pantheory

Do you think dark matter and/or dark energy are expanding like the universe, or is their size more of a definite nature like the atom?

Consider that both dark matter and dark energy are mainstream hypothesis and other non-mainstream models might believe in one or the other, both or neither. According to the present mainstream ideas both dark matter and dark matter saturate the universe and therefore must also move with the expansion of space according to the mainstream model.

I personally believe neither dark matter or dark energy exists but details of such ideas belong in the speculation forum where I have an open thread. You could throw in a related question or more there, if you are interested in alternative models

regards

rigney,

.......So again, why the speedup? For me to sit here and say unabashedly I have an answer would be absolute folly. Mathematicians have worked on this problem since they found the universe to be moving rapidly away from somewhere. But from where, why and how fast? These questions are most enigmatic to science? Can anyone add a conjecture? We really need to know the truth.

(bold added)

My own model which you can see here in the speculation forum, is called "alternative to the Big Bang model." In this model the universe is not expanding and that dark energy does not exist. Accordingly the problem is that the present Hubble Formula is partially wrong/ incomplete. I have reformulated it and written a technical paper while analyzing hundreds of supernova data and accordingly proposed there is no dark energy, which I think is by far the simplest answer. You could ask further questions including the difference of formulations, on that thread. On this thread, I can accordingly say that the expansion of the universe is not speeding up/ accelerating. Although mathematicians have worked on the problem, few venture outside the standard Big Bang model. You could also ask me further questions about dark energy on this thread if you like, and/ or why it doesn't make sense and the evidence pro and con.

regards

Here are more predictions of the above model:

You heard it first here!

-- The farther away we look, the larger distances and space will falsely appear to be. Generally the farther away a galaxy, the faster its orbital motion of its galactic disc as well as its orbital motion within a galaxy cluster will appear to be. The basis of this prediction is a presently unknown condition of an unknown type of relativity.

-- Galactic black holes are created first. We can see them as naked quasars. In time they produce that matter which forms into the stars which will surround it. Most Galaxies will generally expand from their birth until their demise.

-- An average galactic cycle is about 60 billion years long.

-- Old “star-vacant” galaxies: According to the Pan Theory the universe would be much older than is presently believed. Accordingly, many galaxies have burned out and their outer stellar remnants would have already left the galaxy, many no longer being held together tightly be gravity. The core of the galaxy would have expanded to the size of a small galaxy, and its outer stars wondered off into intergalactic space.

-- Many small “hot spots” in the cosmic microwave background will be found to be distant fully-formed galaxies not just the beginnings of stars or galaxies which is the current theory according to the Big Bang model.

Please correct me if you thought Ii was wrong in questioning the original post?

Of course it's not wrong to question the original post. My reply was simply that I could not understand your question which could have been my problem rather than yours.

regards

After inflation there has only existed five particles in the Universe, i.e., electron, proton, neutron, neutrino, photon. I am wondering about why there is not existence more small or big particles. Are more small or big particles unstable to exist? Do we have any theory?

As free massive particles there are only two major players, electrons and protons. Neutrons only last about 11 minutes in free space and neutrinos are only questionably massive and aren't known to be able to combine with anything. Positrons are known to exist in vast quantities surrounding the galactic core of the Milky Way and maybe similarly surround the centers of other galaxies maybe extending out radially from the center about 35 thousand light years.

/

Not taking a pot shot at you guy, but some real sharp Astronomers (cosmologists?) tell me the nearest "big" galaxy to us is the Andromeda at about 2.5 million light years distance. Since I've been in cosmology for just over a year now, I stay totally confused. But this is the link I looked at.

http://en.wikipedia....ndromeda_Galaxy

Your link is totally unrelated to the O.P. assertions. The opening post involves a great void 3 1/2 billion light years across. The is a vast distance across, more than a thousand times the distance from here to Andromeda. Your link is unrelated to the opening post so don't understand your point.

Here are a few more of the 80+ predictions of the above model:

You heard it first here!

