Theory of the Universe
A thread for any discussion on dark matter, dark energy, the structure of the universe, subatomic physics, etc
Dark Energy? I think not.
A problem recently unveiled by astrophysicists is that the universe seems to be accelerating its expansion. These findings are based on observations that galaxies are accelerating away from us and each other. Previously, it was believed that expansion should have started slowing since shortly after the big bang and would continued until the universe slowed, than began collapsing on itself.
With no explanation for why universal expansion would be accelerating, theoretical physicists named the unknown cause of the phenomena "Dark Energy". The idea that some 'dark force' is causing this acceleration is still only theory, but apparently "Dark Energy" is a catchy term, fitting modern sociology, so it's been widely accepted.
I have a different theory..................
- For the purposes of explanation, pretend instead of living in our 4D universe (length, width, height and time) we live in a 3D universe (length, width and time) which is like existing on a sheet of paper. There is no up or down, only the depth toward the horizon, the past and the future.
- According to modern theory, when the big bang occurred, in this 3D example, the universe expanded on a flat plane. I instead propose it expanded like a bubble with time as the radius (back in time the radius is smaller and therefore the size of the universe, or surface of the bubble, is smaller. forward in time the radius and universe are larger). That would mean the farthest object from us in the universe isn't dependent on where we and it are, but we would see ourselves as the farthest object regardless of which direction we look.
- How does this affect universal expansion and eliminate "Dark Energy"? In simplified 3D terms; The surface area of a sphere (the size of our universe) is 4 x Pi(3.14159) x radius(time)^2. In a 'sphere model' of the universe, the radius would slow down its expansion, but since the surface is a square function, it would accelerate.
ie: In a fixed period of time, say the radius expands from 0 to 1unit (call that unit a booger). In that time, the surface area is now 12.56 boogers. In the next period of time the radius only expanded by 0.9 booger, because it's slowing down. But since the surface area is now 45.36 boogers, it seems a 'dark force' has made it accelerate.
Further adding to expansion is the effect mass has on gravity. In areas of the universe with little mass, the radial expansion would be much greater while areas with high mass, like galaxies and solar systems, would slow down more. From our perspective, the view would follow a line up and over 'peaks' of empty space, rather than seeing it as a crow flies. Since this empty space is 'rising' faster than the rate we and the next star are, it would seem we're accelerating away from each other. In fact, the space between us is just growing at a faster rate.
Here's my model of the universe we live in, in 3D terms and without Dark Energy - Thoughts?
*edit: Here's what the actual structure of the universe looks like by current techniques. The bright patches are dense areas of galaxies and matter while the dark areas are empty space. In the model I proposed, the bright areas would be 'valleys', the dark areas 'peaks' and the strips of galaxies and matter (called filaments) connecting 'valleys' would be like 'passes' between 'peaks'. That would explain the model's sponge-like formation and variation in density, as well as universal expansion.
I think we're in a hologram.
Dark Matter - No longer 'dark'
For starters, let's address what "Dark Matter" means. When calculations began on orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way and entire galaxies orbiting withing clusters, it was discovered mass was missing. A lot of it - around 85% or more. Without this missing mass objects are either moving too fast or are too light to be in their orbits and should fly apart. Moreover, all stars in the Milky Way from just outside the middle to its very edges are moving at the same speed. This is only possible if missing mass slowed the inner stars and was very thick at the perimeter.
As no method for detecting this missing mass was known, it was called "Dark Matter". It is also assumed that this matter would be so small it can pass through anything, or we would have already detected it. Recently, observing gravitational lensing (the way matter's gravity can bend light passing by it) has been used to calculate the density and location of dark matter. Here's a pic of a galactic cluster with dark matter superimposed as the blue ring and cloud in the middle.
What's dark matter, where's it come from and why's there so much of it?
It's actually called Hydrinos, a simplified form of hydrogen, and is created by stars and now in labs. Hydrogen, the simplest atom previously known, makes up about 75% of visible mass in the Universe and it's believed Hydrinos make up all the dark matter.
