Science topics: PhysicsCosmology
Science topic

# Cosmology - Science topic

This is an open group for those who are interested in the field of cosmology.
Questions related to Cosmology
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
The above question emerges from a parallel session [1] on the basis of two examples:
1. Experimental data [2] that apparently indicate the validity of Mach’s Principle stay out of discussion after main-stream consensus tells Mach to be out, see also appended PDF files.
2. The negative outcome of gravitational wave experiments [3] apparently does not affect the main-stream acceptance of claimed discoveries.
Stam Nicolis: "Mainstream theorosts"
Mainstream theorists, I would say, are those who, based on mainstream consensus, raise public funds (from taxpayers) for large-scale experiments (Big Science) and organize spectacular media campaigns that essentially affirm the mainstream consensus. It is a self-sustaining system that inhibits progress in science. When experimental results do not fit, they are made to fit or simply ignored, as can currently be observed with "gravitational wave astronomy." https://www.researchgate.net/project/Discussion-on-recently-claimed-simultaneous-discovery-of-black-hole-mergers-and-gravitational-waves https://www.researchgate.net/project/Discussion-on-recently-claimed-simultaneous-discovery-of-black-hole-mergers-and-gravitational-waves
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
If we ignore fermions and bosons, what is your model of the pristine vacuum? One aspect of this question is designated the “cosmological constant problem”. The observable energy density in the universe is about 10-9 J/m3. This is the average energy density of ordinary matter, dark matter, and dark energy. However, one interpretation of quantum field theory says that the vacuum has zero-point energy density of about 10113 J/m3. This enormous energy density has been called “the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics.” However, this enormous vacuum energy density is supported because it is used to make the most accurate theoretical prediction in all of physics (the electron’s anomalous magnetic moment).
Quantum field theory says that the vacuum is not empty because it contains all the fields required by the standard model of particle physics. However, the geometric interpretation of gravity from general relativity implies the vacuum is an empty medium that can be curved by matter. For example, the strong equivalence principle requires this geometric interpretation. If gravity is transferred by gravitons, then gravitational acceleration and physical acceleration would have different causes.
There have been hundreds of scientific articles written on the cosmological constant problem and most of these articles attempt to disprove the 10113 J/m3 energy density. There is no doubt that this is not observable energy, but could this be the undetectable fields required by quantum field theory? A field is undetectable until an “excitation” is introduced to create an observable particle (observable energy density). I have written several papers exploring this model. However, what is your vacuum model?
Stam
It is difficult to debate these subjects with you because you make statements without offering any proof or references. You say that permeability, Planck’s constant, and the gravitational constant are perfectly understood. There is a difference between understanding how to use these constants to make predictions and how to explain the underlying physics that creates these constants. For example, visualize a carbon monoxide molecule in intergalactic space. In its lowest energy state, it is always rotating at about 57 GHz because of its zero-point energy. If you try to speed up the rotation by a small amount, you will find it physically resists an increase in rotation speed until you add ħ of additional angular momentum. Then it will rotate at 172 GHz. I believe you will not be able to find a reference that explains the physics of how this molecule resists rotating at some intermediate frequency. Merely stating that the rotational levels are quantized does not explain how they acquire this quantization.
You also claim there are “many models of so-called analog gravity, that describe gravitational effects in terms of properties of an effective medium.” I claim to have added something new. For example, I derive both the electrostatic and gravitational forces between two electrons from this model. I prove these forces are closely related, but the easiest to explain equation is the derived force ratio FG/Fe where (FG) is the gravitational force magnitude between two electrons and (Fe) is the electrostatic force magnitude between two electrons at the same separation distance.
This ratio can be calculated from Newton’s gravitational law and Coulomb’s law. However, the derivation I have made is based on wave properties in this nonlinear medium. The electron’s wave model has wave amplitude of Planck length Lp = (ħG/c3)1/2 and an electron’s Compton angular wavelength ƛc = ħ/mec= 3.86×10-13 m. Also the fine structure constant (α) enters this calculation. The result is below.
