So I solved dark energy...

Post Reply New Topic

i have deduced today that nothing that ever came into manifestation can achieve a temperature of zero kelvin.

if there is a temperature in an atom of zero kelvin, then all activity stops including the structural dynamics of atoms and they then pop out of existence.

or in a better described way, they become part of dark energy.

but the problem is that activity can only be protracted in a negative logarithmic way, and so it can only ever approach zero, but never actually equal zero.

so once something has come into manifestation, it is not possible for it to leave manifestation. (without entering a black hole)

but there is certainly an energy level which would evade even the most intelligent scrutiny.
it is above zero.
highly charged energy systems tend to coalesce into bound and localized structures, and emit extreme amounts of excess energy.
lowly charged energy systems tend to disperse due to having insufficient entity to be affected by gravity.

thus their density is reduced, and their occlusion to observation of highly charged systems is diluted.

ahh whatever...the blasted phone is ringing.....

Comfortable with your definition of "The Big Bang" as the expansion of space rather the prevailing texts I have read which describe it as an explosion of the matter formed in the fraction of a second when the Big Bang occurred in the creation of the universe. Wouldn't it be appropriate therefore to dispense with the term, "Big Bang" and describe it for what it is which is the expansion of space. Sorry, meant to say that dark energy was postulated to account for the expansion of the universe. Nevertheless there is no evidence for its existence.

Yes, I am comfortable with it because it is not my definition, it has been the scientific concensus for decades. It is often described as an explosion to make it easier to visualize for people who don't understand the math behind it but saying that it's an explosion is misleading because instead of being powered by a chemical or nuclear reaction it was forced outward by space expanding. Look up inflation theory and you will see what I mean.

As for dark energy, the first variant of it was postulated by Einstein. Within the math of general relativity there was this one value controlled by an unknown constant that Einstein called the cosmological constant, and he assumed that it was just powerful enough to make the universe be static and unchanging as he believed it was but when it was learned that the universe is expanding he then assumed that it's value is zero making it not effect anything. Decades later it was discovered that the universe's expansion is accelerating and so the term "dark energy" was coined and defined as being whatever is causing that to happen. Since the accelerating expansion of the universe is something that has been experimentally proven that means that dark energy must nesesarily exist according to it's definition of being the name of whatever causes that. This has lead to the possibility that the cosmological constant isn't zero and that it is dark energy, and your old favorite explanation for everything called vacuum plasma is also a worthy candidate for being dark energy as it causes a universal outward push, albeit one predicted to be much stronger then what we observe. It might even be both vacuum plasma and the cosmological constant fighting against each other to produce the net expansion we observe. If either or both of these turn out to be the explanation then by definition they are dark energy.

You are right that nothing can ever reach zero Kelvin, but you are wrong about why. It has more to do with Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, the more you know about a particle's velocity the less you can know about it's position and visa versa. For something to be absolute zero the particles must stop completely and then uncertainty in velocity will be zero, but that would require uncertainty in position to be infinity. This is before we even get into thermodynamics, even if we just use Newton's law of cooling it would theoretically take infinite time to reach absolute zero even with a perfect freezer.

there is no such thing as velocity or position except in a relativistic sense.
velocity is relative to a frame of reference, and since frames of reference are varied, so is relative velocity.

if there truly was a big bang, where the whole substance of the universe was compressed into a singularity, then that would be the ultimate frame of reference, but it can not be determined exactly where it was.
so velocity in a non relativistic way would have to be derived from a singular point somewhere in space.

the microwave background radiation seems constant in every direction (3 degrees kelvin), and so there is no direction of concentration which could show the coordinates of the original big bang.

if every distant object we can see is traveling away from us (red shifted), then it certainly would be variable given the locations of those galaxies.

if everything traveled away from the big bang in all directions at the same speed, then on the other side of the big bang, galaxies must be receding at least twice as fast as on our side of the big bang relative to our perspective.

we can not see that far, so no true "still point" can ever be defined (by inference) from which to assess velocity, or even location. think hard about it.



no doubt something you have read rather than something you have reasoned.

infinite uncertainty can be more easily described as zero certainty.

if position can not be established, then no protraction of velocity is possible.





yes it is negatively exponential (approaches but never touches zero).

but even the fact that pure energy has been bundled up into a mass means that there is a potential energy that is dormant, but there is also kinetic energy that keeps the whole system from blowing up. these are balanced at approaching zero kelvin.

temperature is just a measure of energy on a lower frequency.

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.