One method for creating Hydrinos is high speed collisions of Hydrogen atoms that also releases a great deal of energy. The Sun's corona, or hot 'atmosphere' above the Sun's surface, is hotter than the surface itself. Though there's been some guesses why, no credible reason has existed until spectral lines (specific wavelengths of light) emitted by Hydrinos created in labs matched unexplained spectral lines emitted from the Sun's corona. It's theorized that Hydrinos are created in the corona of stars, explaining the high temperatures and spectral lines.
As Hydrinos are smaller versions of hydrogen, so small they could pass through the space between a Helium atom's electrons and nuclei, they can evade almost all instrumentation.
But there are, of course, naysayers to Hydrino theory.
A major sticking point is, ridiculously, the physical definition and behavior of an electron.
-- Some may recall the model of a spark orbiting an atomic nuclei. That was replaced in the early 1900's with a mathematic probability model with fantastic 'quantum' overtones. It states that an electron exists simultaneously in several specific locations (lobes) around the nuclei at all times, and there's a varying chance of finding it. Like the previously mentioned 'Dark Energy' this model was more sociologically based than scientific and we've been stuck with it since.
Hydrinos expel this 'voodoo' model in place of a charged shell, or orbitsphere, around the nuclei. One charge (one electron) and the charge is evenly distributed. More, and you get 'hot spots' on the orbitsphere.
-- Another issue was the certainty that electrons cannot drop below their ground state, or lowest level of charge and lowest orbit. When an electron receives energy, it jumps to a higher orbit, than drops back - releasing that energy as a photon in a specific light wavelength. It always drops back to its ground state. Hydrinos, in specific circumstances, drop below Hydrogen's ground state and release specific spectral lines doing so. The size of the new 'Hydrino' orbit is measured as a fraction of Hydrogen's ground state orbit. Observations from 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, etc all the way to 1/137 have been made. Each time releasing more energy and getting smaller.
SFW? I don't care about physics, astophysics and don't know why I read this.
For the average individual, the biggest benefit here is in power generation. Tapping the energy by converting Hydrogen to Hydrinos is 200 times greater than required to split Hydrogen from water - and likewise produces 200 times the energy from pure Hydrogen than a fuelcell can.
You want green powerplants that could replace coal as a base load? This be it. To date, they've licensed non-exclusive rights to produce approximately 8,250 MW of electrical power to seven companies, including five utilities and two independent producers. You want a truely green answer for transportation? A version is also being developed for use in automobiles that would travel 200 times farther than a fuel cell on the same amount of hydrogen, or even make hydrogen on board by topping of with distilled water. I'd imaging the Navy would also be very interested in either of these techs. More info on Hydrinos available at:
There's three volumes if you'd like to try and right your ship.
*edit: Third volume is most interesting for the 'big picture'.
I'll check it out when i'm finished with some absurd things.
And quantum theory is a "fraud?"
You're probably one of those nuts who believes the earth is only 6K years old as well.
I took some time and looked up the book and read some reviews. I'll check it out, but it seems that Mills' work is subject to a lack of peer review, and duplication. I'm not saying he's wrong, but i'll spend sometime to read what he has to say.
I'm a big fan of Max's work. Even though you like to give me **** for Quantum Mechanics and Theory - it's something i've had an interest in for a long time. Not due to some "spiritual" connection - just due to the fact I found it interesting, and liked the imagination and search it offered.
One of the reasons for myself, the universe is holographic...is in fractals.
Cyclical life of the Universe
There are several views of the life of the Universe.
- In the Big Crunch Theory, gravity slows expansion of Universe before contracting it back to a point of infinite density. Once critical mass at that point is reached, it explodes as pure energy through space and time (The Big Bang) to begin again as a different Universe. Some questions are where in the Universe this 'next Bang' takes place and how can the Universe coalesce to a point when the shear size of the Universe prevents gravitational interaction.
