Origins, emergence and eschatology of the Universe: Dark Energy & Dark Matter

[G Anthony]

Origins, emergence and eschatology of the Universe: Dark Energy & Dark Matter

Should we mean "the universe" or "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse"? (Hugh Everett)

 

Presumably, when the universe formed from an ensemble of some sort of "inflaton" point particles (Alan Guth) as a statistically inevitable child of an extremely excited field, possibly the gravitational field itself, its hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) field began to collapse into a parabolic (1/r²) one. That collapse continues to this day. But, the process is almost done. There cannot be an infinite amount of energy sequestered in the hyperbolic 1/r field that would be available to fuel acceleration of the Hubble expansion rate by such a transformation.

 

Transition to a lower potential energy parabolic field must provide a distinctly limited supply of extra impetus. Surely, after 13.72 billion years, the (1/r) potential energy mainspring has almost run down by now. The remaining (1/r) potential energy is called Dark Energy. It accounts for the "missing mass " or "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" in audits of universe contents and provides a convenient, theoretically rigorous and parsimonious basis for "acceleration".

 

Dark Energy could account for around 80% of the universe's total mass, but audits are not so accurate. Dark Matter accounts for another 15% perhaps. Still, The Mainspring may still have enough oomph to last for at least 140 billion years more! (at least 10x what has come so far). The total mass, including Dark Matter, of the universe is enough to "flatten" it while acceleration may creep to a stop, but Hubble expansion will not.

 

The hyper-excited gravitational field sprang into existence simply because it could. It came to "be" in a tremendously excited state because very high excited states are much more probable than lower ones, because of the zero point cut-off. This is just like virtual particles come to exist and to be annihilated all the time on the quantum level (this is confirmed by experiment). None of them become universes, though, because there is already one here. It's a sort of a Pauli exclusion principle.

 

There has been some confusion about "variable labels". So, let us switch definitions of "r" in the following. For now, r is the rate of acceleration of expansion of the universe (or rotational acceleration around a black-hole). If the acceleration of the expansion rate is called a, and its present value is called P, then a = P at any given time, including the present. The simplest equation for the expansion rate's effect on P would be an exponential decay expression, P = h_o e^(-rt), where h_o is an initial value for h, r is the rate of increase in this expansion and t is time.

 

We can get an estimate of a value for h_o from Alan Guth's formulation of the theory of simple inflation. The present values of both the expansion rate, P₁, and acceleration rate, r, is observable. We can set t = 1, for the present value of t. So, we can summarize all relevant observations with this simple equation or the associated exponential expansion equation, R = R_o e^(rt),where R is the putative instantaneous "radius" or scale factor of the universe.

 

The current value of the expansion rate is H_o, the Hubble "constant", so P₁ = H_o.

 

Rigorously, one should extrapolate back to t = t₁ through all the older values of H_o that have been got so far, using the midpoints of their domains and ranges. They are all good values. But H_o is not constant. This is what "acceleration" means, after all! See http://www.lonetree-pictures.net the COSMOS sub-sites.

 

OR, I may post to one of my blogs. Look for it soon, but this site is temporarily unavailable right now due to a glitch in my version of FrontPage. It deleted the index master page when uploading an update. It deletes it even when saving to a folder on my own computer. Reloading FrontPage does not help. I think uninstall does not really uninstall everything. I need to get another hard drive going and use it instead. It is frustrating - even maddening! I may have to use an FTP connection.

 

Back to our original definition of r (not R) as a radius or scale factor: Exponential decay equations exhibit what is called a "dormancy" period or late plateau region. In this part of the discussion, here, "r" refers to distance from a center of rotation. Sorry. I missed this inconsistency in previous posts. I need a nicer symbol for the exponential period, another name for r; maybe Cyrillic backward "R"? Maybe a lower case Cyrillic "r"?

 

Using "r" as a radius or scale factor: the hyperbolic 1/r curve levels off to near zero and continues to subside gently almost linearly for an indefinite time. Plot a graph yourself on the back of an envelope! Use mass M = 1, the smaller mass, m, drops out for acceleration. And, assume G is any self consistent constant like G = 1 (units!). This is just for comparison purposes, so it matters not. The equation for orbital acceleration around a galactic center, say, levels off to a constant, even at infinity, for a hyperbolic 1/r black-hole galactic gravitational field potential diagram. (You have just DERIVED modified Newtonian Dynamics or MOND!) You must multiply r by the constant k = 1m (Systeme Internationale) for dimensional purity.

