Matter decays making space and thus causes expansion (Baroba)

[BAROBA]

....that the universe is not only expanding but doing so at an accelerated rate! We're expanding FASTER as time goes on. Is this true? What kind of force is behind this acceleration? What will become of the universe?

 

Hello all,

My first post here.

 

A long time ago I had an idea, which had a rapid expansion of time-space as a result, and of course back then this was not observed and it looked like my idea was wrong... Ten years later I hear that they found quite the opposite. Time to get that old idea moving again

The idea is quite simple: Everything decays.

The idea is a continuation of the quantumfield theory, which states that the 'vacuum' of space isn't empty. That is is 'alive' with particle and anti-particle creating and destruction.

My idea says that every mass, is in a constant state of exchange with the 'vacuum' of space, and even though the mass seems pretty much contant. On a extreme small scale ( around a Planck-length) you could see that any matter is exchanging particles with the vacuum, and is creating force-particles. ( How exact is still a mystery).

 

The idea its main point is that even forces can decay into the lowest possible energy state, being time-space.

All matter has to decay into force-fields( or particles) and they decay into time-space. If you would draw a V on a piece of paper, on the lowest point you would have a mass, the shortest range force particles are also on the bottom of the V.(they exist in the matter). The EM-force fills up to the half of the V. Gravity fills up the rest. This looks pretty similar to Einstein's discription of gravity as a distortion of time-space.

 

What happens with decaying forces? They all decoy into a lower (and further reachng ) force particle, untill they hit the lowest possible energy state.

This concept is also very similar to string theory, where each string can have a certain( discreet) amounts of energy. Mass would be be a high-energy string, the force particles each carry less energy untill they reach the lowest possible state, a almost enrgyless string.

 

This would mean that even gravity can create extra time-space on extreme long distances. But because chance and extremely large numbers of gravity particles exist, this expansion of time-space could be witnessed on a much smaller scale. No idea for a experiment though. Also my idea sheds a new light on how the universe started. But that is something for another topic.

The end of the universe would be cold, the universe would evaporate into oblivion...

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

[jamey2k9]

the force making the universe expand is meant to be dark energy and we can prove the acceleration by redshift

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

thats a good explanation baroba if this were true wouldn't the universe collapse in on itself and is it possible this has happened before maybe a universe before this did the same thing and the sudden clash of all the particals heated up and blew up causing the big bang and the creation of this universe.

[Martin]

... I had an idea, which had a rapid expansion of time-space as a result, ...

The idea is quite simple: Everything decays.

 

The idea its main point is that even forces can decay into the lowest possible energy state, being time-space....

 

All matter has to decay into force-fields( or particles) and they decay into time-space...

 

At the moment all you have is a speculation, Rob. You need several things to make it science. Ultimately you need a system of accounting that says how much matter has to decay to make a certain volume of space.

 

And then you need your system of accounting to match observations. You have to be able to look back and SEE that extra matter in the past that has decayed to produce the extra volume of space.

 

Cosmology is quantitative.

 

So here is a little exercise. The CMB light that we see was emitted around year 380,000 and the redshift it has experienced shows that distances have expanded since then by a factor of about 1000. That means that volume has expanded by a factor of about 1,000,000,000.

 

Now we can look back to that time when the CMB light was emitted and estimate the density of matter in space at that time.

 

The observations seem indicate that there was the same amount of matter as now, just in a smaller volume. As well as we can tell, the density was a billion times higher.

 

But your model would say that there was some extra matter back then, which decayed to form all that extra volume. How much extra matter was there?

 

the force making the universe expand is meant to be dark energy...

 

In conventional cosmo, no force is needed to make the distances between galaxies increase. Space is not a thing (Einst. said it had no objective physical existence) so it doesnt have to be created. If you take the usual cosmo model and zero-out the dark energy you still get an expanding universe. The dark energy is not needed. All it does is accelerate the expansion (make it gradually happen faster.) Important not to imagine space to be a substance, needing to be created.

 

Focus on the geometry---the distances we can actually measure---not on the space (as if it were a substance).

 

Jamey, thanks for helping to get Baroba straightened around. I think what you said was helpful and in the right direction. Dark energy is indeed important (I just had to correct that one detail---you can still have expansion without it, only that the expansion very gradually slows down.)