Here's more predictions:

-- Galaxies of all ages are generally distributed everywhere throughout the universe. WE will find the oldest galaxies both in our neighborhood and also at the greatest ...distances.

-- The Milky Way Galaxy is expanding at a rate similar to the currently estimated Hubble expansion rate.

-- The red-shifts of observed galaxies appear to be quantified in a digital rather than an analog fashion. The prediction is that these observations are due to the ....ffact that.galaxies are generally distributed in Bubble or web-like structures.

-- The Great Wall is only a small arc of a much larger ring structure of galaxies.

deleted double posting

pwagen,

A genetic algorithm is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural evolution. This heuristic is routinely used to generate useful solutions .....

Quote from your link above, the key words here, I think, are "useful solutions." I, however, did not see the word mathematics in your link. It does say "Genetic algorithms find application in bioinformatics, phylogenetics, computational science, engineering, economics......." where it does say computational science that would imply math of some sort. Although maybe the most common use of the word algorithm is in mathematics, non-mathematical heuristic programmed algorithms might be used to assist in determining new approaches to alter genetics of plants and animals. Non-mathematical algorithms might be used to determine paths for future research such as genetic changes for agriculture, mathematical algorithms could be used to speculate how long particular observed changes might have taken to naturally evolve. So your statements have validity in that math can be used in genetic evaluations but I think that math, including algorithms and statistics, are no more than minor players concerning the study of evolution as a whole.

Here are a few of the 80+ predictions of the above model:

You heard it first here!

-- The age of the observable universe is many times older than has been asserted by the Bing Bang model.

-- The observed microwave background radiation is primarily caused by galactic EM radiation (starlight), absorbed, refracted, re-radiated, and redistributed by

....inter-galactic matter.

-- Distant galaxies, quasars, gamma ray bursts, and supernova will all be perceived as being incrementally larger, moving faster, and being a greater distances apart ...than they really were in their own time frame.

-- There is only one fundamental force that has always been the motivating dimension of reality. It is the potential energy of fermions to spin which perpetuates time.

-- Gravity at great distances will appear to be stronger than it really was in its own time.

-- The gravity of galaxies does not remain a constant force proportional to a constant "G." Instead its force decreases slowly over time within a galaxy as a galaxy ...ages.

-- Large gravitational vortex currents surrounding galaxies and galaxy clusters, can cause the separation of E.M. radiation at different angles by frequency, which ...could.be called a type of gravitational lensing.

-- At cosmological distances the speed of light (EM radiation) will appear to be increasing at greater distances and decreasing over time.

-- The speed of light here on Earth is not constant which can be proved by experiment.

-- Red-shift correlations of polar jets emitted from active galaxy cores: the farther away a galaxy from us, generally the greater the velocity of a galaxy's polar jets and ...the magnitude of its jet radiation would appear to be.

-- Black holes are comprised of a presently unknown type of matter and have a finite diameter and are not dimensionless points.

-- Some of the largest black holes "spin-off" pieces of themselves to form new black holes and subsequently the beginnings of future galaxies.

-- The gravitational forces of central galactic black holes create most of the matter of the galaxy (protons, electrons, etc.) from the ZPF, that is used to create the ...stars of the galaxy.

China.

I think China has a fairly functional social system right now, but I think this system is generally unrelated to communism. Some presently call their system a type of State Capitalism and a brand of socialism with only an admixture of pure communism involved. Their brand of it works quite well in some ways, for instance the state is presently buying resources/ making good investments internally as well as all over the world, which I expect will benefit the country greatly as time progresses. This may be a good idea for our government too in that for excellent internal and external investments, and the related profits, much fewer taxes might be needed which sounds good to me And most people in China seem to like their "new" system too.

Edtharan,

When I used the word "analog" above, it was unrelated to the word analogy. Here analog means an attempt to "approximate" evolution in some way. Concerning a math analog, for instance, the inverse square law is an excellent analog for both gravity and magnetism. But to provide a closer approximation, one would need to use General Relativity or Maxwell's equations respectively. Evolution concerning genes and DNA changes, is extremely complex since there are many "players" in this process. If you know of such an attempt at using math to approximate evolution I would like to see it. In my opinion it will be a long time from now, and still then of questionable value, concerning a useful computer program for the evolution process since it is very random involving the fickle finger of fate , or statistics in the language of math.

