number of combinations in which these cemicals could be mixed. Your chances of making an orange are almost nill.
If on the other hand you are shown an orange, and you see it, feel it, smell it, even taste it, and then you take it apart. You will alway have the correct focus and attention.
I was considering the Big Bang and thought that maybe our universe was spewed out from the otherside of a black hole into another volume of much lower density.
I liked this consept because it proposed a cyclic event.
The moment that the energy spewed into this other volume I will call the G.B.N or Great Big Nothing. It was infinitely compressed and infinitely hot and very turbulent as it expanded and cooled ( Again a natural phenomena we can observe in gasses ).
I remembered seeing a film of astronaughts in the Space Shuttle were one of them was blowing a liquid through a straw. A number of seperate glogules formed instead of a continuous stream. This impressed me as the wave effect. As an analogy, the spewing forth of the Energy from the white hole would naturally produce mutiple globule universes each one isolated from the other by its own event horizon.
Well the thought experiment still goes on and on.
What do you think?
Tony

Tortoise
2004-Jul-05, 01:19 AM
The theory presumes that all the constituents of the universe and all the "movtivation" of the universe and its phenomena are IN the universe. In my opinion no theory will explain the mechanics of the universe without stepping outside the universe to the extradimensional goings on that create the phenomena of this unverse.

Dennis Archambault
2004-Jul-05, 08:42 PM
:rolleyes:
Does anyone know of someone mapping dark energy and dark matter in the constellations?

isferno
2004-Jul-05, 11:10 PM
question,
May I compare this dark matter/dark energy with a hot air ballon, where the air is the dark matter and the heat is the energy?

Just in case another one:
What is the interacting force between atoms/molecules?
(if not gravity or collision)

Robert Scherrer
2004-Jul-06, 01:41 PM
It is actually impossible (as far as I know) for something to drive the universe to accelerate and also cluster in galaxies at the same time. In this particular k-essence model, the dark matter/energy changes its behavior with time. At early times, it behaves like dark matter, and clusters in galaxies. At late times, it acts like dark energy and drives the universe to accelerate.
Bob Scherrer
Chair, Department of Physics and Astronomy
Vanderbilt University

Josh
2004-Jul-06, 01:55 PM
Thanks for replying to the forum, Prof. Scherrer! I recently watched the PBS documentary on dark matter and energy (hosted by Alan Alda) and was left with more questions than answers. That, i guess, is the way of science though. What you've said above was mentioned in that too. That at some time during the history of the universe it acted one way and then later, another.

Of course, that begs the question ...

Why? Why is it changing with time? what is happening to this 'stuff' that causes it to change?

AndyHolland
2004-Jul-06, 06:36 PM
It is actually impossible (as far as I know) for something to drive the universe to accelerate and also cluster in galaxies at the same time. In this particular k-essence model, the dark matter/energy changes its behavior with time. At early times, it behaves like dark matter, and clusters in galaxies. At late times, it acts like dark energy and drives the universe to accelerate.

I'm sure your correct, except something has been bugging me about this whole edge of the universe thing with respect to possible cosmological equations.

How do you define a boundary condition for a null? That is, the normal space/time dimensions cannot be assumed for the void or universe edge.

I guess intuitively, one could suppose the universe to accelerate because it is effectively moving toward a virtual black hole (the universe edge), which is always growing. Changes in expansion could be accounted for by feedback effects as the baloon expands - but it is not expanding into dimensional space, the dimensions do not exist outside of it.

Andy Holland
Applied Computational Technologies

Prime
2004-Jul-07, 07:19 PM
The Electric- Plasma Cosmology Requires no Dark Fudge.

Introduction, and comparison, with current theory; http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_plasma.htm

Plasma Cosmology 101;
http://www.holoscience.com/news/bigbang.htm
What it will lead to;
http://www.holoscience.com/news/science_bang.htm

Prime

GOURDHEAD
2004-Jul-08, 12:32 AM
Under some conditions, this field would have the repulsive force of dark energy, while in other conditions, it would appear to clump together and mimic the effect of invisible particles.

Ah! Yes!! Something like the GH-Higgs field which I shall now name the shmoo (from Al Capp’s shmoos) field because it can do whatever needs to be done to make the current theory work as well as lead you to a better theory.

Let’s define a standard q-verse (quasi universe) as that part of whatever the total universe is that is enclosed within a Euclidean sphere of 100 billion light year radius having an outer shell 2 billion light year thickness of hadronic mass of 10^40 grams per meter density. This mass has been accumulating since shortly after the big bang at the expansion horizon. Each parameter is arbitrarily chosen and is expected to be manipulated to optimize the theory against the constantly increasing number of observations constraining the set of allowable characteristics of the universe.

Unlike the big bangs of the various “standard” models, the shmoo bang results from the superposition of randomly occurring energy densities within a volume equivalent (for now I’m dodging specifying shapes) to no more than a sphere of a few light years radius until a yet to be specified energy threshold is exceeded. When this occurs, the warping stress on the Euclidean 3-space exceeds the energy density it is capable of supporting. This results in a cataclysmic release of energy spanning the entire set of energy transmitting spectra and the setting up of oscillations in 3-space as a function of time forcing energy transmission paths to switch between Riemanian, Euclidean, and Minkowskian sets of geometric constraints. The elasticity of the process sets up “standing wave” oscillations part of which generate the virtual particles of the virtual vacuum.

The shmoo field is defined as the energy value each point in 3-space has with respect to the zero energy state of that point and represents the average deviation from Euclidean paths of all physical energy paths through that point.