FG/Fe = α-1(Lp2c2) = 2.4 x 10-43
This ratio has never been derived this way before. Usually, this calculation would incorporate an electron’s charge (e), an electron’s mass (me) and the Coulomb force constant 1/4πεo.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
In mid-July 2022, NASA published the first images taken with the help of the James Webb Space Telescope. The James Webb Space Telescope programme, which has been underway for many years, is now complete and operational in 2022. The images taken with the help of the James Webb Space Telescope are much more accurate compared to the images previously taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. The image presented by NASA shows the result of a study of the composition of the atmosphere of exoplanet WASP-96b. It is one of the first images published on 12.7.2022 and taken thanks to the state-of-the-art James Webb Space Super Telescope located in Earth's orbit. The image shows a graphic depiction of the results of the WASP-96b NASA/ESA/CSA/STScI measurement of the composition of the exoplanet's atmosphere. Through this image, NASA has shown the result of the extremely sensitive instruments found on the James Webb Telescope. The image shows the most accurate measurements to date of the composition of the atmosphere of an exoplanet, or planet, located outside the Solar System. The exoplanet whose atmosphere the telescope has studied is WASP-96 b, a gas giant located just beyond the edge of the Solar System, at a distance of about 1,100 light years from Earth. It is particularly interesting that the telescope detected, among other things, noticeable traces of water in the studied composition of the exoplanet's atmosphere! The collected data also suggest that the atmosphere of this celestial body contains water vapour and clouds. Thus, we are probably gradually approaching research results which will confirm that, with a high level of probability, there is water, Earth-like environmental and climatic conditions and some form of life on many exoplanets located many thousands and millions of light years from our Solar System. In view of this, the technology of space exploration, including the study of what is found on other exoplanets thanks to the James Webb Space Telescope, has made great strides.
Will the James Webb Space Telescope provide answers to the long-standing human question:
Are there other forms of life beyond planet Earth on distant exoplanets, in other planetary systems, in other constellations, other galaxies?
Are there other forms of life, including intelligent other forms of life, somewhere in the Universe beyond planet Earth?
What is your opinion on this subject?
I invite you all to discuss,
Thank you very much,
Best regards,
Dariusz
A challenging question. First, the plan seems ambitious. I think that some answers will be provided if everything goes well. However, regarding the main question of the discussion thread, the issue is complicated and I'm sceptical about the chances of success.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
If so, experimental results and related theory might also be helpful ...
Dear all,
As with other discussions that refer to experimental results, it is clear in the present one that responses generally do not refer to cited experimental results and procedures, but preferably rely on mainstream conform theoretical arguments.
Indeed, Stam Nicolis, citing "experimental" results from LIGO labs, concludes that both gravitational and electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light. However, the validity of the LIGO results is still disputed in view of certain fundamental flaws in the experimental setup (see reference below), but is simply taken for granted without further discussion by the public in view of the general acceptance of the spectacular discoveries, including Nobel Prizes.
I would indeed be very grateful for any comments on the Keith experiment quoted above, especially since I believe that Julius Riese and László Attila Horváth are right when they mention that the gravitational speed could be faster than the speed of light.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
The calculation of the cosmological constant performed by the QTF and the values ​​of this offered by the different cosmological measurements seem to be correct. Could it be that this so called constant is not in fact constant and depends on the dimensions of the system studied?
Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant to get his universal models based on his theories to produce a static universe. After Hubble showed an expanding universe Einstein then removes the cosmological constant. Now with observations that suggest the expansion of the universe is accelerating, it seems convenient for this constant to be reintroduced to "explain" an accelerating expansion. In other words, the constant is being manipulated introduced to make the observations continue to fit the theory. If science is constantly having to change a compensation value to meet observation, maybe the theories should be more closely examined to look for possible mistakes.
As with all physics problems out there, the idea of cosmological constant and determining it's value has arisen from theories derived from a) an assumption of fundamental linear dimensions of Mass, Length and Time and b) an assumption that fundamental particles are indivisible.
As an unqualified, non mathematical, armchair physicist, a few years ago I tried to design a new fundamental dimensional model which could totally replace MLT. I came up with a very elegant and simple solution by considering all dimensions to be spherical. I remain astounded at how easily understandable and explainable observations of our universe can become when considered against this redefined dimensional framework.