I was reading the latest issue of Astronomy today. There was a nice article on antimatter and a short article about a simulation with two neutron stars that merged into a black hole. Very interesting stuff, as usual!

 

I started thinking about the ramifications of anti-matter and black holes and wondered if the matter-antimatter assymetry could be explained by it.

 

For example, if an anti-matter particle enters an event horizon, it will produce a corresponding amount of high-energy photons when it inevitably collides with normal matter. However, these photons are trapped within the EH and ultimately increase the mass of the black hole as they are pulled back to its center. In other words, the mass loss from the matter-antimatter annihilation becomes moot if it occurs within an EH.

 

This means that black holes would be effectively neutral with regards to matter-antimatter and could therefore explain the antimatter imbalance.

 

Of course, it would also logically mean that the majority of mass in the universe is contained within black holes!

 

 

I am not a physicist nor an astronomer. Someone please explain where my thinking is flawed on this subject.

Hi baric,

This is Forrest Noble, hope all is well with you. I've seen very recent articles concerning fermilab's claim concerning possible asymmetry between protons and anti-protons, supposedly explaining why we see no anti-protons in the big picture of the universe. I hope they are right since I've been claiming/predicting asymmetry concerning anti-protons but not positrons vs. electrons , for maybe 30 years now or longer.

http://scienceblogs....atter_in_th.php

I also think this is the reason anti-protons are so difficult to store. Accordingly enforcing their spin by high speed acceleration or by cryogenics are the proven ways to extend there half-life which I consider to be like time dilation for any short lived particle. My expectation is that there life in the absence of matter is about the same as a free neutron, about 11 minutes in a low temp. vacuum. Even if their half life were much longer, like a thousand years for instance, or even a million years, that would explain why we see no anti-matter in the universe as a whole. We, however, see many positrons (via their annihilation) surrounding the central black hole in our galaxy.

Touché lol

 

I will better structure my future questions when dealing with philosophy and observation. With proper definitions as well as I can state, according to my knowledge.

This is informal so you can ask whatever questions you want, but I need to give my best answers presently possible if I want more questions, to keep the thread interesting. and maybe to enable the improvement by thought of my future answer(s) concerning similar questions here or elsewhere.

.

Still avoiding the answer to that eh? Lol. Its kool.

 

Thanks for the quote stuff too. Its a little like writing a program. Easy enough. A smart phone is kool, but still just slightly lacking to a desktop. Soon enough though lol

 

The more I think about it too, I'll restructure into a formal question. Can you not deny that if there is sound without someone to hear the sound, it would still exist? So just because our intelligence may not recognize the existence of something, it doesn't mean that it can't exist right? Or that it ceases to exist?

Kyle, I think there's no conundrum at all to that question. If one gives any dictionary definition of "sound" that they would like, then I'll give them absolutely the correct answer to the question, according to that definition, since there can be no valid answer without an exact definition, in this case, of the word sound. Many questions like this one, become erroneously debatable because exact definitions of the words being used differ between those individuals who think they are debating.

cheers

Ok. So you kind of answered me lol. "Sound: mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium." The sound by definition would still exist "ex·ist -verb (used without object) 1. to be 2. to live 3. to continue to be or live." , because during observation a tree makes a sound when falling "Sound: the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. (human or animal ears)". Just because we had not heard the sound previous, does not negate its existence. Because we are aware of the existence now only solidifies the it's existence when we weren't.

 

Apologies for my citations. I know that an apa or mla format would be proper. My damn friends finally talked me into this facebook junk. If you would like a more casual setting, feel free to hit me up on there as well. Kyle Smith Casper, Wy. I think there are a few others. I'm in a blue shirt.

