DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

[CJWilli1]

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

Let me ask you a question, If you have an expansion force strong enough to cause matter to expand (as I think your implying here)

How can stars ,galaxies and planets form ?

Yes there is strong evidence that inflation occurred, however there is also some models that argue against inflation.

The rate of expansion would start slow and gradually increase. Perhaps the rate of expansion was not very strong enough at first, so matter had a chance to form galaxies once it cooled enough. It’s not the best explanation but that’s all I can think of right now. Even if “our expansion” is caused by particles expanding away from each other, my idea still doesn’t fully explain that “force” underlying the cause of DE. I wonder if it’s possible that space time could be “created” or stretched somehow. All spec 

[CJWilli1]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

No. You either have one universe or you have multiple (independent) universes. What does it mean for multiple universes to be part of the same universe?

These “universes” all affect each other. They accelerate away from each other in uniform while their contents expand in uniform. Based on that, I cannot think of any reason why these universes could have different constants. I’m guessing that they all have the same amount of matter and the “forces” expanding that matter are the same. Even if slight differences resulted from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, I beleive that the expansion would still be uniform if you were to compare “our universe” to another. Based on the idea that these “universes” are causatively linked, and that they do not have different properties from each other, I believe that they are a part of one universe. Also I’m basing my idea on that spacetime has always existed and that spacetime is shared between these “separate universes.” Another universal system could potentially exist in a different fabric of spacetime elsewhere, but a mathematical model of this truly independent system could not predict observations in our own universe. It would always remain a speculation. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

There is evidence for inflationary processes contained in the CMB its one of the fundamental reasons its primarily used to determine which inflationary model is more accurate. Granted it is based on indirect evidence as opposed to direct but it is still evidence.

We don't want to go too far off-topic here but ... I wasn't really happy with what I wrote because, obviously, the reason that inflation was proposed is because there is evidence that needs an explanation (the uniformity of the CMB) and inflation is one possibility. I guess what I really meant was that there is no other evidence for it yet. (Nor for any of the other hypotheses.)

25 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

These “universes” all affect each other.

So how are they separate universes? Sound like they are just different parts of the one universe. And how do they affect one another: in other words, what evidence would we look for?

 

[CJWilli1]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

 

So how are they separate universes? Sound like they are just different parts of the one universe. And how do they affect one another: in other words, what evidence would we look for?

 

They aren’t separate universes. It would just be one universe. 

My approach would be something like this. First I would make some kind of model that represents the particles uniformly accelerating away from each other and expanding simaltaeously. The expansion rate between these particles would be the same and would match the cosmological constants that we can observe. 

Next I would speculate a property of space, that is “space doesn’t like to be empty.” Whatever that means. As these particles accelerate away from each other in a uniform expansion their contents expand in uniform so that space doesn’t become empty. So there is some property or relationship between matter and space, that causes matter to uniformly disperse within it. We would have to speculate what this uknown property is and test its existence. 

That is where I could imagine myself starting. Suggestions? 

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, CJWilli1 said:

My approach would be something like this. First I would make some kind of model that represents the particles uniformly accelerating away from each other and expanding simaltaeously. The expansion rate between these particles would be the same and would match the cosmological constants that we can observe. 

OK. That’s basically the BB model (prior to dark energy)

1 hour ago, CJWilli1 said:

Next I would speculate a property of space, that is “space doesn’t like to be empty.” Whatever that means. As these particles accelerate away from each other in a uniform expansion their contents expand in uniform so that space doesn’t become empty. So there is some property or relationship between matter and space, that causes matter to uniformly disperse within it. We would have to speculate what this uknown property is and test its existence. 

And that sounds like the suggestion that dark energy is an intrinsic property of empty space, so as space expands the amount of dark energy increases. 

[Mordred]

9 hours ago, Strange said:

We don't want to go too far off-topic here but ... I wasn't really happy with what I wrote because, obviously, the reason that inflation was proposed is because there is evidence that needs an explanation (the uniformity of the CMB) and inflation is one possibility. I guess what I really meant was that there is no other evidence for it yet. (Nor for any of the other hypotheses.)

No problem for the learning of the OP here is a relevant paper on how the CMB is being probed for inflationary models.