- Another view is the Universe exploded from nothing and, because of Dark Energy, will continue to expand and cool to become growing dead space. It's a one-shot event that doesn't address where the 'Bang' came from, only that it happened and relies on mythical Dark Energy.
- A sociologic view is there are multiple universes and when two collide, they combine to spark a new 'Bang', but doesn't address where these 'parent' universes came from, how many there are or how they collide. It just does and sounds cool.
In my earlier post about the structure of the Universe (pic above), I explained away Dark Energy and in doing so, explained how the Universe would collapse back as in the Big Crunch Theory. But I didn't explain how that matter could become a single point to initiate a new Big Bang.
Here's the Theory
This may be a bit to wrap your head around, but....
As mass (everything seen in the Universe) begins collapsing back to the center of the Universe, they will not head toward the same point in space. In the 3D ball I showed, all matter is heading toward a single coordinate at the center, but would be separated in space like the stretching surface of the ball.
At the heart of every Black Hole is a gravitational singularity, or point so dense it distorts spacetime to infinity. SciFi authors have used this idea to propose wormhole travel by voyaging into Black Holes. I'd propose these singularities are, somewhat similarly, the central coordinate of the Universe where all singularities exist. This distortion to infinity would allow the gravitational singularity to instantly reach this central coordinate, despite how 'far away' the Black Hole and surrounding system are.
Though there would be no immediate interaction of these singularities, as nothing can occur where time is stopped, it is the eventual interaction across spacetime at this point that initiates the next Big Bang. All Black Holes continue to consume matter, causing them to grow in size, gravity and the distortion they create in spacetime. At some point, two supermassive Black Holes become large enough for an Einstein-Rosen Bridge (wormhole) to connect more than just the singularities, but surrounding mass/energy.
That's the spark that ignites the 'Bang'.
So what happens with the rest of the Universe?
- explaining Inflation and Cosmic Strings
At this conjoining of two gravitational singularities, their surrounding supermassive Black Holes each instantly take on the gravity (spacetime distortion) equal to the combined mass of the two, even though the mass of the Universe has not increased. Further, other gravitational singularities too small to previously react can now conjoin with this new 'Universal Singularity'. A rapid chain reaction takes place with all singularities combining into one, with each surrounding Black Hole exponentially increasing in gravity. Even Black Holes that were nothing more than the remains of a solar systems would now have the collective gravity of the 'Universal Singularity'.
That's the dawn of a 'Hyper-Crunch' of the Universe as everything is immediately pulled into Black Holes. I'd propose that once enough mass from the Universe had been pulled into the 'Universal Singularity', energy becomes high enough to create an explosion along a new time vector. The pre-existing universe would continue to collapse while a new one is created independently.
That's the Big Bang that created the Universe.
Inflation is the idea that immediately after the Big Bang, when everything was a soup of energy too hot to create even subatomic particles, the Universe expanded at a rate faster than light. The excuse was this space is empty and therefore doesn't violate the speed of light. In truth, it isn't empty space and the Inflation Theory had a serious fault. But if the time immediately following the Big Bang included massive injection of mass/energy from a pre-existing, collapsing universe, it changes the calculations requiring inflation and eliminates its necessity in explaining what happened.
Meaning, no more Inflation Theory.
Some matter, in the deepest parts of empty space, would be too far from galaxies to be pulled in during the Big Bang and following inflation. That's where Cosmic Strings come in. A Cosmic String is theorized as a near-1D line that may have had a small impact (less than 10%) on matter coalescing into the first gravitational bodies at the beginning of the Universe. Their nature and even existence is currently up for debate.
Going back to the 'ball pic', consider the collapsing universe as the ball turning to 'all-spikes'. The original surface would be crushing into the center, while the areas of near-empty space continue growing, but become increasingly thin. After the 'new' Big Bang occurs, the matter remaining in these spikes would be the last of the 'old universe' to reach the 'Universal Singularity' and move into the next universe. In doing so, it makes the spike thinner and thinner. In the early Universe, these 'spikes', or Cosmic Strings, would still have width and some gravity, creating 'seeds' for the first atoms to congeal around. Once all the 'old' matter has been consumed these 'spikes', or last remnants of the dying universe, would become nothing more than completely 1-dimensional empty space, cease to exist and no longer effect formation of the new universe.
