View Full Version : Dark Energy Has Been With Us For a Long Time

Fraser

2006-Nov-17, 01:55 AM

Dark energy isn't new, in fact, it's been around for at least 9 billion years. According to new data gathered by the Hubble Space Telescope, this mysterious force was already working to speed up the expansion of the Universe was only a few billion years old. Hubble measured the light from 24 of the most distant supernovae ever seen, and found that the Universe is further apart than it should be if only gravity was around to slow things down.

Read the full blog entry (http://www.universetoday.com/2006/11/16/dark-energy-has-been-with-us-for-a-long-time/)

antoniseb

2006-Nov-17, 12:11 PM

These type 1a supernovae studies are very interesting right now. I hope that the new large telescopes we are building will let us go deeper still.

Sailorstarfightr

2006-Nov-17, 06:34 PM

The press release: "Pinpointing supernovae in the faraway universe is similiar to watching fireflies in your back yard. All fireflies glow with about the same brightness. So, you can judge how the fireflies are distributed in your back yard by noting their comparative faintness or brightness, depending on their distance from you."

We can let that statement speak for itself. Just as light from fireflies is not constant, c changes over time. Evidence of comsic "acceleration" is based entirely upon redshifts. Change in c makes the universe appear to be acdcelerating.

antoniseb

2006-Nov-17, 06:43 PM

Change in c makes the universe appear to be acdcelerating.

Hi Sailorstarfightr welcome to the BAUT forum.

The idea of a changing c has not been demonstrated. Do you have a formula for how c would need to have changed in last 13.7 billion years that accounts for what we observe? BTW, in the last 30 years, we have been though about 2 billionths of the age of the universe, and have also been able to measure c locally to better than a part per billion. How much should we have seen it change during that time?

John Mendenhall

2006-Nov-17, 07:47 PM

Just as light from fireflies is not constant, c changes over time.

You should perhaps visit the Against the Mainstream discussions.

sirius0

2006-Nov-19, 11:16 PM

Heard on a pod recently that they had found a type 1a that was different to normal due to a companion or something like that. They are now frantically checking all the others to see if their data is fully correct. i doubt that this would upset things much though.

I am alluding to thoughts I have posted elsewhere on this forum. but I am wondering if gravity can't explain expansion if an appropiate frame is chosen. (that being our frame, but pedantically so) Ihave been wondering if my thoughts are ATM or are they within standard model?

Please correct me if I am out of line.

pacificap@hotmail.com

2006-Nov-20, 03:27 AM

Hi Forum!

Allow me to give you a formulation for the Dark energy presently in vogue.

One uses a dimensionless 'cycletime n', which interprets as the dimensionless 'tau-time (T)' in general relativity with lightpath (for the curvature radius) dR=c.dt/dT.

Then n=T and dn/dt=Ho for a (nodal Hubble Constant~58 km/Mpc.s) and a Hubble-Time 1/Ho=t/n=Rmax/c for a event horizon situated 16.9 Billion years from the Big Bang inflaton and instanton.

Briefly, the de Broglie inflaton created a 'false vacuum' energy background, which rendered the dark energy as intrinsic constituent for the subsequent cosmogenesis and cosmo-evolution as a Black Body Planck radiator.

This 'inscribed' the universe's topology as a 4D-Riemann hypersphere volume of toroidal derivative (2pi^2.Rmax^3) in a 3D-suface mapping (say as described in Hawking-Bekenstein-Susskind models for the universe following Black Hole entropy evolution in anti-deSitter cosmologies in 5D etc).

So one can say that a higher 11D/8D/5D-Universe encompasses a lower 10D/7D/4D universe in its information mapping (say as quantised Planck-Areas).

Now the higher-dimensional universe is expading noninertially under c-invariance.

This means that the Big Bang established precise boundary conditions in setting up the 'nodal' parameters for the lowerD universe as asymptotic and DECELERATING universe.

This is also modeled in quantum mechanics as the 'particle in the box' scenario, leading to the equations and formalisms of Schroedinger, Dirac, Klein-Gordon and Feynman etc.

Now the inflaton utilises c-invariance by c=Rmax.Ho=Lmin.fmax.

This relates a 'minimum' frequency as the nodal Hubble Constant to the Hubble-radius Rmax and also the 'modular dual' conditions (enter M-Theory and F-Theory of the supermembranes etc however demetricated).

So the Big Bang singularity becomes such a minimum/maximum condition of course related to the Planck-Scale.

In particular the metric limit for general relativity becomes the Weyl-Lambda=Lmin as the perimeter of the event horizon about the 'quasi- or smeared out' spacetime singularity. This relates to a maximum frequency by c=wavelengthxfrequency in general and for de Broglie matter waves in particular.

The asymptotic Hubble-Limit then becomes Rmax=de Broglie Inflaton Acceleration/fmax^2.

The aforementioned 'false vacuum' derives from the de Broglie inflation acceleration being 'different' from the Schwarzschild metric defined in Lmin via Einstein's Lambda=GM/Lmin^2 (in acceleration units).

The ratio of de Broglie Inflaton/Einstein Lambda=Rmax.fmax^2.Lmin^2/GM=Rmax.c^2/GM, which is of course the Schwarzschild metric in its basic form of Rmax=GM/c^2 if the ratio is set to unityx2.

But in the cosmology derived from general relativity the actual density in the universe is said to be Omega=2xdeceleration parameter (qo) and so the basics above show that the acceleration ratio also describes the 'missing inertia' compared to a critical density (rho-critical=3Ho^2/8Pi.G).