Quote

The leading theoretical paradigm for the initial moments of the Big Bang is inflation [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], a period of rapid accelerated expansion. Inflation sets the initial conditions for conventional Big Bang cosmology by driving the universe towards a homogeneous and spatially flat configuration, which accurately describes the average state of the universe. At the same time, quantum fluctuations in both matter fields and spacetime produce minute inhomogeneities [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. The seeds that grow into the galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the temperature anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) are thus planted during the first moments of the universe’s existence. By measuring the anisotropies in the microwave background and the large scale distribution of galaxies in the sky, we can infer the spectrum of the primordial perturbations laid down during inflation, and thus probe the underlying physics of this era. Any successful inflationary model will deliver a universe that is, on average, spatially flat and homogeneous – and one homogeneous universe looks very much like another. It is the departures from homogeneity that differ between inflationary models, and measurements of these inhomogeneities will drive progress in understanding the inflationary epoch[/latex]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.3919.pdf

we also use the CMB data to research properties pertaining to the cosmological constant. 

3 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

 

Next I would speculate a property of space, that is “space doesn’t like to be empty.” Whatever that means. As these particles accelerate away from each other in a uniform expansion their contents expand in uniform so that space doesn’t become empty. So there is some property or relationship between matter and space, that causes matter to uniformly disperse within it. We would have to speculate what this uknown property is and test its existence. 

 

 

 

 As per inflation article, this is one of the primary questions that originally led to thee concept of seeking inflation.  The question is How come the universe is so uniform in mass and temperature distribution. This is the Horizon problem

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

here is a quick detail on the flatness problem

http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s12.htm

Ok so lets break this down and speed up the process. I will run through a quick step by step history of our universe.

First we start at [latex]10^{-43} seconds[/latex] we have infinities occurring in our mathematics prior to this, (mathematical singularity conditions)

Now so I don't have to describe all the processes involved here is a quick breakdown

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

study this link, I will add to this link that the Higgs field is what provides the mass term to the gauge bosons of the strong and weak field (this is what leads to the Higg's field inflationary model) where inflation is a result of adding the mass terms to the quarks/leptons, W+ and W- bosons. 

In essence inflation is a phase transition of the electroweak symmetry breaking process. (according to Higg's inflation).

 Here is a secret, to understand how the universe expands and has evolved the process deeply involves our thermodynamic laws. Our universe history is largely based upon thermodynamic processes as they pertain to each particle contributor. Hence we have equations of state for groups of particles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

(needless to say I am being quick in this explanation I could literally go on for hours and hours on what I have learned about the processes prior to the CMB) I don't want to overly confuse you at this stage.)

 

 

Edited February 22, 2019 by Mordred

[Mordred]

11 hours ago, Strange said:

 I wasn't really happy with what I wrote 

No worries I probably would have stated :There is evidence for and against inflation contained in the CMB. Competitive models always abound and inflation isn't conclusive.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

(needless to say I am being quick in this explanation I could literally go on for hours and hours on what I have learned about the processes prior to the CMB) I don't want to overly confuse you at this stage.)

Perhaps a Tutorial on the subject would be beneficial and appreciated? 

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No worries I probably would have stated :There is evidence for and against inflation contained in the CMB. Competitive models always abound and inflation isn't conclusive.

Further discoveries and research into gravitational waves from that far back? Perhaps from the BB itself?

[Mordred]

29 minutes ago, beecee said:

Perhaps a Tutorial on the subject would be beneficial and appreciated? 

Further discoveries and research into gravitational waves from that far back? Perhaps from the BB itself?

I've been contemplating such a tutorial, some of my current studies relate in terms of looking at the early universe from the angle of different models. It is the early universe physics which drives my studies into the high energy particle physics regime. (I've been doing a bit of work as I have time in line with this just need to actually formalize how I want to put it together). The trick is connecting the equations of state with correlations to the thermodynamic laws with regards to symmetry breaking processes with the Higg's field. In essence a descriptive of nucleosynthesis 

As far as detection for GW waves from this era (pre CMB) the corresponding wavelengths are currently beyond our sensitivity range however ALIGO has a remote possibility of catching some signals depending on the wavelengths involved. Were still in the prediction range until we can fine tune by catching a signal. The more GW signals we get the more accurate we can fine tune on them regardless of event.