The above is the actual map -a stretched globe- of cosmic background radiation around 320,000yrs after the Big Bang when the first particles were formed and began emitting radiation. The red is areas with the highest densities of matter and makes a blueprint for how all matter was dispersed into our Universe today. I'd propose that this is also a negative of the earlier universe, where the least dense regions of it created Cosmic Strings during collapse and thus, formed higher densities of the new Universe. Likewise, the large blue/black areas contained the largest galaxy clusters and, probably, where the first 'sparks' of our Universe began.
Did you see the 3d picture of the universe?
Cold Fusion = It's real, really
What's 'Cold Fusion'? In the late 1980's a number of scientists reported a net output of energy from experiments involving water and high electricity. No radiation was created, no helium was created, there was no chemical explanation for the output. As Hydrogen was present in the water, it was believed some unknown and unexplained nuclear reaction was taking place. This was given the catchy name 'Cold Fusion': Cold for temps and pressures far below needed for nuclear reactions and Fusion because it involved Hydrogen. As these experiments were sometimes unrepeatable and had no explanation, the scientists involved were roundly criticized by the scientific community and the idea of Cold Fusion virtually disappeared off the map.
Dr. Mills was one of the original Cold Fusion scientists, but stuck with the experiment and followed scientific method to find out what was happening. Meaning make the experiment repeatable, alter it in a controlled method to find changes, formulate hypothesis on what's happening, test those hypothesis with different experiments, repeat, repeat, repeat.
Only took 20yrs, but that's where Hydrinos and associated science debunking Quantum Theory and explaining Dark Matter came from - investigation of the facts behind Cold Fusion. In that respect, and my earlier post mentioning Dark Matter is actually Hydrinos, it would be safe to call any power plant that produces Hydrinos from the Hydrogen in water as either a Cold Fusion Reactor, or a Dark Matter Reactor. Gaffo should love that.
The Boson Fallacy - Subatomic Particle Physics
For reference; An atom is made of protons(+), neutrons(0), with a variable orbital shell of electrons(-). The protons and neutrons are made of smaller particles called quarks. A lot of research the last few decades has gone toward finding even smaller components called Bosons. Further, these are theorized as being responsible for fundamental forces of the Universe. It is these "Force Bosons" that I'm speaking of. They are; W/Z boson, Gluon and hypothetical Higgs.
To create Bosons, physicist accelerate particles to near the speed of light and collide them head on. They've also collided protons into antiprotons for a pure energy annihilation event. In both situations, the energy released fuses and then rapidly decays. Theoretic calculations predict those temporary fusions to be Bosons.
A short, recent (June 15, 2011) article about what's going on at the Large Hadron Collider (largest machine ever built) and the implications is at: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...er-of-sun.html
But here's why I call Bosons a fallacy -
-- There's a difference between what can be created in a lab, and what occurs naturally in the Universe. ie: The largest atoms on the Periodic Table of Elements are synthetic, meaning we either create or theorized we created them, much like Bosons. Even if it can be created and observed, that doesn't mean it would ever naturally exist in the Universe and, even when it's artificially made, doesn't exist long enough to have any effect on existence.
-- There's also a difference between discovering something new, and a new form of something old. ie: I'd point out what happens if you dynamite a block of ice. The explosion will create steam, water and maybe a few slivers of ice survive. There will also be transitions of water vaporizing, than cooling back to water, and then into steam or ice - depending on what the temp is outside. No new element is created. It's all just water in various forms.