Ah, Casper. Going north-east from Los Angeles in southern California, when continuing north-east I usually drive through Wyoming starting at Salt Lake City then driving across 80 to Cheyenne, then I'd have to go up 25 to Casper, or just fly into Natrona Intl. Probably can't make it this year since I expect to be living in the middle east for the next couple of years in the near future.

To add quotes to your posting, copy it and then past it then add "[ q u o t e]" right before it and "[ / q u o t e ]" (except eliminate all spacing) immediately following it.

If I eliminate the spacing and the " " marks it looks like this:

.

right before it and

Another way to do it is to use the "quote" symbol. You will see it at the top of the posting box. It is the symbol which is the third from the right. Put your cursor under each of these symbols and you will see its function. The seventh symbol from the right are imodicons, symbolized by a happy face, for instance. Now highlight your quote and press the quote symbol above, that should do it.

regards, Forrest

Well, of course the answer is just a matter of opinion. In mine, communism is an idealistic social system which is based upon the concept "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Although it has kinship to religions of many countries, most countries that have adopted it have been generally anti-religious. The Jews and their system of kibbutzes of yore, remind me of communism which I think morality wise seems quite "pure."

Over time such countries that have practiced it, have come to realize that the system in its purest form is contrary to human nature, and for that reason it does not work. The number one problem, I believe, is that the system takes away human incentives since a garbage man might make the same income as a doctor for instance. The doctor takes ten years of study and the garbage man may need very little education to do a good job. It assumes that people will choose a profession concerning what they choose to do, regardless of the personal sacrifices that may be involved, which is an invalid assumption.

Human nature seems to indicate that the hardest working people in a society are usually motivated by greater rewards than others that choose to work with an average effort and pursue their future with less zeal than those who seek greater money, possessions, luxury, servants, power, the right to give inheritance, travel, more spouses, better looking/ behaving/ smarter spouse(s)/ companions, harem, etc.

Americans as well as other people, may hate those things that they think might be a threat to the possibilities of a happy and/or better future. For that reason much information and propaganda, concerning the problems with communism, have been available in America since the inception of Soviet communism in the early 20's. Also the Soviets declared capitalist counties as the primary enemies of their form of government, after the fall of Germany in WWI.

killafur,

Hi Kyle! Many questions that might be asked could involve both science and philosophy, but I think most questions asked will be rather easy and fast for me to answer regardless of the question. I will tell you if I consider your question/ answer to be a matter of theory, observation, logic, philosophy, etc.

.....If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

.

I consider this a simple question and the answer is also very easy to understand.

The answer to this question simply depends upon the definition for "sound" that you choose to use.

Here are two different definitions:

Sound: mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level.

By this definition sound exists in the absence of any animal or human hearing it.

Sound: the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. (human or animal ears)

By this definition sound only exists if there is an entity that perceives it.

http://dictionary.re...om/browse/sound

I consider this a question of philosophy since the answer depends upon one's perspective or word definition(s) concerning the answer.

.......Or, what if another intelligent species, that is way older than us, or even in another "universe" orbiting right next to us, has beat us by a million years defining it? I know it sounds crazy, but maybe that's what we need. Outside the box. Ah ha, maybe this says it better: have you ever tried to ponder these things as an animal, and not a human. I know it sounds crazy, but its amazing the limitations in perception that it can cause.

.....What would you say was your biggest hole to your theories? Is there anything that just bothers the $#!* out of you?

I've had this theory for more than 50 years and think I've figured out every possible question that might be asked concerning the theory, and probably about most other questions I consider there are no "holes" in the theory but there are two things that I would like to see proven by observation. Either of these would add much additional strength to the model. The theory implies that all matter varies to a small extent in mass, maybe 1 part in a thousand to maybe 1 part in a million. Today's measurements of mass involve measuring large quantities of protons or electrons individually, for instance, and then taking an average of the entire mass which would vary very little. But this model implies a bigger individual variation -- but does not require it.