 That being said I am still waiting to see if any papers correlate the recent GW findings to fine tune the range of frequencies for B mode polarizations in the baryon acoustic oscillations of the CMB. This would be a huge finding for inflation model fine tuning. Once we can find and confirm the B-mode in CMB data

12 hours ago, Strange said:

We don't want to go too far off-topic here 

LOL predicting how easily we can go off tangent

Edited February 22, 2019 by Mordred

[Mordred]

To CJWILLI1. Here is a little trick that will help you better understand cosmology in general. Now I will have to skip a huge amount of details however I will explain the FLRW metric advantage over other field treatments. ( Beecee was correct in his earlier assessment of this thread , you have shown every sign of here to learn rather than assert.) The math and numerous models is incredibly daunting when you first start so I will describe a way to simplify cosmology mathematics in general.  The first trick is to understand all physics formulas and models rely on what you can graph or plot.  This can always apply to a coordinate basis.

You asked in an earlier thread where to start well in terms of modelling done by someone in the know how they would start with a coordinate system where one can identify the invariant to observer quantities. However one must be ready for gauge group symmetries to understand that mouthful lol.

 So lets simplify that first we choose a coordinate basis, well I learned starting from the FLRW metric of the BB model. (granted a few decades ago lmao). A huge advantage of this stage is that it applies (and I cannot stress this enough without shouting) RATIOS. It is not the values that are so important as the ratio of change in graph form. For example a graph with a line regardless of the quantities used to describe the x and y axis will follow the relation y=mx+b. (Lmao you have no idea how many questions I correctly answered by cross multiply and divide when ever given a question of a linear relation within 3 for the four terms are provided when I couldn't recall the correct formula but knew it was linear) On a more complex note the light cone graph for hyperbola functions will follow the graph [latex]\frac{c^2}{g^4}[/latex] see contour plot as per

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+c^2%2Fg^4

anything in the red is faster than light. Now note that wolfram alpha employed the limit of each axis at value 1. The numbers don't matter they are tools to describe the ratio of change of the graph. Simply changing the powers change the graph. see example 

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+c^3%2Fg^4

it is the ratios of change that a formula typically encapsulates.((((STRONG HINT symmetries in ratios of change as applied to symmetries to invariant quantities )))) Now notice that in each case we limit that graph to value 1. Any vector quantity we can NATURALIZE to unitary value 1 is a naturalized unit. The actual number we can convert later...so lets use an example under the FLRW metric this metric uses Naturalized units (set graph maximal to unitary value 1) (which requires some correlation to a v

ector of length) for example time we give length by interval ct fundamental to under stand GR and SR...

this is the 4d coordinate where time is given units of length by the relation ct. so the graph has naturalized units(unitary 1) [latex] c=g=\hbar=1[/latex] these represent the maximal at value 1. (it is the ratio of change that matters. conversions come later)

so reread http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

which describes the FLRW metric coordinate system in naturalized units, then (and I will later step you through this as required) however here is the FRW advantage. take the final equation.

[latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})(d{r^2}+{S,k}{(r)^2}d\Omega^2)[/latex] 

[latex]S\kappa(r)= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}[/latex]

if you remove the scale factor a then the equations are identical in GR. (note this also applies under that basis the  Stretch term S )  the dimensionless value  "a" scale factor denotes the conditions of volume from observer now compared to conditions of observer set at group of values then. ThE expansion represented using COMOVING COORDINATES via ratio of change between spacetime event/observer NOW and spacetime observer then. (at time of past measurement)

so for Hubble an example is 

[latex] H=\frac{H_0}{H}=\frac{\dot{a}}{a} [/latex] where the overdot denotes now, so if [latex] a=0.5 [/latex] then H is 1/2 the value of today. In the comso calculator graph I posted earlier this is the [latex] H/H_0[/latex] column. This advantage is made possible by ratios of natural units under graph. I can 100% guarantee this will apply in every physics theory you can ever possible study. 

When you get practiced enough one can start to visualize equations in terms of graphs for many of commonly used equations. Regardless of what each axis represents. (RATIOS)

follow this back and the SR Lorentz transformation laws also uses a Ratio of change methodology through the [latex] \gamma[/latex] observer dependent corrections. (The FLRW metric alters the coordinates axis (x,y,z) SR alters coordinate axis of x and time interval= vector coordinate length (ct). the [latex]\gamma[/latex] dimensionless ratio is similar to the scale factor [latex] a [/latex] 

see Galilean relativity tranformation

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

then look at where [latex] \gamma [/latex] applies under Lorentz invariance commutations (transformation laws).