This easily derives from the 'Black Hole' evolution instigated before.

Rmax=2GMcritical/c^2 defines the universe's total mass for closure (in say its 11D-envelope and with a total mass M=Mcritical=rhocritical.Vmax for the universe).

{The Planck-Oscillator-Zero-Point-Energy gives E=hf/2=kT/2=mmin.c^2/2=GM.mmin/rmin for rmin=2GM/c^2 for the potential energy quantum relating mmin to Mcritical}.

Then rhocritical=rmin.c^2/2GVmax=3rmin.c^2/8Pi.G.Rmax^3=3Ho^2/8Pi.G using definition for the inflaton and the nodal Hubble constant from c-invariance.

Then Rsub=2GMo/c^2 defines the universe's mass-seedling at the Big Bang inflaton and the ratio Mo/Mcritical=Omega~0.028.

In terms of cosmology, this also gives a gravitational boundary condition, which is observed and measured as the scale of superclusters, being the largest clustering scale in an otherwise homogenous universe on larger scales.

This is sometimes known as the Sarkar scale, defined in a cosmological redshift of 7.477 and a corresponding (radius) scale of 236 million lightyears.

The exansion parameter in general relativity is often denoted as a and then differentiated wrt time as a dot and a doubledot for the (nonnodal)Hubble Law Ho=adot/a.

But we have seen that this scenario can also be accomodated in cycletime n with dn/dt=Ho (nodal).

This then gives the geneal relativity equations applied to the universe as Newtonian gravitational dynamics with a DEMETRICATED acceleration.

Doing this automatically SHOWS the dark energy as a NATURAL differential between the Omega component and a 'fixed' de Broglie component.

This 'fixed' acceleration is rather similar to the Milgrom parameter of the MOND proposals (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics).

The Milgrom parameter's magnitude is said to be proportional to the product of c and the Hubble Constant as a natural unit for acceleration.

The actual formulaton is -2cHo/(n+1)^3.

The Omega of Newton and Einstein becomes GM/R(n)^2 th R(n)=Rmax.(n/n+1).

Then the dark energy term is simply the difference between the Milgrom parameter as INTRINSIC UNIVERSAL DECELERATION and the ordinary inertial gravity component.

Einstein Lambda=Omega-2cHo/(n+1)^3=GM/R(n)^2-2cHo/(n+1)^3.

Calculations then give the Big Bang dominated in the Einstein lambda with the Milgrom parameter suppressed (and maximised in constant -2cHo).

The de Broglie hyperacceleration ended 3.33x10^-31 seconds into the Big Bang and reached a matter wave speed of Rmax.fmax~4.8x10^56 m/s and a de Broglie matter wave (of mass seedling Mo) of so 1.43x10^87 m/s^2.

The Einstein lambda maximum at the instanton was GMo/Lmin^2~2x10^85 m/s^2 for the ratio of 0.014 of the deceleration parameter (which is half of the Omega of the baryonic mass seedling).

The present cosmological conundrums of missing mass, dark matter and dark energy etc. can so all be resolved in applying the demetricated formulations for the cosmologies, modelled on the appropriate higher dimensional brane parameters and the overall Black Hole thermodynamic evolution of the universe.

Sincerely

Tony B.

Sailorstarfightr

2006-Nov-20, 04:46 AM

GM=tc^3, where G is gravitational constant, M and t are mass and age of the Universe. When t was tiny c was enormous and the Universe expanded like a "bang." As t increases c slows due to gravitation. Theory's prediction (http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/einstein/Talks/Supernova%20Graph.pdf) fits type Ia supernova data without repulsive energies or cosmic constants.

pacificap@hotmail.com

2006-Nov-20, 06:13 AM

Dear Sailor!

It is not so simple, as your formula is rewritten GM/c^2=tc=lightpath X and this is simply half of the basic Minkowski metric leading to the Schwarzschild formulation for curvature radius Rs=2GM/c^2.

So then your formula is a correct formula, BUT interprets the lightpath for event horizons applied to Black Holes.

Any 'slowing of time' would be described by special relativistic time dilation and any gravitational redshifts would be limited in the stability calculations for stars, with internal thermodynamic pressure in equilibrium with gravitational contraction. (See 'Jeans Radius' for hydrogen clouds for a similar and related formalism).

(This leads to neutron star analyses and the Chandrasekhar white dwarf limits and supernova classes and so on as function of their masses and their progenitor Temperature-only dependencies).

Your link to the supernova data is relevant in a different manner.

The low redshift Calan/Tololo data and the high z/Schmidt and the SCP/ Perlmutter data, all show a redshift deviation from linearity beginning just below the z=0.2 marker with significant deviation about the z=0.5 marker.

If one now applies the 'doubled' universe scenario of an asymptotically decelerating lowerD cosmos embedded in a higherD universe to this; the redshift data allows a more simple interpretation than that hitherto envisaged by the cosmologists.

The Riess supernova (SN1997ff) observed by the HST in 2001 had z=1.7 as one of the most distant supernova class Ia and the Schmidt maximum was z=1.08 in 1998.

Now consider the observable (by electromagnetic parameters of noninertial photons say AND by c-invariant inertialmass variables) universe to BE observable from TWO vantage points.

First is the Big Bang singularity, meaning that the expanding universe is cooling down and grows in size with a ever decreasing redshift.

Second is the Event Horizon as the universe's wavefrontrelative to the Bigbang Observer BBO.