The second thing that this theory does require is a physical aether. For this we would have to discover dark matter, or Higg's particle's, or gravitons, or quantum foam, or quantum sand, or any of a hundred other theoretical particles. Next this model requires that this particulate aether would be both the carrier of EM radiation as well as the cause of gravity.

I would really like you to be open too. You're safe lol. I'm just curious. Mine is that if gravity is basically something that occurs to something with "mass", and space is is only a classification to an area in which our matter resides, then where did our energy come from? Is there ancient nebular type clouds? My mind can run rampant with the possibilities, but the problem is still there.

Though I can ramble forever, I'll end this one for now. Happy posting people

Thanks for your questions Kyle. regards, Forrest

.

The above model proposes that only one thing exists in the entire universe, which everything else is either comprised of, or can be defined by,

and the following would apply.

Things that Do Not Exist.

-- dark matter

-- dark energy

-- pure energy

-- the forces of nature

-- warped space

-- a hot dense past

Things that have a different explanation

-- galactic redshifts

-- the microwave background

-- the beginning of the universe

-- the beginnings of galaxies

-- black holes

-- the cause of gravity

-- the cause of magnetism

-- the cause of the Strong force, Weak force, Strong interaction

-- reason for the speed of light

-- EM radiation

-- the double slit experiment

-- the Michelson Morly experiment

Things that are required by this model, but not by the standard model

-- an aether of fundamental particulates

-- that particle spin is real spin, not just "angular momentum"

-- that the force that causes particle spin is the single fundamental force in the universe

-- that the observable universe generally does not change over time, as to its general appearance, average age, or density.

-- that black holes are a compressed forms of "field material" and are a form of matter

-- that the Michelson Morly experiment was wrong; the speed of light on Earth is not constant but varies to a small extent

-- that the forces of black holes, in combination with the ZPF, create protons, electrons, and their anti-particles

-- that galactic jets create the observed "abundance" of light elements

-- that the universe is many times older than the standard model

-- that the speed of light here on Earth and elsewhere, is not constant

Things that are implied by this model

-- field material as well as matter are made up of a string of fundamental particles that extend to a spring-like appearance

-- atomic particles vary in mass to a yet undetectable extent

.

If it existed in something we would then have to explain where the thing we existed in existed in itself. It would be turtles all the way down!

Them turtles sure get around

That is a philosophical answer.

 

Classical (Newtonian) physics, special relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. all postulate the existence of space and time. General Relativity postulates the existence of matter (mass, energy) and derives space and time - but we always use derived metrics which presuppose Minkowski space-time.

 

It seems physics theories require space and time to exist --- so the question "where does it exist in?" is a reasonable question --- and it is reasonable to assume that the "universe exists in this space-time" ??? :(

O.K. if you insist

Don't just think in terms of particles but waves. Back in the pre-Heisenberg era wave functions collapsed all by themselves because observation had yet to evolve. A seemingly random wave structure, comparable, say, to the energy signature of pink noise could follow a pattern of cascading collapse in a highly ordered hierarchical meta-wave without appearing complex to the human eyes that did not exist at the time. You have to be careful not to look directly at the cosmic microwave background even today because trying to measure the position and momentum of those old photons could still collapse a wave function the wrong way and mess up the big bang. I would share the equations but I need to get another beer.

Hey Tom, where do you live? I live on the west coast of the US and travel the world. Maybe we c/. ould meet up somewhere since our thinking seems to be parallel, such as pink noise and a beer. My own theory is quite similar since it involves violet noise and a case of beer, implying a strong commonality of interests Please respond.