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

in all these cases the ratios is what matters under ability to treat and describe under graph. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2019 by Mordred

[Mordred]

 talk about taking a few tangents lmao, however as mentioned (attempting to provide some tools to alleviate some of  challenges faced nowadays with layman understanding cosmology) math in reading articles is always a big challenge. Feel free to ask questions  on any of the above I didn't go into any great details but provided useful aids to help understand a very complex topic to fully understand.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Mordred

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

Beecee was correct in his earlier assessment of this thread , you have shown every sign of here to learn rather than assert.

Agreed. 

So, on that basis, I think John Baez's overview of the Einstein Field Equations is really good: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/

You can read the introduction and get something from it, without understanding all the math, and then go on to read the sections on gravity and the Big Bang, etc.

12 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

My approach would be something like this. First I would make some kind of model that represents the particles uniformly accelerating away from each other and expanding simaltaeously. The expansion rate between these particles would be the same and would match the cosmological constants that we can observe. 

While the idea of creating a model is great, the interesting thing is that the first models did not start from the expansion we observe. They started from modelling what would happen in the case of a uniform distribution of matter. And what di that show: that expansion (or contraction) would occur naturally. You then plug in observations about the observed density of matter and energy and find the model matches observed rates of expansion.

The trouble is, if you build a model based purely on what we observe, how do you test it? It is purely descriptive, not predictive.

[CJWilli1]

11 hours ago, Strange said:

 

And that sounds like the suggestion that dark energy is an intrinsic property of empty space, so as space expands the amount of dark energy increases. 

That statement is correct. But there’s one problem. Properties do not exist. They always have an underlying physical cause. So how could we describe the properties of dark energy on a physical/ quantum level? Space doesn’t like to be empty, and there is a strong possibility that virtual particles “pop into existence” within space. Those are two big clues. 

I have an idea that could potentially explain the effects of dark matter on a quantum level. I will share it tomorrow.

[beecee]

15 hours ago, Mordred said:

I've been contemplating such a tutorial, some of my current studies relate in terms of looking at the early universe from the angle of different models. It is the early universe physics which drives my studies into the high energy particle physics regime. (I've been doing a bit of work as I have time in line with this just need to actually formalize how I want to put it together). The trick is connecting the equations of state with correlations to the thermodynamic laws with regards to symmetry breaking processes with the Higg's field. In essence a descriptive of nucleosynthesis 

As far as detection for GW waves from this era (pre CMB) the corresponding wavelengths are currently beyond our sensitivity range however ALIGO has a remote possibility of catching some signals depending on the wavelengths involved. Were still in the prediction range until we can fine tune by catching a signal. The more GW signals we get the more accurate we can fine tune on them regardless of event.

 That being said I am still waiting to see if any papers correlate the recent GW findings to fine tune the range of frequencies for B mode polarizations in the baryon acoustic oscillations of the CMB. This would be a huge finding for inflation model fine tuning. Once we can find and confirm the B-mode in CMB data

LOL predicting how easily we can go off tangent

Thanks Mordred.....looking forward to it.

16 hours ago, Mordred said:

As far as detection for GW waves from this era (pre CMB) the corresponding wavelengths are currently beyond our sensitivity range however ALIGO has a remote possibility of catching some signals depending on the wavelengths involved. Were still in the prediction range until we can fine tune by catching a signal. The more GW signals we get the more accurate we can fine tune on them regardless of event.

 That being said I am still waiting to see if any papers correlate the recent GW findings to fine tune the range of frequencies for B mode polarizations in the baryon acoustic oscillations of the CMB. This would be a huge finding for inflation model fine tuning. Once we can find and confirm the B-mode in CMB data

https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-O1StochNonGR/index.php#Glossary:vectorscalar

LOOKING FOR "FORBIDDEN" POLARIZATIONS IN THE GRAVITATIONAL-WAVE BACKGROUND WITH ADVANCED LIGO

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Is this relevant?

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

 

https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-O1StochNonGR/index.php#Glossary:vectorscalar

LOOKING FOR "FORBIDDEN" POLARIZATIONS IN THE GRAVITATIONAL-WAVE BACKGROUND WITH ADVANCED LIGO

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Is this relevant?