With my theory, the fundamental temporal dimension is frequency (I call it Trate) but this is a spherical dimension. This gives time (an integral of trate) a direction. This provides the possibility that our galaxy is travelling through time in a different direction to that of a distant galaxy. That divergence of time direction will appear as a red shift - No velocity ( i.e. no expansion) required. All of relativity is arrived at by assuming the speed of light is constant at ~300,000 km per second. Put direction on time and you have to define the direction of that second. Never mind the cosmological constant, this means that the whole of relativity needs to be reconsidered against the possibility that time has a direction.
With this theory one doesn't need particles. The particles science observes are just bubbles (waves) of the potential fabric which the whole of space would be. When science splits an atom, what they have actually been doing is breaking an atomic bubble in to smaller bubbles of very definable size and characteristics.
I have published a paper describing this Spherical dimensional model. See https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/a-universal-physics-model-based-on-spherical-dimensions-15089.html
By starting again, your question about changing the value of the cosmological constant becomes moot.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
LIGO and cooperating institutions obviously determine distance r of their hypothetical gravitational wave sources on the basis of a 1/r dependence of related spatial strain, see on page 9 of reference below. Fall-off by 1/r in fact applies in case of gravitational potential Vg = - GM/r of a single source. Shouldn’t any additional effect of a binary system with internal separation s - just for geometrical reasons - additionally reduce by s/r ?
"LIGO and cooperating institutions obviously determine distance r of their hypothetical gravitational wave sources on the basis of a 1/r dependence of related spatial strain, see on page 9 of reference below. Fall-off by 1/r in fact applies in case of gravitational potential Vg = - GM/r of a single source."
No. Fall-off for a single point source goes as 1/r2 for the field strength in the static case. The potential goes as 1/r, but it is the field strength that is measured (and gives the strain).
However, for any time-dependent radiation, the leading-order term of the field strength falls off as 1/r. This is true for dipole as well as for quadrupole radiation. Because of the appearance of time-dependent terms, the derivatives in the field equations produce all terms from 1/r, 1/r2,... to 1/rs, where s would be 2 for (non-existent) monopole radiation, 3 for dipole radiation (electromagnetic, e.g.), 4 for quadrupole radiation (gravitation), and so on.
A consequence of the leading order term being 1/r is that the energy current goes as 1/r2 in leading order and that means that energy can be radiated away. Which would not be the case, if the leading-order term fell off faster than 1/r.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
The existence of negative pressure of vacuum follows from the cosmological models, based on the results of observations. The gravitational defect of mass is interpreted as the transfer of energy to the vacuum, which becomes apparent from its deformation.The gravitational impact of matter on the vacuum and opposite in the sign pressure of it can be determined in case of weakly gravitating static centrally symmetric distribution of matter. A possibility to extend the obtained results to arbitrary gravitational systems is evaluated. The equation of state (p_v =-(1/3)[q_L+q_m+q_rel]) gives the deceleration parameter of the universe consistent with its accelerating expansion.
Equation of state for a sphere with constant density \rho=-(1/3)p gives a solution of the Einstein equations in the form of a space-time with a constant course of time inside it (Eq. 33).
This metric can be used to determine the course of time below the Earth's surface.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Imagine a row of golf balls in a straight line with a distance of one metre between each golf ball. This we call row A. Then there is a second row of golf balls (row B) placed right next to the golf balls in row A. We can think of the row A of golf balls as marking of distance measurements within the inertial frame of reference corresponding to row A (frame A). Similarly the golf balls in row B mark the distance measurements in frame B. Both rows are lined up in the x direction.
Now simultaneously all the golf balls in row B start to accelerate in the x direction until they reach a steady velocity v at which point the golf balls in row B stop accelerating. It is clear that the golf balls in row B will all pass the individual golf balls of row A at exactly the same instant when viewed from frame A. It must also be the case that the golf balls in the rows pass each other simultaneously when viewed from frame B.
So we can see that the distance measurements in the frame of B are the same as the distance measurements in row A. The row of golf balls is in the x direction so this suggests that the coordinate transformation between frame A and frame B should be x - vt.
This contradicts the Lorentz transformation equation for the x direction which is part of the standard SR theory.
If we were to replace the golf balls in row B with measuring rods of length one metre then in order to match the observations of the Michelson Moreley experiment we would conclude that measuring rods must in general experience length contraction relative to a unique frame of reference. So this thought experiment suggests that we need to maintain distances as invariant between moving frames of reference while noting that moving objects experience length contraction.