But being AT hat wavefront will incur a redshift relative to the BBO, which can be calculated as the Arp-Limit for a present epoch and as z=0.2505.

But this means that the Event Horizon observer or EVO measures ITS z=0, which maps as say a 0.22c speed and as the Arpian redshift relative to the BBO.

Now should the universe's evolution be contained within a single node (or cycletime n=Hot<1), then the lowerD universe must have an age less than 16.9 billion years superimposing a deceleration upon a constant c-electromanetic-expansion however.

If n>1, then this constant c-expansion would have begun to DOUBLE up upon itself and the first Hubble Node (n=1) would have been reached for a universe OLDER than measured by the lowerD cosmos.

The details give you the following:

1. The universe is 19.11 Billion years old electromagnetically and has a diameter of so 38.2 Gyears across.

2. The first node was reached so 2.2 Gyears ago, when the redshift relative to the BBO was z=0.291 but was 0.110 relative to the EVO (whose NOW time coordinate measures a z=0, which is Arpian z for the BBO).

3. The (BBO) Image for the Arpian z is z=0.343 defining the z-interval (0.110-0.2505-0.343) as variation-interval for the two observers.

This interval is mapped as the interval (1.84-1.08-1.84) for the redshifts as measured by the EVO 'ooking back into time' and extrapolating the cosmoevolution towards the Big Bang.

So the Riess supernova is somewhat 'mistakenly interpreted' as this NATURAL redshift correlation limit defined in observer relativity.

The redshift is interpreted (with 1.7 near the limit of 1.84) as signifying the time in the past when the universe's expansion would 'outrun' the observability of the universe's Hubble horizon.

The correct interpretation is that z=1.84 defines the Hubble-Node (n=1) and so the electromagnetic doubling of certain redshift measurements in mappings between the observer frames of reference.

Iow, mapping the thermodynamic expansion 'backwards' from the z=0 relative to the EVO, mirrors the intervals stated and as varying about the Arpian z as variation maximum {this is closely related to the Webb and co alpha-finestructure variation as measured in quasar spectra btw}.

Additionally, the nodal Hubble constant of 58 becomes extrapolated to 66.9 by the Arpian z.

This of course results in a measurement of the universe's age as being 2.2 billion years too low in 16.9 Gyears-2.2 Gyears=14.7 Gyears.

{Using H=72 gives the publisized 13.7 Gyears for the universe's age}.

Tony B.

GOURDHEAD

2006-Nov-20, 01:33 PM

I nominate pacificap@hotmail.com for the position of bafflegab meister.

pacificap@hotmail.com

2006-Nov-20, 02:36 PM

Dear Forum!

For those inclined to accept and advance the 'human meddling' with the structure of the universe on all scales - and not just as a pastime of vain musings, but as a fulfilment of 'human purpose of potential cocreativity' - the questions posed by gourdhead are well in the scope of answerability.

Point-Particle-Field theories fail to connect the quantum realm with the macrocosm precisely, because the 'infinite regression' of both continuae of space and time require renormalisaton techniques to render the mathematical modelling viable.

Perturbation methods only work if an asymptotic limit or unity can be ascertained for convergence of parameters.

Nonperturbative methods, based on boundary conditions (say an energy state for a fixed and minimised (or maximised) amount of Coulombic charge) have however proven very fruitful in the modular duality approaches of string theory (where they are termed BPS-Eigenstates).

String dualities then use inversion properties between string classes to map a perturbative 'coupling constant' as a nonperturbative coupling constant.

Overall, the 'singularity' of the macrocosmos (Quantum Big Bang) is avoided in using unitisation such as Planck-Units (with a link to Stoney Units to incorporate Coulombic charges).

This has led to verified predictions in matching the quantum mechanical predictions for Black Hole (thermodynamic) entropy to the actual 'counting' of string vibration states (for the same say Hawking predicted entropy count).

Thus the 'infinite regression' is physically limited, albeit mathematically viable.

The Feigenbaum delta or chaos constant becomes the ratio between the 2-sphere volume and the 3-sphere volume as 3Pi/2=4.71..

This in itself shows a 'dimensional mapping' between 'inner surface' and 'outer surface' in Moebian connectivity (as easily modelled in 2D as cross-section of 3D).

Cosmologically then the 3D-manifold is identical to the 4D-Hypersphere-Volume, allowing the Klein-Kaluza cosmologies to extend the formalisms of General Relativity and introducing the 'Holographic Universe' of Susskind, Bekenstein and Maldecena, quantised in Planck-Areas of Black hole event Horizons.

The parameter of the 'infinite regression' becomes information mapped between the manifold as boundary between the 'within' and the 'without' yet continuous in linear transversion.

Order so is limited in the information, however quantum geometrically defined.

In other words, the fractal regression of selfsimilarity will cease to be physically applicable below the Event Horizon of the minimised Black Hole as a function or transform of the Planck-length (the Weyl-Geodesic say).

This can easily be seen in the finestructure of Planck's Constant, which so in a manner redefines the Heisenberg Uncertainty for Action in that selfsame Weyl-geodesic of wavelength Lweyl.

The formulation is: h=Lweyl/2Re.c^3 where Re is the classical electron radius and geometric limit for the range of the nuclear interactions (of about 3 fermi).

The units above engage 'units' below the metric (Weyl) limit, i.e. they are related to the Stony units, where the proportionality to the Planck units is Sqrt(Alpha) and Alpha the (dimensioiless) electromagnetic finestructure.