 

NOW, let us MIX the "r" metaphors. The current state of the universe itself may be considered as being of this (1/r) condition – implying both of the ways we have defined "r" - scale factor and exponential decay late dormancy or plateau period. The conclusion here is that acceleration of expansion may continue for a long time while very slowly decreasing nearer to zero.

 

The black-hole rotational acceleration connection implies that the universe may be rotating very very slowly right now. But, we cannot know. We would have to observe the universe from the outside, from the perspective of the meta-universe, to tell. From the standpoint of general relativity, we simply cannot tell from our perspective here and now.

 

Yet, in other words, even with acknowledged acceleration of the Hubble expansion rate, there does not necessarily have to be a "Big Rip" wherein the fabric of the cosmos is irreparably torn apart as expansion proceeds beyond a certain point.

 

By the way, "M Theory" doesn't exist. M Theory is just an "ideal". Brane Theory is not M Theory. Neither one has ever predicted anything that can be experimentally verified and neither one is falsifiable. Therefore, they cannot qualify as legitimate scientific propositions. Not one single unique result has ever come from either. Furthermore, they are both unnecessary. Shrewd development of general relativity and quantum are slowly causing both to merge. What's the hurry? Let true "M Theory" and "Brane theory" grow organically directly out of quantum and GR. Each step will be independently validated, then. No worry.

 

Origins, emergence and eschatology are fertile fields for philosophers. This is why we scientists are sometimes called "Doctors of Philosophies", Ph.D. Philosophi Doctori. I took Latin for three years and I am still not sure of this. German and Russian too, but this is no help. What happened to my old Latin grammar texts?

[CaptainPanic]

Is this post well written?

I could have done with the standard structure of:

- introduction or abstract

- body text (with arguments)

- conclusion

 

Now, after reading 2 paragraphs, I am still not sure what the core-message is you want to convey... and when I skip to the end, to read a conclusion, I see something that is probably not the conclusion.

 

Perhaps you write this to a hard-core astronomy audience, who only need to read the title and some keywords to know exactly which item you address... and if that is the case, ignore this comment.

[G Anthony]

I could have done with the standard structure of:

- introduction or abstract

- body text (with arguments)

- conclusion

 

Now, after reading 2 paragraphs, I am still not sure what the core-message is you want to convey... and when I skip to the end, to read a conclusion, I see something that is probably not the conclusion.

 

Perhaps you write this to a hard-core astronomy audience, who only need to read the title and some keywords to know exactly which item you address... and if that is the case, ignore this comment.

 

 

If I wrote in this format, I would not publish here, I tell you! You cannot be serious. Do you really expect a full blown journal ready paper in the traditional format? This is just a DISCUSSION forum. For discussion! I write in a conversational style because this is what most people expect.

 

 

 

[michel123456]

If I wrote in this format, I would not publish here, I tell you! You cannot be serious. Do you really expect a full blown journal ready paper in the traditional format? This is just a DISCUSSION forum. For discussion! I write in a conversational style because this is what most people expect.

 

Your posts are too long.

[G Anthony]

Your posts are too long.

 

 

 

I get paid by the word.

[Bart]

Origins, emergence and eschatology of the Universe: Dark Energy & Dark Matter

Should we mean "the universe" or "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse"? (Hugh Everett)

 

Presumably, when the universe formed from an ensemble of some sort of "inflaton" point particles (Alan Guth) as a statistically inevitable child of an extremely excited field, possibly the gravitational field itself, its hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) field began to collapse into a parabolic (1/r²) one. That collapse continues to this day. But, the process is almost done. There cannot be an infinite amount of energy sequestered in the hyperbolic 1/r field that would be available to fuel acceleration of the Hubble expansion rate by such a transformation.

 

Transition to a lower potential energy parabolic field must provide a distinctly limited supply of extra impetus. Surely, after 13.72 billion years, the (1/r) potential energy mainspring has almost run down by now. The remaining (1/r) potential energy is called Dark Energy. It accounts for the "missing mass " or "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" in audits of universe contents and provides a convenient, theoretically rigorous and parsimonious basis for "acceleration".

 

Dark Energy could account for around 80% of the universe's total mass, but audits are not so accurate. Dark Matter accounts for another 15% perhaps. Still, The Mainspring may still have enough oomph to last for at least 140 billion years more! (at least 10x what has come so far). The total mass, including Dark Matter, of the universe is enough to "flatten" it while acceleration may creep to a stop, but Hubble expansion will not.

 

 

 

On the link: : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/SagitariusBRprogramDescription.pdf , the calculation program is presented which shows that dark matter and dark energy is not needed to explain the behavior of the universe. This implies that dark matter and dark energy, as such, may not exist.

 

Edited March 10, 2012 by Bart