- Topics
- Aerospace
- Animals
- Anthro and Archaeology
- Bio and Medicine
- Brain and Behavior
- Business and Economy
- Computers and Electronics
- Education and Outreach
- Energy and Environment
- Geoscience
- Humor
- Internet and Communication
- Media and Entertainment
- Nanotech, Chem and Materials
- Physics and Numbers
- Security and Defense
- Software
- Space
- Transportation
- Reader Blogs
- Commerce
- Register/Login
- RSS
The Dark Universe and Limitless Dark Energy
Last week I explained what I argue to be the greatest theoretical challenge facing fundamental physics today; that the very concept of the spacetime continuum is flawed and in need of revision. This week I want to explain what I think is the very greatest challenge coming from the experimental and observational side. Science thrives on a dialogue between theory and experiment and when you put all this together you arrive, as I see it, at the most exciting time for theoretical physics for a century, perhaps even since the 17th century in terms of the expected level of shake-up.
The experiments and observations that I refer to do not relate to the Large Hardon Collider. While that should be interesting especially if they don’t find the Higgs particle … well the LHC is now broken for a few months and that gives us a chance to see what else is going on. What is going on is the possibility of testing physics at the Planck scale, i.e. at energies 10 million billion times greater than the LHC could ever produce. It’s a brand new field, hitherto considered by physicists completely impossible, called ‘quantum gravity phenomenology’.
Don’t worry, we won’t actually be producing energies that high on Earth in the near future, we will be turning to cosmology. But the energies available if we knew quantum gravity could be rather high. If you watch the SciFi Channel series Stargate Atlantis, the portal device is powered by a ‘zero point module’ that taps into the vacuum energy of completely empty space. I think it was Arthur C. Clarke who first brought this into fiction, but it was based on theoretical ideas at the time. One can give a simplistic estimate of this vacuum energy based on cutting off particle wavelengths at the ‘minimum wavelength’ of 10³³ cm and the size of the Universe. I do this in On Space and Time and it comes out naively as about 1094 grams of mass-energy per cubic centimetre of empty space. To put this in perspective, this is about 1088 (i.e.10,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times the energy consumption of the world in a year, in each cubic centimetre! You can think roughly of a kind of ’sea’ with the same density as Planck-scale quantum-black hole objects (as featured in my first post two weeks ago) perhaps making up the foam-like structure of spacetime which, at a distance, we see roughly as a continuum. But please don’t think take this too literally. This is more like a 'sea' of quantum fluctuations and may well be a theoretical artefact of the way we think about quantum mechanics.
Submitted by CambridgeBlog on Tue, 2008-09-30 13:36.
- CambridgeBlog's blog
- Printer-friendly version
- 1655 reads
unification theory - dark bang theory
www.darkwingnightmare.com
Unification Theory
Your Subtitle text
Home Page
Link-Entity in Space!
"Dark Bang" Theory
Take a Minute
Unification Theory
The Entity
Dark Flow
Unification Theory
Unification theory attempts to reconcile the understanding of the four forces of the universe. Electromagnetic, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and gravity. The presumption is that gravity is that weakest of the four forces. Yet it can control the positions of the largest structures in the universe. How can that be?
Here is how.
The big bang theory contends that all of the materials in the universe once existed in a very small space at a singularity before the big bang occured. For all of it to have existed and be held there at once there must be a force that is greater than all of the combined forces and energy combined. What force could have done that?
Gravity did.
Did the big bang defeat that binding gravitational force? No.
The same gravitational force that maintains the control of the positions of large structures over vast distances now is the same that held them in close quarters then.
Gravitational spiral theory which is another of my own ideas like this theory is, may again return them to, and possibly beyond their original positions.
Is the position of those structures random or chaotic? No.
They are inflationary representations of their original positions before the big bang. They were systematic in relation to each other before the big bang, and are systematic now.
The measurements to prove this are already partialy seen in the behavior of elementary particles and will be proven for light, strings, extra dimensions, waves, and all else. The gravitational forces do not become weaker for smaller or lighter waves and particles, it becomes stronger. How else could they be contained and held at the singularity when it should be that their properties would make them more difficult to contain?
Gravity becomes stronger at smaller distances and with lighter subjects which relegate the other three forces to sub-forces of gravity, and is supported by observing their behavior.
The real question is this:
What force defeated gravity and triggered the big bang?
It actually was not defeated, but forced into its flux control of inflation at the points we prove through physics.
And the force that ignighted the big bang and began inflation was?
Stay tuned for the answer.
Copyright 2008 2008. russell maggio. All rights reserved.
Posted by darkwingnightmare at 10/10/2008 1:54 AM | ADark Bang" Theory
The Big Bang theory describes the origin of our universe. Let's consider:
The basis that all universal energy and particles exploded and expanded at the point of a singularity in a void is the simple explanation of the Big Bang. Plausible? Yes. Fact? Maybe not.
Consider the human perceptual perspective.
Light.
Our visual sense looks at space as a dark empty void, but it is as perceived from the visual perspective. It is tinted by the light ingrained into our perspective, and bleeding into space from our position here ajacent to a star. Space has temperature (very cold), back ground radiation (The COBY Project confirms it), and can be bent by gravity (see Einstein's Relativity) and many more tangible measurements. So it can not be a pure void. It is also a lighter shade of dark.
Consider pure void. The state of total non-existence.
DARK.
Non-existence is as plausable a state as existence is.
I propose that more does not exist than does.
That dark matter and lesser varying degrees of early stage bare existence flooded into this area where we are. Why is dark matter considered to be predominant in our universe? Perspective.
Dark matter is only a lighter shade of dark when non-existence is the perspective.
Our universe and everything in it is just the rough uneven spots being carried along within the greater force of the degrees of dark.
dd Comment
Post new comment