Modular duality defines a 'magnetocharge e* as Inverse Energy-Source-Quantum E=hf=hc/Lweyl=1/e* with an Planck-Length Oscillation (PLO)precisely given in PL.Sqrt(Alpha)=e/c^2 in Stoney Units.

Ergo in string parameters, a 'Length' is mapped in mensuration space as e/c^2 in a string-space Hamiltonian of the form 2e.Re=e*.PL.Sqrt(Alpha).

This maps mensuration Coulomb charge e in the atom's quantum geometry onto the string space's magnetocharge e* in a coupling between the classical electron radius and the oscillating Planck-Length.

Then Planck's Constant can be written in 'superconductivity' terms of the string action as h=Lweyl/e*c relating to the GUT enrgy of Dirac's Monopole as c^3=2.7X10^16 GeV or a monopole mass limit of so 'ec' kg.

Magnetocharge e* is not observed directly in the mensuration universe, but manifests as Cosmic Ray spectra and say Gamma-Ray-Bursters with 'knee' 'ankle' and 'toe' all given by superstring energies under transformation.

But magnetocharge e* does manifest as Cooper paired electron states in the context of ec=ef.lambda having the units of 'free space' electric current per unitmass, the unitmass being rendered 'monopolic' for the given metric limit of the Weyl-geodesic intrinsic to the Planck-Constant finestructure.

Tony B.

John Mendenhall

2006-Nov-22, 06:09 PM

I nominate pacificap@hotmail.com for the position of bafflegab meister.

I second the nomination.

trinitree88

2006-Nov-22, 11:01 PM

Three. Let me clarify one thing. When has a magnetic monopole been experimentally detected to a degree that warrants publication? There was a brief flap over the blip noticed by Blas Cabrera at Stanford many moons ago, using an apparatus that may equally well have seen a transient high energy cosmic ray.

It takes roughly 10-12 reliable events to pass peer review...kind of a standard of the industry in particle physics. Excitement would leak out into the community as a group approaches publication, unless confidentiality is very closely held. So, it's possible in principle for an impending blurb, just not too likely. Pete

RussT

2006-Nov-26, 09:17 AM

This can easily be seen in the finestructure of Planck's Constant, which so in a manner redefines the Heisenberg Uncertainty for Action in that selfsame Weyl-geodesic of wavelength Lweyl.

The formulation is: h=Lweyl/2Re.c^3 where Re is the classical electron radius and geometric limit for the range of the nuclear interactions (of about 3 fermi).

The units above engage 'units' below the metric (Weyl) limit, i.e. they are related to the Stony units, where the proportionality to the Planck units is Sqrt(Alpha) and Alpha the (dimensioiless) electromagnetic finestructure.

My question is simply this...could The Fine Structure Constant a= ~1/137 be considered the "BASE" element which would be how the electron/proton gets its mass?

pacificap@hotmail.com

2006-Nov-26, 12:11 PM

Three. Let me clarify one thing. When has a magnetic monopole been experimentally detected to a degree that warrants publication? There was a brief flap over the blip noticed by Blas Cabrera at Stanford many moons ago, using an apparatus that may equally well have seen a transient high energy cosmic ray.

It takes roughly 10-12 reliable events to pass peer review...kind of a standard of the industry in particle physics. Excitement would leak out into the community as a group approaches publication, unless confidentiality is very closely held. So, it's possible in principle for an impending blurb, just not too likely. Pete

Hi Pete!

You are raising a valid point, but what I mean with the 'Dirac Monopole' is simply the requirement of it to symmetrise the Maxwell equations. Also they are required (and led to) the formulation of the cosmic inflation scenarios (Alan Guth and co. 1980's).

There are many 'monopoles' and the one I know of is the most energetic one of the GUT models, whose limiting energy is well studied in so 2.7x10^16 GeV.

This one is behind the GammaRayBursters and the extremum cosmic rays.

There has been done a lot of research and my proposal is that the energy bounds of the cosmic ray spectra are in fact transformed superstrings at 'knee', 'ankle' and 'toe'.

The post below is research done by Sydney University (SUGAR=SydneyUniversityGiantAirShowerRecorder) .

But there are many many references on the web on the monopole classes as related to GRB's and the cosmic rays.

PS.: Note that the diagrams of the reference might not reproduce.

Thanks for replying Pete.

Tony B.

To whom it may concern!

As I have done rather a bit of work on the cosmic ray origins as decaying superstring classes and as I have used your paper below as a general reference, I feel obliged to forward a copy of my discussion regarding your reference.

Faithfully, Tony Bermanseder, Queanbeyan, 2620 NSW, Australia

Neutral Cosmic-rays:

Another topic of interest that was studied with the SUGAR data was the possibility of correlating an excess of activity in the direction of certain X-ray binary sources in the southern hemisphere. With colleagues from the University of Adelaide, evidence for such a correlation of cosmic-rays with the period from the X-ray binaries was observed. The source of these cosmic-rays is likely to be neutral hadron emission since charged particles would be deflected by the galactic magnetic field. Photons are unlikely primaries because of the unique feature of SUGAR that only recorded muon and hadron activity and not the electromagnetic component of cosmic showers. Hence it is likely that these showers might be initiated by primary neutrons. This would be a remarkable example of Einstein's theory of relativity since one expects neutrons to decay with a lifetime of 887 seconds, but due to the boost in energy (average energies around 10E18 eV) the neutrons have an 80% probability of surviving the 2.5 kiloparsec (about 7500 light years) distance separating the 2A 1822-37.1 binary source and the earth (for the LMC X-4 source, the distance is 50 kiloparsecs or 150,000 light years, and the survival probability is only 2%, but this signal is less significant than the former). These interesting results have been published in the following papers:

SUGAR

The Sydney University Giant Air Shower Recorder

From: "TONY BERMANSEDER" <PACIFICAP@hotmail.com>

Date: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:56 pm

Subject: Cosmic Ray Energies as Superstring Decay Modes/Mike's reply sirebard

Hmmmm. Gotta have a big think about this My gut feeling is that sans modular duality, I have a valid model if I only had the skill to formalise it. You say I ignore inflation, but I don't - I simply include it seamlessly because inflation is treated as the initial rapid expansion of space, all over by about 10^-35 secs ACCORDING TO OUR PRESENT CLOCKS, when I suspect is the moment that the leptons condense out of the fog, but basically I see inflation as just part of a continuum of spatial expansion. However, if one maps our time to universal time, that inflation took forever. But it still took place. I am not ignoring it at all....

You are simpy avoiding the issue here Mike. There is NO seamless incorporation of inflation into the standard model. The clocks desynchronise because of it and to that extent that your gravitational time dilation becomes instantaneous.

The inflation causes the GR field to become localised and the modular duality establishes the parameters you mention, such as the proton/electron scale.

This is effected in a precise mechanism of superstring hierarchies.

You say you incorporate the inflation?

Where is your Planck-Scale and the elementary particle masses which become mapped from superstring energies onto the electroweak scale.

The inflation under modular duality now predicts the three 'discontinuities' in the Cosmic Ray spectra exposed below as the Toe-Energy, the Ankle-Energy and the Knee-Energy.

Also, I'm a bit unhappy that you use neutron stars as a reference (though that is not invalid as they do mark a scale limit in the real universe) given that these do not appear until much later on the scene. Sure, I can see how you relate the appearance of neutron stars later to the parameters set up right at the start, and that's cool, but I'm not sure you can *base* your idea on it. That ain't the way science works.

This is where you cannot see the big picture.

It is all about neutron matter; not so much neutron stars, which are the product of the energy transformations of the superstrings, but the NEUTRAL COSMIC RAYS, as they are called.

The post below details the scenario in relatively easy to understand terms.

Right at the end it converges to the correct scenario.

The Magnetic Monoplole of the GUT unification is the first superstring transform from the Planck-Scale at the TOE unification of 10^28 eV.

It is reduced to the 27x10^24 eV scale of the MacGamma.

It is here that you should refine your Gravitational Electron opus instead of complaining about the novelty of modular duality.

As said your scientific intuition has served you well, but now you are stuck ina partial success, convinced that the Gravitational finestructure had a Planck-Scale value.

Van Flandern did measure the G-reduction of so 3x10^-21 per year correctly, and a value which you agreed to.

Extrapolate this over the age of the universe (use 13.7 or 16.9 or 20, it does not matter much) and you get Go=10^-10 and not some huge value also as incompatible as is Electron's Schwarzschild Radius.

There is nothing complicated at all about this Modular Duality. Remember that I simply use the mathematical technique and the T-and S-dualities without going into the metrics.

It is simply inversion properties of scale parameters.

So then the MacGamma energy becomes the Neutral Cosmic Rays in the post below.

And they DECAY into the next superstring class called HO(32). The mechanism engages the substitution of the Planck-Mass with the MacGamma mass.

Can it be simpler than that?

This is the X-Boson you have read about, said to join with the AntiX to form the matter-antimatter quark-lepton-gluon-plasma soup.

Now forget about the AntiX-X neutrality (which is suppressed) and instead allow the X to decay into its constituent quark-lepton parts.

Here then you get the Toe-part of the Cosmic rays mapped as the inverse of the Hubble-Radius (Rmax=1.6x10^26 m).

So there is a distribution of Toe-Energies centred on so 5.1 Joules or 3.2x10^19 eV.

The upper bound is multiplied by 2Pi and the lower bound is divided by 2Pi, just as the Compton-wavelength/radius defines the elementary particle scale in their respective masses (2Pi.Rcompton=h/mc).

There is also a 10D/11D radius ratio which is defined in 1/(n+1), which is so 2.1324.. at the present and which modifies the upper and lower limits in an observation spread.

So your MacGamma of so 4.3 MegaJoules has become 5 Joules and this is beautifully described in the upper end of the cosmic ray spectra.

Now this HO(32) class is a H(eterotic) class and modular dual to the HE(64) class of the actual GR-l(ps)limit.

So you replace the MacGamma mass with the m(ps) mass and bingo you get the X-quark transforming into the base nucleon and the X-lepton transforming into the muon.

So then the neutron/muon mass ratio becomes a cosmological parameter, with the electronmass a derivative from the classical electron radius (and not vice versa).

Because the muon mass manifests as an 'excited' or 'heavy' electron, the neutron quark-core also allows an 'excited' kernel-state called the charm quark.

And so it continues and the elementary particle masses become established in transformed vibration superstring hierarchies or quark-lepton families.

So the asymptotic Hubble-Limit defines the Toe-Energylimit as the X-Boson transformation from the MacGamma energy.

The next superstring class is IIA modular dual to the MacGamma (which is selfdual as class IIB), so the cosmic ray spectra will experience a discontinuity at the IIA enegy.

This energy is 1.01 Joules or 6.3x10^18 eV.

It is spread between 9.9x10^17 eV and 3.9x10^19 eV and so intersecting the Toe-X-Energies as observed.

