So I solved dark energy...

Post Reply New Topic

The reason why no matter nor energy source can reach absolute zero has to due with the concept that no energy can exist at this temperature. Basically, all electromagnetic (light) energy has to have forward momentum movement. If you were somehow able to "freeze" light movement, it would cease to exist in our dimension. Since all matter is made from electromagnetic energy (E=mc^2), it follows the same constraint that light has. In other words, if you could stop the electromagnetic energy that makes up matter, it too would no longer exist.

Not to mention that due to relativistic effects, matter undergoes fundamental changes the closer it approaches absolute zero. First Bose-Einstein condensation can occur on groups of particles, then an increase in particle size as the motion is slowed down further. This increases the likelyhood that the matter will come into contact with an outside source of energy (and then absorb some of that energy).

So the Big Bang was not an explosion of matter/energy.

The Big Bang was space itself popping outward as an expanding bubble.

And matter/energy was just carried along for the ride.

If that's so then....I solved it! Dark Energy.

Seriously.

The expanding universe is actually like a car that is in both first gear, and in reverse, at the same time. But first gear is more powerful so it has net forward motion. But as time goes by the reverse gear is gradually diminishing in strength while forward gear remains the same power, thus causing the car to accelerate, and to give the illusion that the car is getting additional power that in fact it is not getting.

According to Einstein matter warps space.

Earth warps space around it like a cannon ball on a trampoline. We stand here on its surface because we cant climb out of the gravity well. And the moon orbits us Earth because it moves around the rim of the gravity well.

So if all of the matter in the universe were concentrated at one point, the way it was at the start of the Big Bang, you would have the deepest possible gravity well. But despite that the Big Bang occurred because space suddenly expanded outward.

So that outward expansion of space must have been countered by the weight of the matter contained in space. The stuff that was to become galaxies and planets etc would tend pull space inward into a well at the same time matter and space were expanding outward. Matter was applying the breaks (actually more than just breaks-it would be like a second engine pulling the car in the opposite direction-inward) to the expansion just as the big bang (whatever forced caused it) was exploding from the initial detonation of the explosion.

So the expansion was really the surplus expansion of space over and above the simultaneous contraction of space caused by matter warping space.

But as eons progressed and the universe expanded - it got ever bigger- but it contained the same amount of matter that it always had in the initial Big Bang. So the density of matter in the Universe gradually diminished as the universe got bigger and older. The Universe had the same amount of stuff, but it got spread ever thinner. Thus matter's ability to warp the ever expanding trampoline gradually diminished as well.

The reduction in density of matter meant less gravitional pull by matter (to put it Newtonian terms) or every less warping of space (to put in Einsteinian terms) by the sum total of the matter in the universe on the sum total of space in the Universe. The more the universe expands the less matter can act as brake on the expansion. So...that expansion accelerates. The acceleration in the expansion of the Universe is not because mysterious additional energy is being applied to expand space. The same energy is being applied as ever. Its that there is progressively less countervailing contraction of space being forced by matter because the same amount matter gets spread out over more and more space in the universe.

So actually there is "Dark energy", but it is the energy that detonated the big band billions of years ago. There is no additional energy being generated to accelerate the expansion of the universe.

What we consider as matter did not exist until fractions of a second after the Big Bang happened. At the moments before the Big Bang event, all of the energy of our known universe was concentrated in a 1-D spot. It was not until after this process that matter was formed. As the universe expanded, so did the dimensionalities that could exist within space itself.

Personally, I think dark matter and dark energy exist outside of our dimensionality (ie. much higher, like 7-D on up). Both can still impact forces upon our dimensionality, but we cannot do the same back.

I'm back! Now I've read 'Beyond Biocentrism' and I find my biggest learning and understanding is that there is no death. Oh, I've been told this before, of course! Energy does not disappear. But I never before understood that whatever I turn into, that will be me. Maybe an eternal piece of dandelion fluff. But I will go on, I got that.

But can you clarify? Is it body or mind or both that carry on and do they stick together? Or do both go flying off in all directions (as electrons) - and am I expected to be comforted by becoming millions of eternal electrons?

I can imagine dandelion fluff floating along above a spring garden. And heaven only knows dandelions are eternal.

But electrons? I have no personal relationship with them at all. Quirky and rather clever, I suppose. I wonder if they laugh at us, with our one hole - two hole problems.

Anybody?

This is a very late reply but I just remembered that this thread exists.

I should probably clarify that absolute zero requires all particles in a substance to have zero velocity relative to each other. Regardless though, you made a few statements I would like to correct.

The big bang happened everywhere because space it's self expanded as well. It was not an explosion in the normal sense, it was a rapid expansion of space. In fact, the name "big bang" was coined by a major opponent of the theory to make it sound more silly then it actually is that ended up sticking.

It should also be noted that the cosmic microwave background actually is not entirely equal on all sides, on one side it's slightly red shifted and on the other side it's slightly blue shifted indicating that our galaxy is moving in relation to the rest of the matter in the universe.


It's not exactly a hard calculation to do. The uncertainty principal basically states that uncertainty in position times uncertainty in velocity is greater then or equal to some constant number that can be calculated using Planck's constant and Pi. In order for something to be absolute zero it's uncertainty in velocity becomes zero, and reguardless of how you word it having the infinite uncertainty in position means that for all you know the object in question could be literally anywhere in the universe.