This also implies the existence of a unique frame of reference against which the velocity v is measured.
I would be interested to see if the thought experiment can be explained within standard Special Relativity while retaining the Lorentz transformation equations.
Richard
This statement: "It must also be the case that the golf balls in the rows pass each other simultaneously when viewed from frame B." is not correct. The observers riding along with row B are changing their inertial frame while they accelerate. The observers riding along row A stay in the same inertial frame. The observers on row B will see row A golf balls as length contracted; they will not pass B's golf balls "simultaneously".
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
The origin of life on Earth is still not known. Some maintain that rather than it having originated here as a result of complex organic chemical reactions that it arrived fully formed from space on comets.
What evidence is there that would support this claim?
Even if true it would still not fully explain how life came about in the universe. Does anyone have any suggestions as to that conundrum?
The origin of life is not a singularity, so, it is also possible. Organic molecules might be developed in cometary tails, and in fullerene cages in interstellar dust, nebulae, comets, etc. Fullerenes are likely UV resistant and can wrap and protect organic molecules. They can also keep water on the cage surface. This is mostly related to RNA world and PAH world hypothesises.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
The offended paper is here:
This is a rhetorical question since, in my mind, that is utterly non-acceptable.
I say that while accepting the reality that it takes time to write a few paragraphs in a rejection letter.
That said, it might take years to polish the arguments contained in a paper.
In my case, it took 16 years.
My issue is that, on purpose, I chose to tackle the Big Bang Theory first. It is the weakest model in the whole Physics. There are "Crisis in Cosmology" articles written by everyone and their cats. There is Hubble Tension, S8 tension... Missing Dark Matter, Early Galaxy Formation Conundrum...
Not to mention the lack of any evidence of a False Vacuum, Inflaton Field or Inflaton Particle, etc, etc.
My theory starts with a new model for matter, where matter is made of shapeshifting deformations of the metric (so, it is not Mass Deforms Metric, but modulated metric is mass).
It cannot be simpler. It allows the Universe to have just space, deformed space and time - the simplest possible model.
Occam's Razor will tell you that this model should be part of the conversation.
The Universe starts from a Heisenberg-Dictated Metric Hyperspherical Fluctuation, which after partial recombination is left with an Inner Dilation Layer (IDL) and the Outermost Contraction Layer (OCL).
As one would expect OCL breaks apart when it starts to move, pushed by the IDL. This process has a physical analogy in the Prince Rupert Drop
SO, the model is disappointly simple. No metrics, nothing for you to polish... just a simple model that explains EVERYTHING.
It also debunks General Relativity (Einstein's equations do not describe the Universe expansion). And replicates all Einstein's successes, while providing simpler explanations (instead of time dilation, we have the weakening of forces with absolute velocity).
What about ABSOLUTE VELOCITY? Well, we all know we can define absolute velocity using the CMB. Period. So, absolute velocity (and the breakdown of Relativity) shouldn't be a surprise.
So, my theory also challenges the current Cosmic Distance Ladder and in doing so (using an epoch-dependent law of Gravitation), it parameterless predicts the distances using just the redshifts. The predictions are attached.
So, in doing so, it attacks Dark Matter and Dark Energy and all the sordid interests behind them. I say sordid in the sense that I believe that all these entrenched interests are at play in this summary rejection of my work.
Why would I say that? There is a simple reason. If an editor (and all the other editors) don't bother to justify their actions, one is left with nothing to do other than speculate on the WHY.
Why is it ok for preprint repositories to block my already published work?? That is happening (and happened during the last 16 years) at the Los Alamos Archives.
Why would it be ethical for an editor not to write a single paragraph pointing to an specific scientific reason for yanking a paper out of the review process?
How calous these people can be with respect to Science and Mankind's Future? Science is the key to the Future. It shouldn't be at the mercy of unconfessable motivations.
Dear Marco Pereira, nobody canceled the norms of ethics.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
If so, why should we neglect the effect of gravitational potential from remote masses of the universe which is about 106 times larger than the additional gravitational potential at the Sun's surface ??