It is here that the GZK-pion/proton minimum limit manifests at the say 70x10^18 eV scale, which is the upper limit for the above with the observation spread included.

So the Ankle-Energy is simply the decay of the monopolic neutron, 'kinked' at the superstring IIA level.

And the final superstring class is the (ps)scale of HE(64), which manifests all the particles as the classical electron radius mapping.

That is why the electron is POINTLIKE at the GR-limit, yet defined in an atomic nuclear interaction scale (QCD strong interaction confinement limit as Re).

The E(ps) energy is 1.24x10^16 eV or 0.002 Joules as the median of the Knee-Energy.

Its spread is from the experimentally well explored 2x10^15 eV to 7.8x10^16 eV.

Of interest is the cutoff at 2.4x10^14 eV because this is nothing but the Action-Law of the superconductive superstrings in h/e^2~3.87x10^-5 Joules (for h=ee* as unified energy with frequency nullified by time duality fps.fss=1=fps.tps).

This cutoff is the HECR (High-Energy-Cosmic-Ray) limit.

Now the Neutron Stars enter, because their scale is MAPPED from the say 10 km range onto the AU km range.

So your caveat about neutron stars ignores this mapping of the universe's expansion centred on the neutron star 'centres'.

This is another way you can look at the 'dreaded singularity'.

So perhaps you would like to examine your own work in the significance of the MacGamma under Modular Duality and the Cosmic Ray spectra of establishment physics.

Incorporating what I have described above, will show you that the Gravitational Timedilation is indeed INCORPORATED in the MODULAR DUALITY OF THE HUBBLE RADIUS.

This is just the energy spectrum of the Cosmic rays manifested for all to see in the skys above and detectors below.

Cosmic Rays ARE the DECAY of superstring classes in transformation into each other.

Tony B.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUGAR - Cosmic-ray Spectrum - Anisotropy - Neutrals - back to The particle telescope - on to ASCE - up to Previous experiments - up to Current research

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUGAR:

SUGAR, the Sydney University Giant Air-shower Recorder, operated close to the town of Narrabri in northern New South Wales, Australia, for more than a decade between 1968 and 1979. This array consisted of 54 stations with each station consisting of pairs of large liquid scintillation detectors (6 square metres viewed by a single photomultiplier tube) separated by 50 metres, covering a total area of 100 square kilometres. Each station operated in an autonomous manner with solar power units and receiving their timing information via radio receivers.

The large area of the array was designed to observe the most energetic extensive air-showers (above 10E17 eV). Another novel feature of this array compared to other ones was that each of the scintillation detectors was buried under a few metres of soil, thereby reducing the "soft" (electromagnetic) component of the air-showers and only being sensitive to the hard component (muons and hadrons). This feature of the SUGAR array meant that, while obtaining important information about the number of muons in cosmic showers, it was difficult to perform an absolute energy calibration of the showers to compare to other experiments. The energy was calculated by measuring the number of muons recorded and translating this into an energy scale via different models. The systematic error of this technique is quite large and could explain some of the differences observed between the energy spectra observed by SUGAR and other extensive air-shower arrays that operated above ground.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

pacificap@hotmail.com

2006-Nov-26, 12:16 PM

Cosmic-ray Spectrum:

The energy spectrum of the most energetic cosmic rays recorded by SUGAR was reported in the following publication:

M.M. Winn, J. Ulrichs, L.S. Peak, C.B.A. McCusker and L. Horton, The cosmic-ray energy spectrum above 10E17 eV, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. 12 (1986) 653-674.

This paper summarises the results obtained during the 11 year period that SUGAR was operational. The differential energy spectrum shows a typical power-law distribution, with a slope of 3.19+-0.01 between 10E17 and 10E19 eV, and a flatenning of the slope to 2.99+-0.13 above 10E19 eV. This feature has been observed in other experiments and is known as the "ankle" of the cosmic ray spectrum. This change of slope might indicate a change in the origin of the cosmic rays (extra-galactic or galactic) or of its composition. The origin of this feature is still subject to speculation and debate.

Another interesting feature of the cosmic-ray spectrum above 10E19 eV is that there is no evidence for a cut-off at an energy of around 10E20 eV. 80 showers were observed with an energy above 4x10E19 eV and eight showers with energy larger than 10E20 eV (the most energetic shower had an energy of 2x10E20 eV). It is suggested that any interactions of these highly energetic cosmic-rays with the microwave background would produce an attenuation of the cosmic-ray spectrum at around 10E20 eV with an attenuation length of 100 Megaparsec (about 300 million light years) at 10E20 eV and 30 Megaparsec at 2x10E20 eV. If the cosmic rays at these energies are of extra-galactic origin a significant attenuation of the spectrum would be observed (the attenuation depends also on the type of particle), so the lack of a cut-off might indicate that the showers are either due to nearby galaxies or of galactic origin.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anisotropy:

The arrival directions of the cosmic-rays were also studied to search for any anisotropies that might indicate that these events originate from active galactic nuclei. This was made possible by the angular resolution of 4 degrees that could be achieved by measuring the relative timing of the signals in each of the stations. An analysis of the arrival directions was performed in the following paper:

M.M. Winn, J. Ulrichs, L.S. Peak, C.B.A. McCusker and L. Horton, The arrival directions of cosmic rays above 10E17 eV, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. 12 (1986) 675-686.