Physicists theorizing Bosons form during extreme energy condenses, but immediately evaporates, doesn't mean Bosons formed or that they even existed. All it means is a snapshot of temporary energy density was observed. A further example is in the behavior of these Bosons in relation to the Quarks created with them - they all move in identical fashion and rate.
from article -"... just microseconds after the Big Bang, the universe was so hot and dense these quarks ... and gluons existed freely and unbound. The new results confirm that quark gluon plasma acts almost like a fluid, with minimal viscosity. The results are based on analysis ... when the atom smasher switched from colliding hydrogen protons to lead-ions. ..."
This is the Bose-Einstein statistic and has always applied to identical particles such as photons of the same wavelength in a laser or helium atoms superchilled to near absolute zero. Since Bosons and Quarks do not move in dissimilar fashion, they must be one in the same, only observed as 'blocks and slivers of ice'.
Gamma Ray observations sends Quantum Theory
to the trash -- where it belongs
This article mentions that distortion of gamma rays are too small to validate and in fact disprove certain aspects of Quantum Theory, but only hints at the possibility no distortion takes place and, therefore, all Quantum Theory is bunk.
Integral challenges physics beyond Einstein - SpaceDaily.com 07.04.2011
-snips- "...Einstein's General Theory of Relativity describes the properties of gravity and assumes that space is a smooth, continuous fabric. Yet quantum theory suggests that space should be grainy at the smallest scales, like sand on a beach. ...
According to calculations, the tiny grains (*edit: referred to as Quantum Foam, the fundamental idea of the Universe which all Quantum Theory is based on) would affect the way that gamma rays travel through space. The grains should 'twist' the light rays, changing the direction in which they oscillate, a property called polarisation. ...
Some theories suggest that the quantum nature of space should manifest itself at the 'Planck scale': the minuscule 10-35 of a metre, where a millimetre is 10-3 m. However, Integral's observations are about 10 000 times more accurate than any previous and show that any quantum graininess must be at a level of 10-48 m or smaller. ...
"This is a very important result in fundamental physics and will rule out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories," says Dr Laurent. ... In principle, the tiny twisting effect due to the quantum grains should have accumulated over the very large distance into a detectable signal. Because nothing was seen, the grains must be even smaller than previously suspected. ... Now it's over to the theoreticians, who must re-examine their theories in the light of this new result."
In October 2010, Wired.com reported on Craig Hogan’s experiments with two of the world’s most precise clocks, which he was using to try and confirm the existence of Planck units — the smallest possible chunks of space, time, mass and other properties of the universe.
Hogan’s interpretation of results from the GEO600 gravitational wave experiment had shown a quantum fuzziness — a sort of pixelation — at incredibly small scales, suggesting that what was perceive as the universe might be projected from a two-dimensional shell at its edge.
However, a European satellite that should be able to measure these small scales hasn’t found any quantum fuzziness at all, contradicting the interpretation of the GEO600 results and indicating that the pixelation of spacetime, if it exists, is considerably smaller than predicted.
By examining the polarisation of gamma-ray bursts as they reach Earth, we should be able to detect this graininess, as the polarisation of the photons that arrive here is affected by the spacetime that they travel through. The grains should twist them, changing the direction in which they oscillate so that they arrive with the same polarization. Also, higher energy gamma rays should be twisted more than lower ones.
However, the satellite detected no such twisting — there were no differences in the polarization between different energies found to the accuracy limits of the data, which are 10,000 times better than any previous readings. That means that any quantum grains that exist would have to measure 10^-48 meters or smaller.
“This is a very important result in fundamental physics and will rule out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories,” says Philippe Laurent, a physicist at France’s Atomic Energy Commission who analyzed the data, in a press release.
Source: Wired UK
ESA's website and offical article here: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM5B34TBPG_index_0.html
I saw they had the same "content" - just wanted to add it to the collection. I love interesting things, and this is one of them.
Been meaning to get back to alkemical's map of the Universe's redshift and two fallacies of redshift.
Q: What's redshift and the accompanying blueshift?
When light travels through space, if that space is expanding (Universal expansion) the wavelength is stretched and turns redder. If the space is not expanding or not much, the light largely keeps its originating wavelength - notice the purple on the map's legend is zero expansion, not contraction.