Like I said, this is before we even get into thermodynamics. Heat can radiate from one object to another via light of various frequencies. The reason it can be said that the cosmic microwave background has a temperature of 2.725 degrees kelvin is because if you left something out in deep space for a long time that is how cold it would get before it gets into thermal equilibrium with the CMB, it will radiate away the same amount of energy as it absorbs. In order for it to get any colder energy must be applied, but all physically possible ways of removing heat use things like the relationship between pressure and temperature (gas heats up as pressure increases and cools down as pressure decreases, effectively making it possible to pail heat away), however this method and all others that can physically exist can only ever cool something down by a rate proportional to the temperature which again creates a negative exponential function that approaches but never reaches zero. Also, no matter how you dispose of the heat at least a little bit will find it's way back.

You mention things like "frequency" without appearing to be aware that it's a function of a number of times something happens over a given amount of time and despite being quantifiable you give no numbers for how many times per second heat energy... does whatever regular thing it's doing to have a frequency assigned to it. I suppose you could be refering to the average number of molecular collisions per second but that value is pretty pointless compared to units like degrees and joules. You are going to need to clarify that, because the more I think about that statement the more confused I get.

HUP is not applicable to particles that are not being measured.

HUP is the effect from a photonic measuring device (e.g., a microscope) that's used to measure the particle.

The photons of the measuring device smash into the measured particle, and change it's momentum, because photons are much larger than elementary particles. This creates difficulty in measuring particles.

We can change the angle of the aparture of the microscope to control the diffusion of photons, and thus, know more about the position or momentum of a measured particle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

the "Correlation algorithm" in the bottom-right and top-right has x,y,z "nested for loops" ... ?

If you're "integrating" over the x, y, z space, then why not calculus triple integrals?

Noise is an effect.

Nothing makes noise, they make audio vibrations (frequencies) that may or may not be converted into noise by a brain.

That's why humans hear the same audio frequencies as different noises.

"Even the smallest differences in our individual skull structure or bone density can change the way our brain receives and processes sound waves"
http://knowledgenuts.com/2016/03/31/why ... fferently/

So, the answer is "NO".

Are electrons sentient?

I've always wondered about that......

I believe the boundary between a "god" and a "force" lies in whether the "being" is aware of its existence.

First off:

Why does everyone on this thread love to display their illiteracy?

We are not talking about "noise", nor are we talking about "noises".

We are talking about "sound", and about "sounds".

Chuck Yeager is famous for "going fast than the speed of sound", not for "going faster than the speed of noise".

A "noise" is an undesireable sound. Clutter. That's what the word meant of centuries. And in the late 1960's the concept of "noise" has been expanded into the visual and other realms by computer scientists. Data, or flaws in photographs are now labeled as "noise". Computer software exists to eliminate visual "noise" from photographs.

Noise is a subset of sounds. Sounds in general are what we are all talking about.

Now back the topic.

The tree that falls where no one hears it.

Does it make a sound?

you're just saying that "sound is the sensation".

I think of sound as being the thing being sensed ( ie the phenomenon of air molecules pulsing outward as a waves called "sound waves").

You could conceptualize it either way.

But... if a star explodes into a supernova in some corner of the universe where no human astronomer can detect the light it emits most folks would not claim that said supernova "does not produce light". They would just say "it produced a vast amount of light that no one detected".

Light is just electromagnetic radiation that happens to be in the right frequency to be detected by the human eye (lower frequencies are detectable as infared, microwave, or as radio waves. Higher frequencies are called ultraviolet light, higher still X rays and gamma rays).

Forget the tree, lets use a simpler example:

So if a giant tuning fork is struck in the middle of the desert and no one is around to hear it it would still produce the phenom of vibrating air molecules that we would perceive as "sound". So (to my way of thinking) the tuning fork still "makes a sound" even if no one hears it.



Its kinda of an unanswerable semantic question.

That is a beautiful and profound thought.
That is exactly why I want to know.
How could we perceive sentience in electrons?
Is there research in this direction?

Individual electrons being "sentient"?

How would that be possible? They don't have brain cells.

The wave/particle duality experiments tells us ...

An electron behaves differently if you monitor it or not, as if it knows someone is watching it.



No one knows why.

it is specifically a "correlation co-efficient series" i was trying to determine.
i did not post the pictures as a form of argument, i posted them to show that i have given much thought to the matter of how matter derives from pure energy. otherwise people may think that i have given it scant attention.

anyway, the nesting as you can see it interrupted by a missing page, and i have written wheelbarrow loads of scribble on my considerations.

i prefer to think in deep nests because i can see the cyclic development of phenomena that i would not have been able to notice without that type of thought.

i also like to program some ideas with "point setting code" so that i can see in graphical detail, the patterns that some nesting procedures produce from the cyclic revolutions of iterations of developments in my ideas of visual feedback .

anyway i could go on forever.

i am not going to say anything else on the topic because i prefer to think of it alone.

An octopus has its 'brain' in its tentacles.
I think you might be referring to vertebrate brains.
The biology need have nothing in common with ours.