No evidence for anisotropies was found in this analysis except for maybe a small excess from the two places on the galactic equator which pass over the array site for showers in which the number of muons exceeded 3.16 x 10E8 (plot c). Nearby galaxies as the source of the highest energy cosmic rays can then be ruled out, since there is no cut-off and no anisotropies due to point sources or clusters. However, a galactic origin for these showers could not be statistically confirmed even though there might be some indication of this from the small excess coming from the galactic plane.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neutral Cosmic-rays:

Another topic of interest that was studied with the SUGAR data was the possibility of correlating an excess of activity in the direction of certain X-ray binary sources in the southern hemisphere. With colleagues from the University of Adelaide, evidence for such a correlation of cosmic-rays with the period from the X-ray binaries was observed. The source of these cosmic-rays is likely to be neutral hadron emission since charged particles would be deflected by the galactic magnetic field. Photons are unlikely primaries because of the unique feature of SUGAR that only recorded muon and hadron activity and not the electromagnetic component of cosmic showers. Hence it is likely that these showers might be initiated by primary neutrons. This would be a remarkable example of Einstein's theory of relativity since one expects neutrons to decay with a lifetime of 887 seconds, but due to the boost in energy (average energies around 10E18 eV) the neutrons have an 80% probability of surviving the 2.5 kiloparsec (about 7500 light years) distance separating the 2A 1822-37.1 binary source and the earth (for the LMC X-4 source, the distance is 50 kiloparsecs or 150,000 light years, and the survival probability is only 2%, but this signal is less significant than the former). These interesting results have been published in the following papers:

R. Meyhandad, B.R. Dawson, R.W. Clay, L. Horton, J. Ulrichs, M.M. Winn, Comparisons of some Apparent EHE Point Sources, 22nd Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Dublin, 1, (1991) 384.

B.R. Dawson, R. Meyhandad, R.W. Clay, L. Horton, J. Ulrichs, M.M. Winn, Search for EeV Neutral Particle Sources in the Southern Hemisphere, 22nd Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Dublin, 1, (1991) 452.

R.W. Clay, R. Meyhandad, L. Horton, J. Ulrichs, M.M. Winn, Neutral Particle Emission from the X-ray Binary 2A 1822-37 at Energies above 10E17 eV, Astron. and Astrophysics, 255, (1992), 236-241.

R. Meyhandad, B.R. Dawson, R.W. Clay, L. Horton, J. Ulrichs, M.M. Winn, Evidence for Neutral emission above 10E17 from LMC X-4, The Astrophysical Journal, 391 (1992) 236-241.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

University of Sydney | School of Physics | Falkiner High Energy Physics | Search

pacificap@hotmail.com

2006-Nov-26, 12:26 PM

My question is simply this...could The Fine Structure Constant a= ~1/137 be considered the "BASE" element which would be how the electron/proton gets its mass?

Dear Russ!

Yes, in a way the alpha finestructure constant is the most elemental 'constant' in all of physic.

When the four elementary interctions 'decoupled' it was the electromagnetic one, whichremained invariant in the strength parameter.

In (my model of Quantum Relativity) the strong coupling became the cuberoot of alpha and the weak coupling became the cuberoot of omega.

Omega is simply the Gravitational Alpha from wich the Planck Mass derives.

Alpha=2Pi.k.e^2/hc with k=1/4Pi.epsilono and G-Alpha=2Pi.G.M^2/hc.

Setting G-Alpha=1 solves for M=Planck-Mass.

The force-strength ratio then becomes precise for a base-nucleonic mass (say a base-neutron substituting for the Planck-Mass), as a kind of particle count for a mass-seedling (so 10^79 nucleons) for the universe and so directly related to the Planck-Mass because of the unitisation.

The relationship of the string classes via the alphas then is G-Alpha=Alpha^18 and the result from the nestings of the string transforms.

Tony B.

Hamilcar

2006-Nov-29, 12:28 AM

These type 1a supernovae studies are very interesting right now. I hope that the new large telescopes we are building will let us go deeper still.

Except we don't really understand Type Ia SNe. I'd go so far as to say that doing cosmology with them is at this point dangerous if not impossible.

Hamilcar

2006-Nov-29, 12:29 AM

Hi Forum!

Allow me to give you a formulation for the Dark energy presently in vogue.

One uses a dimensionless 'cycletime n', which interprets as the dimensionless 'tau-time (T)' in general relativity with lightpath (for the curvature radius) dR=c.dt/dT.

Then n=T and dn/dt=Ho for a (nodal Hubble Constant~58 km/Mpc.s) and a Hubble-Time 1/Ho=t/n=Rmax/c for a event horizon situated 16.9 Billion years from the Big Bang inflaton and instanton.

Briefly, the de Broglie inflaton created a 'false vacuum' energy background, which rendered the dark energy as intrinsic constituent for the subsequent cosmogenesis and cosmo-evolution as a Black Body Planck radiator.

This 'inscribed' the universe's topology as a 4D-Riemann hypersphere volume of toroidal derivative (2pi^2.Rmax^3) in a 3D-suface mapping (say as described in Hawking-Bekenstein-Susskind models for the universe following Black Hole entropy evolution in anti-deSitter cosmologies in 5D etc).

So one can say that a higher 11D/8D/5D-Universe encompasses a lower 10D/7D/4D universe in its information mapping (say as quantised Planck-Areas).

Now the higher-dimensional universe is expading noninertially under c-invariance.

This means that the Big Bang established precise boundary conditions in setting up the 'nodal' parameters for the lowerD universe as asymptotic and DECELERATING universe.

This is also modeled in quantum mechanics as the 'particle in the box' scenario, leading to the equations and formalisms of Schroedinger, Dirac, Klein-Gordon and Feynman etc.