Redshift is not caused by a star moving away from us or blueshift if it's traveling toward us, as in the Doppler effect. ie; If a car driving towards you honks it's horn and flashes it's lights, the sound will be at a higher pitch due to the forward velocity, but the light will be the same wavelength as when the car is parked. This is because sound's velocity is dependent on density while light is a constant.
Fallacy #1 - Gravitational Red/Blueshift
It has been theorized that as light enters a gravitational well, like reaching the surface of Earth, it blueshifts because time moves slower the deeper you go into a gravitational well (ie; a clock on Mercury would tick slower because it's proximity to the Sun). The problem with that theory is frequency, like the speed of light, is dependent on the rate of time aka as time slows, so does the speed of light and frequency, linearly. The only way for light to actually blueshift is if space itself is contracting and squeezing the wavelengths together into a higher frequency.
In the theory I earlier proposed of mass/gravity affecting the expansion of space, therefore determining the shape and expansion of the Universe, gravity would slow expansion and, if strong enough, begin contracting space around it. This would be shown in two ways; 1) light passing through a gravitational well would be diverted by the contraction, or inflow, of space 2) light observed contracting from this inflow would blueshift. So while localized lensing and blueshift of light is currently defined as an effect of gravity, I'd submit it's actually an effect of the contraction of space due to gravity. A technicality, but important.
Gravitational redshift is currently theorized as light expanding leaving a gravitational well, but the light would actually be blueshifted by the contracting space within the well. The only way light could appear redshifted coming from a gravitational well is when it's directly around blackholes and space is being stretched enough to overcome the blueshift encountered in contracting space outside the immediate vincinity.
Fallacy #2 - Redshift is an accurate means of cosmologic measurement
The current theory that all the Universe expands at the same rate, regardless which direction you look, implies that the farther away a star, galaxy, ect is, the more expanding space the light has traveled through. Therefore, the more light is redshifted, the farther away its source is. But if the Universe is not expanding uniformly, redshift cannot be used to measure distance.
- If light is emitted from an area high in gravity, it will be blueshifted from the contracting space. It may then travel across space where expansion has halted due to local gravity and neither redshift or blueshift during that time. It may then travel through gravitationally 'clean' space and begin redshifting on its way to Earth.
- If light is emitted from an area low in gravity and travels here through gravitationally 'clean' space, it will arrive soley redshifted.
If the light in the above two examples traveled the same distance to Earth, the first one may not be, or only slightly be redshifted and the second highly redshifted. The current theory of redshift = distance would interpret the second source of light as originating from much farther away. Likewise, the first light source could originate billions of lightyears farther away, but have the same redshift as the second light source by the time it reaches Earth.
So, I should bring a towel?
Lurking in a distant supermassive black hole there exists a reservoir of water as big as 140 trillion oceans, the largest repository of water in the universe and 4,000 times more than exists in the Milky Way. Two teams of astronomers discovered this mass of water 12 billion light years away, where it manifests as vapor spread across hundreds of light years.
The reservoir was found spread around the gaseous region of a quasar, a luminous compact region at the center of a galaxy and fueled by a black hole. This discovery shows that water can be found throughout the universe, even early on. While that is not necessarily news to scientists, water has never been found this far away before. The light from the quasar (the APM 08279+5255 quasar in the constellation Lynx, to be exact) took 12 billion years to get to Earth, meaning that this mass of water existed when the universe was only 1.6 billion years old.
Beginning observations in 2008, one group used a tool called Z-Spec at Caltech Submillimeter Observatory in Hawaii and the other used the Plateau de Bure Interferometer in the French Alps. These instruments observe millimeter and submillimeter wavelengths which allow for the discovery of trace gases (or huge reservoirs of water vapor) in the early universe. The detection of several spectral signatures of water in the quasar gave researchers the information needed to determine the enormous size of the reservoir.
Turtles all the way down.
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:34 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.