regards, Forrest Noble

The Pan Theory: Brief Summary

This cosmological model being discussed here might be classified under the cosmology category called "Scaling Theory" (also called scale changing theory, rescaling theory etc.) The idea of scaling theory in general is that the scale(s) of reality in general changes over time whether uniformly or otherwise. Such models in general seemingly cannot be disproved based upon their scale changing proposal alone. The first such proposal was made by Paul Dirac in the late 1920's when galactic redshifts were first discovered. His proposal was that both matter and space expand over time. The second generally known Scaling theory was proposed by Hoyle/ Narlikar in the mid 1960's whereby atomic diameters were proposed to be reducing over time (electrons moving closer to the nucleus). If atomic diameters were larger in the past then the resulting EM radiation that they would have produced would have been longer, explaining the observed galactic redshifts. The subject Scaling Theory model could also be called a Diminution of Matter theory. If matter was very slowly becoming smaller, as in this model, space would only appear to be expanding like it is now proposed, but instead the universe as a whole would generally not be expanding, instead matter would be getting smaller. This model being presented here is unique among scaling theories in that it explains why scales slowly but steadily change over time as briefly discussed below.

The universe accordingly started as a single simple particle and very slowly divided into strings of exactly the same particles excepting smaller. For this reason it might also be called a simple (3 dimension + time) string theory. The minimum age of the observable universe accordingly would be at least a trillion years old via this process. According to this model there is only one particle which forms strings of particles which are the foundation for all of reality. This proposed particle is presently unknown (something like dark matter, Higgs particles etc. but greatly smaller) and makes up all of reality. In this model there are no forces of nature/ pulling forces, and no pure energy. Instead Gravity, the Strong Force, the Weak force, the Strong Interaction, and the Electromagnetic force, are explained as either field interactions of these particles, or physical connections within nuclei with no a priori forces involved. There would only be one internal mechanical a priori force within these particles. This force causes them to unwind/ re-wind and slowly form strings of like particles (while becoming smaller), which can eventually be looped by self interacting forces into atomic particles (spinning loops). In their few stable looped forms they spin as fermions, perpetuating changes which define time. Space accordingly is the volume which matter and field occupies, being an extension of matter and nothing more. This theory also could be called an aether model in general, explaining both EM radiation and gravity as being simply aether field internal motions. Since according to this model there is just one single entity that makes up all of reality, called a "pan," I believe it is by far the simplest possible cosmological model that can be justified by observation. The Pan Theory is not an unknown theory. It's been around for 50 years and has been published for more than 20 years.

unnoticed oracle,

...and where does it exsist in?

I believe the best way to explain the containment of the universe is that it is a characteristic of the universe itself, such a question would be "what exists beyond the containment or the universe" Such a question would have no more meaning than what exists beyond reality? If there is just a single universe, then to say "where" is it? the answer accordingly is: There is only one place where the universe can exist and that's the only place where it does exist since there would be no other place.

I do not think his philosophy differs from other quantum level theories (i.e. string theory), that is, our classical and quantum physics emerges from lower level theories. Max Tegmark ( The Universes of Max Tegmark ) has an interesting mathematical view of theoretical universes.

I'm not fond of complicated science models which I consider much of quantum physics to be. The mathematics are the best analog that we have yet, granted, put together to match what has been observed for the long history that quantum theory has existed. Even though the math is the best available to date, the wording of the theory, I view as senseless or ridiculous

One thing that puzzles me is:

The quantum world is consistently stated as being fundamentally different from the classical world;

We use classical concepts of time, space, etc. to (mathematically) describe the quantum world;

Maybe our methods are the cause of "uncertainty", "wave-particle duality", etc. ???

I believe that the way this theory is put together and explained, totally lacking is an understatement -- well that's a conservative description of the entire theory

A possible analogy could be using the integers to describe irrational or transcendental numbers. At some level you will encounter paradoxical infinities. Not sure if i am describing this very well. Probably does not belong in this topic, maybe not in cosmology.

I believe your explanation is as good as anything I've heard concerning quantum physics

I can almost image the "double talking" that I perceive would be involved with a quantum theory (verbal) explanation of entropy.

I believe the 20th century will be remembered as a hilarious time when illogical religions, superstitions, and ridiculous science abounded as standard models.

I am optimistic concerning the 21st century but I think there's not much to show yet. -- excepting for the internet a wonderful education tool (with a little spammed false info added) -- but to end with a happy face, the progression of science goes through relative stages of enlightenment, ending in better understandings ultimately IMHO