Yes the stochastic  background is the GW waves that would be relevant to the pre CMB, The BAO B-Modes will result from this background noise and in theory leave a temperature imprint. Bicep2 once thought they had found the B-mode but later research showed that was a misinterpretation.

[CJWilli1]

Here we go.

 

All speculation. 

 

Empty space does not exist. It is filled with a fluid of energy, known as dark energy. Dark energy divides into two virtual particles, like a cell splitting into two daughter cells. Then the two virtual particles annihilate, leaving behind more DE. I’m don’t think that the positive vp annihilates with the opposite “sister particle” that it was formed with, but rather with the opposite particle with the pair adjacent to it. I’m not certain but this would depict the “repulsion” between the sister vps being the same as the “attraction” to the adjacent vps. So there is not net attraction or repulsion or expansion/ contraction.

 

This process of DE replication is much more efficient in areas of low matter concentration. There is less available space for vps to form in areas of high matter concentration. The vps that are formed in areas of high matter concentration have to be much smaller in order to be formed in the empty space between/within matter. Thus this DE replication process is slowed. The virtual particles may have dark energy/ vps within them that cause them to expand slightly before they begin to contract when they start to annihilate with the adjacent opposite particle. 

 

When DE replicates into 2 vps, the vps aren’t initially 100% positive or 100% negative. Their positive/ negative concentration increases as they become a “complete vp.” Once they become complete vps their conc is 100% positive and 100% negative. The process is reversed after this point as the vps contract into the adjacent opposite vp. 

 

Our universe is a vp. It’s gradually becoming a complete positive vp. Once it is complete, it will begin to contract into the opposite adjacent vp. This will only occur after all antimatter is gone. (There was much more antimatter at the start of the BB)

 

This is the best idea I could come up with. Does at least some of it make sense?

I made a 1d and 2d sketch. You can easily imagine this process in 3D based on the 2D representation. The sketches are rough but they are just meant to roughly visualize what I am talking about.

[Mordred]

Sounds close enough to the inflaton of chaotic eternal inflation that it has a similar enough viability. Particle production typically comes in particle/antiparticle pairs so you got that part correct (this is true for the inflaton as well). You need not have a higher production in regions of open space vs a higher gravitational potential. As mentioned other processes such as gravity will overpower the cosmological constant. This is advantageous as you can simply model the process you described as a scalar field. This also preserves a homogeneous and isotropic distribution.

[CJWilli1]

Okay, but what is gravity? What is the physical cause of gravity? It isn't just a property of matter. Gravity is caused by the the replication of DE being reduced by the limited empty space that results from high conc. of matter. The reduced size of the vps coming into existence in areas of high gravity is what causes the warping of "spacetime".

Now look at the 4 purple circles on my 2d representation. There would be 6 purple circles in 3D (there would be a vp coming into existence towards you and away from you). Now imagine fitting those purple circles into a sphere. Imagine that the entire sphere is dark energy. The virtual particle process inside the sphere create the fabric of spacetime in three dimensions while the size of the DE sphere grows. I'm not sure if my wording or analogy makes sense, but what I'm trying to depict is that the 3D fabric of spacetime arises from the growth DE. In other words, there is no difference between DE and the fabric of spacetime.

What is the cosmological constant? It is the rate of division of virtual particles. The rate is constant, but the size of the vps change.

[CJWilli1]

What is time? Time and gravity are the same thing. Increased gravity/ time dilation are due to the decreased size of vps being formed. Since the vps being formed are smaller in a region of high matter density, time flows slower at your feet. The difference is minute on earth. But as you fall into a black hole, the time at your feet flows much slower than the time at your head. In other words the vps being formed at your feet are much smaller than at your head. This causes spagettification. 

My name is Collin J. Willis and I'm 21 years old. I am not a physicist. I am a simple problem solver. I don't have a degree, and I couldn't care less.

Thank you all for your constructive criticism. It was equally important to understanding the complete theory of the universe as my creative thinking was. 

But please refrain from publishing my ideas without giving me credit. I have already posted my ideas on a copyrighted page.

Edited February 23, 2019 by CJWilli1

[Strange]

8 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

All speculation.

This is drivel. You need to provide evidence, not just make up fairy stories. (I see Mordred, typically, has taken a more generous view!)

3 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

But please refrain from publishing my ideas without giving me credit. I have already posted my ideas on a copyrighted page.