Now the inflaton utilises c-invariance by c=Rmax.Ho=Lmin.fmax.

This relates a 'minimum' frequency as the nodal Hubble Constant to the Hubble-radius Rmax and also the 'modular dual' conditions (enter M-Theory and F-Theory of the supermembranes etc however demetricated).

So the Big Bang singularity becomes such a minimum/maximum condition of course related to the Planck-Scale.

In particular the metric limit for general relativity becomes the Weyl-Lambda=Lmin as the perimeter of the event horizon about the 'quasi- or smeared out' spacetime singularity. This relates to a maximum frequency by c=wavelengthxfrequency in general and for de Broglie matter waves in particular.

The asymptotic Hubble-Limit then becomes Rmax=de Broglie Inflaton Acceleration/fmax^2.

The aforementioned 'false vacuum' derives from the de Broglie inflation acceleration being 'different' from the Schwarzschild metric defined in Lmin via Einstein's Lambda=GM/Lmin^2 (in acceleration units).

The ratio of de Broglie Inflaton/Einstein Lambda=Rmax.fmax^2.Lmin^2/GM=Rmax.c^2/GM, which is of course the Schwarzschild metric in its basic form of Rmax=GM/c^2 if the ratio is set to unityx2.

But in the cosmology derived from general relativity the actual density in the universe is said to be Omega=2xdeceleration parameter (qo) and so the basics above show that the acceleration ratio also describes the 'missing inertia' compared to a critical density (rho-critical=3Ho^2/8Pi.G).

This easily derives from the 'Black Hole' evolution instigated before.

Rmax=2GMcritical/c^2 defines the universe's total mass for closure (in say its 11D-envelope and with a total mass M=Mcritical=rhocritical.Vmax for the universe).

{The Planck-Oscillator-Zero-Point-Energy gives E=hf/2=kT/2=mmin.c^2/2=GM.mmin/rmin for rmin=2GM/c^2 for the potential energy quantum relating mmin to Mcritical}.

Then rhocritical=rmin.c^2/2GVmax=3rmin.c^2/8Pi.G.Rmax^3=3Ho^2/8Pi.G using definition for the inflaton and the nodal Hubble constant from c-invariance.

Then Rsub=2GMo/c^2 defines the universe's mass-seedling at the Big Bang inflaton and the ratio Mo/Mcritical=Omega~0.028.

In terms of cosmology, this also gives a gravitational boundary condition, which is observed and measured as the scale of superclusters, being the largest clustering scale in an otherwise homogenous universe on larger scales.

This is sometimes known as the Sarkar scale, defined in a cosmological redshift of 7.477 and a corresponding (radius) scale of 236 million lightyears.

The exansion parameter in general relativity is often denoted as a and then differentiated wrt time as a dot and a doubledot for the (nonnodal)Hubble Law Ho=adot/a.

But we have seen that this scenario can also be accomodated in cycletime n with dn/dt=Ho (nodal).

This then gives the geneal relativity equations applied to the universe as Newtonian gravitational dynamics with a DEMETRICATED acceleration.

Doing this automatically SHOWS the dark energy as a NATURAL differential between the Omega component and a 'fixed' de Broglie component.

This 'fixed' acceleration is rather similar to the Milgrom parameter of the MOND proposals (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics).

The Milgrom parameter's magnitude is said to be proportional to the product of c and the Hubble Constant as a natural unit for acceleration.

The actual formulaton is -2cHo/(n+1)^3.

The Omega of Newton and Einstein becomes GM/R(n)^2 th R(n)=Rmax.(n/n+1).

Then the dark energy term is simply the difference between the Milgrom parameter as INTRINSIC UNIVERSAL DECELERATION and the ordinary inertial gravity component.

Einstein Lambda=Omega-2cHo/(n+1)^3=GM/R(n)^2-2cHo/(n+1)^3.

Calculations then give the Big Bang dominated in the Einstein lambda with the Milgrom parameter suppressed (and maximised in constant -2cHo).

The de Broglie hyperacceleration ended 3.33x10^-31 seconds into the Big Bang and reached a matter wave speed of Rmax.fmax~4.8x10^56 m/s and a de Broglie matter wave (of mass seedling Mo) of so 1.43x10^87 m/s^2.

The Einstein lambda maximum at the instanton was GMo/Lmin^2~2x10^85 m/s^2 for the ratio of 0.014 of the deceleration parameter (which is half of the Omega of the baryonic mass seedling).

The present cosmological conundrums of missing mass, dark matter and dark energy etc. can so all be resolved in applying the demetricated formulations for the cosmologies, modelled on the appropriate higher dimensional brane parameters and the overall Black Hole thermodynamic evolution of the universe.

Sincerely

Tony B.

This is total gibberish.

GOURDHEAD

2006-Dec-02, 11:52 AM

Back to the topic.

From the linked article: By measuring the universe’s relative size over time, astrophysicists have tracked the universe’s growth spurts, much as a parent may witness the growth spurts of a child by tracking changes in height on a doorframe. Distant supernovae provide the doorframe markings read by Hubble. “After we subtract the gravity from the known matter in the universe, we can see the dark energy pushing to get out,” said Lou Strolger, astronomer and Hubble team member at Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Ky.And how have we independently determined the total gravity of the universe?

Blob

2006-Dec-02, 11:27 PM

This is total gibberish.

Hum,

he is actually taking like a mathematician,

As a result most of his posts lack a good punch line.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.