The stretching force, dark energy, is provided by the gravitational properties of the hadronic shell at the rim of the q-verse and the unwarping of space as each region seeks its zero energy state. Dark matter is an as yet undetected property of the shmoo field with normal gravitational characteristics.

The strings of string theory are the shmoo path quanta and prevent zero distances and those infinities we like to avoid.

Apologies to both Higgs and Occam.

isferno
2004-Jul-08, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Prime@Jul 7 2004, 07:19 PM
The Electric- Plasma Cosmology Requires no Dark Fudge.

I believe I've seen this kind of redshift before. Every time I dim the lights they tend to shift to red and when I increase the electrical current, voila, brightness.

Though what has it got to do with element specific spectral line shifts?

I'ld rather believe the galaxy is kind a like my soup I sometimes accidently make.
Heat a pan, pour in some thick canned soup, and you end up with mighty clustered clumps of quick dried soup.

Robert Scherrer
2004-Jul-11, 02:07 AM
The change in the behavior of the constitutuents of the universe with time is actually one of the more straightforward things in cosmology. As the universe expands, the density of the dark matter decreases: Same amount of matter in larger volume = lower density. The dark energy, in contrast, has a density which does NOT decrease as the universe expands (and that's truly strange, not straightforward). So as the universe expands, the dark energy will eventually dominate the dark matter.
Robert Scherrer
Chairman, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Vanderbilt University

damienpaul
2004-Jul-11, 03:11 AM
How can dark energy increaser in density as the universe expands, are their any theories as to why this happens?

Tom2Mars
2004-Jul-11, 03:32 AM
Is the increase proportional to the expansion? :huh:

GOURDHEAD
2004-Jul-11, 12:34 PM
The dark energy, in contrast, has a density which does NOT decrease as the universe expands (and that's truly strange, not straightforward). So as the universe expands, the dark energy will eventually dominate the dark matter.

The shmoo field in conjunction with the hadron shell of the q-verse accommodates this by allowing ever more mass/energy to pile up at the expansion horizon thereby reinforcing the tendency to expand the distance between mass concentrations. Meanwhile dark matter is being dissipated as the shmoo field allows the Euclidean 3-space to seek its zero energy state by unwarping (changing the constraints on allowable paths from non-euclidean to Euclidean).

You've heard of the elephant in the room being ignored; let me tell you about the mosasaur in the swimming pool that's being ignored. It's the quantization (or lack thereof) of the cosmological expansion effect. Does the space between galaxies expand at a more rapid rate than within them, within stars, within planets, within you,...,within quarks? If the shmoo field permits the quantization of rates of expansion as an inverse function of some power of energy density, there may be an answer lurking out there in the observational flotsam and jetsum.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Jul-11, 12:57 PM
How can dark energy increase in density as the universe expands, are their any theories as to why this happens?

Again the shmoo field to the rescue! The unwinding (unwarping) of 3-space over time, as constrained by whatever quantum effects that pertain, as a means of 3-space seeking ever lower energy states presents the perception of ever increasing dark energy. Since it's inversely proportional to some power of energy density, this effect will appear to increase as the universe appears to expand. Note that as this is happeneing extreme energy densities are being "forged" elsewhere in 3-space and sometime in the future some sort of reversal of effects must occur. All these effects very likely follow complete conservation rules which requires the equivalent of perfect elasticity (there's nowhere for the energy to dissipate; it has to be conserved). The hadron cloud will have to evaporate in due time.

Careful Occam, you'll burst a blood vessel or two.

VanderL
2004-Jul-13, 05:48 PM
Hi Prime,

The Plasma Cosmology (EU) is, imho, the only viable alternative to the Big Bang model and, also imo, it has the distinct advantage that it does not rely on these elusive quantities like dark (missing is a better term) matter and dark energy. Why should we seriously consider a theory to be correct when it depends on things like inflation (which can never be proven/disproven), dark matter (7 decades of searching has brought is exactly nothing) and dark energy (which is btw disputed again).
This tells me that cosmology and maybe even all of science is "up **** creek with no paddles".

We need a fresh look at things, and we need to reconsider all the basic assumptions that lead us to dark matter/energy. People have been saying for years that the Universe is not expanding; that redshift is not a distance indicator, why not answer that question first. We also need to take a good hard look at the alternatives. Not just dismissing them offhand, we need to dig deeper and try to listen to the proponents for what it has to offer and look for ways to validate/invalidate the ideas.

Cheers.

Josh
2004-Jul-14, 01:43 AM
And to see (again) why this theory Prime and VanderL are proposing simply does not work see here (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1919&hl=).

VanderL
2004-Jul-15, 03:13 PM
And to find some interesting information that gets updates regularly seehere (http://www.thunderbolts.info) click on picture of the day.

Cheers

StarLab
2004-Jul-17, 05:43 PM
Jeeze. Electricity and Magnetism are two aspects of the same thing. Acceleration and gravity are the same thing. Energy and matter are two aspects of the same thing. I think we've done enough "same things" in astrophysics already.

VanderL
2004-Jul-17, 09:53 PM
Jeeze. Electricity and Magnetism are two aspects of the same thing. Acceleration and gravity are the same thing. Energy and matter are two aspects of the same thing. I think we've done enough "same things" in astrophysics already.


Yeah, isn't science simple? :D

Cheers.

Ringerha
2004-Sep-14, 03:14 PM
Prof. Scherrer... based on your own reply to the questions, it appears that your theory cannot explain both DE causing accelerated expansion and DM responsible for structures such as galaxies, clusters, etc, coexisting in the present universe. How do you handle that one?