Edited July 3, 2009 by Martin

[BAROBA]

the force making the universe expand is meant to be dark energy and we can prove the acceleration by redshift

 

The redshift has nothing to do with dark energy. The redshift of a train that moves away from you, doesn't mean that the train is powered by dark energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

 

thats a good explanation baroba if this were true wouldn't the universe collapse in on itself and is it possible this has happened before maybe a universe before this did the same thing and the sudden clash of all the particals heated up and blew up causing the big bang and the creation of this universe.

This would require a force that becomes more powerful/attractive as there is less energy available in the universe. This would break the first law of thermodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

My universe would die a very cold death and would be many times bigger then now. Think of an ice-cube that is the current universe and a puddle of water as the cold dead universe. And nothing would cause the universe to collapse on itself.

 

At the moment all you have is a speculation, Rob. You need several things to make it science.

Ideas are based on speculations and hunches, and can grow out to become theories (in the scientific sense). Many people had ideas that launches whole new fields of science (and industry) and they virtually contributed nothing to the field they help to create. ( for example Einstein and his explanation of the Brownian Motion and the resulting field of quantum-mechanics that he rejected)

I hope to plant a seed that other will work out..

The math that would required for such a task is for beyond mine and presumably a lot of other people. Quantum field theory is barely able to calculate all interactions between 'empty' space and a hydrogen-atom. So the whole universe is a bit of a challenge

 

 

Ultimately you need a system of accounting that says how much matter has to decay to make a certain volume of space.

And then you need your system of accounting to match observations. You have to be able to look back and SEE that extra matter in the past that has decayed to produce the extra volume of space.

Which extra volume of space? My idea states that it can explain that the universe continue to accelerate instead of of slowing down or being in a steady state. Nothing more' date=' nothing less.

 

Cosmology is quantitative.

So here is a little exercise. The CMB light that we see was emitted around year 380,000 and the redshift it has experienced shows that distances have expanded since then by a factor of about 1000. That means that volume has expanded by a factor of about 1,000,000,000.

 

Now we can look back to that time when the CMB light was emitted and estimate the density of matter in space at that time.

 

The observations seem indicate that there was the same amount of matter as now, just in a smaller volume. As well as we can tell, the density was a billion times higher.

 

But your model would say that there was some extra matter back then, which decayed to form all that extra volume. How much extra matter was there?

That is basic cosmology. My idea is to explain how the universe looks as it is now. There would indeed be alot more mass present then now. I don't think it would be condensed in the shape of matter. Again, I have no idea how much it would be.

 

 

In conventional cosmo, no force is needed to make the distances between galaxies increase. Space is not a thing (Einst. said it had no objective physical existence) so it doesnt have to be created. If you take the usual cosmo model and zero-out the dark energy you still get an expanding universe.The dark energy is not needed. All it does is accelerate the expansion (make it gradually happen faster.) Important not to imagine space to be a substance, needing to be created.Focus on the geometry---the distances we can actually measure---not on the space (as if it were a substance).

 

Indeed, there is no need for dark energy. Time-space is a field, that can't be detected, but it is a real thing. It's interactions on a Planck length with matter can't be ignored. CMB light is the prove of the interaction between time-space and energy-mass.This is how it looks like

I think the view on time-space has evolved a lot further then the simple Euclidean geometry. My idea looks a lot like a string, in the center there is the most amount of energy/mass and gradually towards the ends of the string, you get lesser energy. Draw in one line a lot of waves with high amplitude and short frequency and then gradually drop the amplitude and elongate the frequency until you get a perfectly flat line. This is the half of your string. What you see can look familiar, it looks alot like a string on a music instrument. But the string on a music instrument transmits its energy to the frame and so the string comes back to a rest. My string doesn't transmits its energy onto anything else. The string doesn't transmit its energy to empty space, it is (the transition of mass to) time-space. My string only gets longer as it looses energy, the energy is stored in all the high waves. As matter decays it exchanges energy for length of the string.

 

 

Jamey, thanks for helping to get Baroba straightened around. I think what you said was helpful and in the right direction. Dark energy is indeed important (I just had to correct that one detail---you can still have expansion without it, only that the expansion very gradually slows down.)