Oh, FFS. No one is going to steal this. (And you can't copyright ideas.)

[CJWilli1]

31 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is drivel. You need to provide evidence, not just make up fairy stories. (I see Mordred, typically, has taken a more generous view!)

Oh, FFS. No one is going to steal this. (And you can't copyright ideas.)

Well we would have to test the effect of vps in deep space compared to here on earth. But perhaps the difference would be hard to detect on small scales with our current tech. We would also have to test whether or not these vps could vary in size. But my speculation fits together way to well for me not to consider it having a possibility of being true. My idea answers many questions that have been long unanswered. Although there is a general lack of evidence, there is still some that supports my theory. That being the increase in antimatter conc as you go back to the BB, and the “acceleration” of distant galaxies. Based on that I think we could still publish this theory. If people other think it makes sense like I do, then perhaps they too will strive to find hard evidence to either prove or disprove it. 

 

And thank you Strange. You could’ve ignored my speculative crap that this thread began with. Instead you took the time to educate me. I appreciate it. Same goes to the rest of you. 

[Strange]

5 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

Okay, but what is gravity? What is the physical cause of gravity? It isn't just a property of matter.

It is a property of energy (and a few related things like pressure and stress). This causes changes to the geometry of spacetime that we perceive as a force.

We have an explanation of gravity that has been tested to very high levels of precision. I don't see the point of making up an unquantifiable and untestable explanation.

[CJWilli1]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

It is a property of energy (and a few related things like pressure and stress). This causes changes to the geometry of spacetime that we perceive as a force.

We have an explanation of gravity that has been tested to very high levels of precision. I don't see the point of making up an unquantifiable and untestable explanation.

We are all taught that properties are true.

A property is nothing but a figment of our imagination. We assign properties to things because of our lack of understanding of what the true physical causes are. 

For example, a cactus has a property that is It inflicts pain on you as you touch it. Of course the underlying physical cause of this proprty are the thorns. If the thorns were microscopic and you couldn’t see them, then you would assume that the property, “cactus=pain” would be true and that there is no underlying physical cause. Bad example I know.

Well how about pain itself? The feeling of pain is a property of our being. Of course pain has an underlying physical cause involving sensory neurons or whatnot. But if someone never took anatomy 101? then perhaps they would assume that the property of pain doesn’t have a physical cause. The idea of properties are a result of a misunderstanding of the real physical world. 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

We are all taught that properties are true.

Are we? We know that energy, length and time vary depending on who measures them. There are "fictional forces" that only appear in certain frames of reference. So in what sense are these properties "true"?

6 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

A property is nothing but a figment of our imagination. We assign properties to things because of our lack of understanding of what the true physical causes are.

We assign properties such as mass, length, energy in order to create quantitative theories that allow us to make useful predictions about how they behave. That is called science.

The "true cause" is unknowable and is the domain or philosophy or religion. It has nothing to do with science.

7 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

For example, a cactus has a property that is It inflicts pain on you as you touch it. Of course the underlying physical cause of this proprty are the thorns.

But the "underlying cause" of that is that there are pain sensors in your skin that detect the damage.

And the "underlying cause" of that is that the damage causes chemicals to be released that cause an exchange of calcium ions to be propagated along the nerve fibre to your brain.

And the "underlying cause" of that is that chemical interactions are governed by the outer electrons in the atoms that make them up.

And the "underlying cause" of that is the quantum rules that describe spin and charge, etc.

There is no "ultimate underlying cause" just a series of more detailed descriptions.

10 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

The idea of properties are a result of a misunderstanding of the real physical world. 

And so we get to the usual crackpot claim: "no one understands what the world is really like ... except me!!!"

This has nothing do with science.

[swansont]

11 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

Here we go.

 

All speculation. 

 

Empty space does not exist. It is filled with a fluid of energy, known as dark energy. Dark energy divides into two virtual particles, like a cell splitting into two daughter cells. Then the two virtual particles annihilate, leaving behind more DE. I’m don’t think that the positive vp annihilates with the opposite “sister particle” that it was formed with, but rather with the opposite particle with the pair adjacent to it. I’m not certain but this would depict the “repulsion” between the sister vps being the same as the “attraction” to the adjacent vps. So there is not net attraction or repulsion or expansion/ contraction.

What evidence do you have to support this? How can it be tested?