My idea throws dark energy out of the window, and explains it all with white energy. Occam's razor and all that stuff

 

Love to hear back from you all,

 

Rob

[cameron marical]

Originally Posted by jamey2k9

thats a good explanation baroba if this were true wouldn't the universe collapse in on itself and is it possible this has happened before maybe a universe before this did the same thing and the sudden clash of all the particals heated up and blew up causing the big bang and the creation of this universe.

This would require a force that becomes more powerful/attractive as there is less energy available in the universe.

 

Why is this?

 

I like your idea, I think that you should implement mathmatic structers in there along with it though. Most theories {in physics especially} need math to pass.

 

My idea looks a lot like a string, in the center there is the most amount of energy/mass and gradually towards the ends of the string, you get lesser energy. Draw in one line a lot of waves with high amplitude and short frequency and then gradually drop the amplitude and elongate the frequency until you get a perfectly flat line. This is the half of your string. What you see can look familiar, it looks alot like a string on a music instrument. But the string on a music instrument transmits its energy to the frame and so the string comes back to a rest. My string doesn't transmits its energy onto anything else. The string doesn't transmit its energy to empty space, it is (the transition of mass to) time-space. My string only gets longer as it looses energy, the energy is stored in all the high waves. As matter decays it exchanges energy for length of the string

 

Sounds very similiar to the string theory.

[BAROBA]

Why is this?

Hi Cameron,

 

Are you asking my to explain the (partly) quoted text or why there could be no such force?

1. First the statement is a part of a larger portion of text in which I state that it would NOT be possible to have such a force. I don't like selective quoting, because it distorts what people are saying and can even be used to let them say the opposite of what they ment to say.

2.First of all, the first law of thermodynamics: if the universe has converted all matter into time-time, there is no more energy to that would be able to pull something together. Even gravity would have decayed into time-space. Gravity would be the ideal candidate for such a feat, because it can pull things together over a very long distance.

The rubber sheet analogy that Einstein introduced, is good enough to explain deformation of time-space, but that is all. Water would be a better example to describe time-space. Matter can make dents and waves in it. And if matter were like ice-cubes, the volume of water would raise if the icecubes melt/decay. If the bounderies would break around the water, the water would take up a large surface, with no way to 'shrink' back into one point. The law of entropy would forbid it. The same thing goes for the universe.

I like your idea' date=' I think that you should implement mathmatic structers in there along with it though. Most theories {in physics especially} need math to pass. [/quote']

Thanks

I am unable to generate such mathematical structures, so I try to find some people how like my idea enough to help make a real theory.

 

Sounds very similiar to the string theory.

 

That is just one way of visualizing it' date=' another way is through quantum-field theory. But my idea doesn't go off in higher dimensions ( not yet atleast )

They are both theories to describe the same observations/phenomenons in different ways. Mine is just another way.

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

[mp']Consecutive posts merged[/mp]

A prediction that comes from my idea:

 

All matter ( even fundamental particles) can seem to exist out over even smaller particles if you collide into it hard enough. The prediction is that that the collision of two particles can releases enough energy that allow heavy particles to exist and decay again into time-space. The shortlived particles can deform time/space in such a way that even fundamental particles seem to break apart.

 

Does anyone ever heard of such a thing? Is it a possibility?

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

[Jacques]

Remind me of the tired light theory except that the energy of the photon are not scattered with other particle, but is transformed into space-time.

Also your speculation imply that the proton will decay, and that"s not been observed.

I should add that it is an interesting idea

[BAROBA]

Remind me of the tired light theory except that the energy of the photon are not scattered with other particle, but is transformed into space-time.

Also your speculation imply that the proton will decay, and that"s not been observed.

I should add that it is an interesting idea

 

Mine would imply that the photon would decay in quantum-parts. Exactly how is a mystery, but I imagine it would loose energy until a certain point and then would cross a threshold and after that it would decay into another photon an a graviton ( for example).

There is another theory ( Supersymmertry?) that implies that protons would decay, so supporters for that theory are also waiting for it to happen. It will happen

[ajb]

Is spin conserved in your model? If so, this will give you hints to possible decay channels.

[BAROBA]

I think so, spin preservation or not, it isn't a basic requirement for my idea.

But this theory tries to explain nature as we see it ( only the origin of forces and time-space are different) above this layer everything stays the same.

 

Do you have any hints on how this process ( of decay) can be explaining by using spin?

 

Cheers,

Rob