GR theory predicts that a distant observer looking at a region that has a somewhat increased gravitational potential U will see that clocks are slowed in the region, and that the speed of light there is reduced. Both of these effects are proportional to the U value. (The U value for a spherical mass is Gm/(c^2 r), a positive value.). The effects are NOT proportional to the gradient of the potential, which decreases with r^2. Gravitational ACCELERATIONS towards a mass are proportional to the mass’s gravitational potential gradient, but the gradient doesn’t cause the slowing effects.
The clock-slowing effect is indisputable, as atomic clocks on the Earth can be used to accurately measure even small elevation differences. Observing the reduction in the speed of light is more difficult than observing clock-slowing, but in the 1970’s NASA’s Viking experiment carefully measured the pattern of the delay of radio waves sent on a round trip to Mars. The waves’ path was initially far from the sun, but over several months Mars’s orbit brought the path closer and closer to the sun and the time delay increased. The observed pattern of delay times matched the GR prediction: the slowing during each round trip was proportional to the solar gravitational potential, and not proportional to its gradient.
GR also correctly predicts the amount of refraction of light waves passing near to the sun. The curvature of the light path is proportional to the gradient of the sun’s potential.
Johan K. Fremerey states correctly that the gravitational potential of distant masses, felt here within the solar system, is far greater than the potential due to the solar system’s masses, even though the gradient of the distant masses' potential is negligible. Our observed slowing of light passing near to the sun reflects the DIFFERENCE between the potential at the Earth and the potential at the sun.
A hypothetical observer in deep space would perceive that compared to its deep-space speed the speed of light in and around the solar system was significantly reduced, due to the gravitational potential of the Milky Way and our Local Group of galaxies. That observer would see the speed was slowed slightly more near to the Earth, and slightly more again near to the sun. In the Viking experiment we just saw the difference between those two factors.
A comment: I think that GR theory is invalid. However, it gets the right answers for low-intensity gravitational fields. The consistency of those answers gives me confidence that the astronomers’ analyses of gravitational lensing effects are valid, and that the calculated patterns of dark matter in and around galaxies are correct.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Asher Peres: VARIABILITY OF FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS
"Are universal fundamental constants really constant over cosmological times? Recent observations of the fine structure of spectral lines in the early universe have been interpreted as due to a variation of the fine structure constant e2/4πε0ℏc. From the assumed validity of Maxwell equations in general relativity and well known experimental facts, it is proved that e and ℏ are absolute constants. On the other hand, the speed of light need not be constant."
(International Journal of Modern Physics D, Volume 12, Issue 09, October 2003)
If the fabric of the Universe is expanding we also do expand, the solar system is expanding, our galaxy is expanding. Even a rod of 1m length is expanding. So, how can we show that the fabric of our universe is expanding if the tool with which we measure length is expanding itself? Also, if we cannot prove, then how do we know that it really happens? How can we test it?
But there is more: could it be that the fabric does not expand and we just miss something?
it seems that the observation of the evolution of black holes in a Cyclic Universe tends to experience repeated intervals of expansion, according to research that has just been published [see reference] It seems to rotate in the middle of a cyclical scenario, and without great bangs or chaos.
Cfr.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
At the beginning of the 20th century, Newton’s second law was corrected considering the limit speed c and the relativistic mass. At that time there has not been a clear understanding of the subatomic particles and basically there was little research in high energy physics.
According to particles of matter transfer discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons with each other and energy has mass and momentum, we can recorrect relativistic Newton’s second laws directly by using conservation law of momentum.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
A fascinating question in theoretical physics is whether it is possible to extend Einstein's ideas beyond gravitation to all aspects of physics. The energy-momentum tensor is usually defined extrinsically over the space-time manifold. But could it rather be derived from the geometry alone ? Likewise our local subjective notion of time is given by a local orientation which need not be globally consistent as in Gödel's famous model.
It has been proposed that space-time may have a foam- or sponge-like fine-grained structure (possible involving extra dimensions) which explains energy and matter and the other fundamental forces in a Kaluza-Klein style. That is, "microlocally" the topology of the space-time manifold is highly complex and there may be even a direct relationship between mass, energy and cohomology complexes in an appropriate derived category. At this fine scale there may even be non-local wormholes that connect distant regions of space-time and explain quantum entanglement.
But why not consider the universe as a Thom-Mather stratified space (one can think of this as a smooth version of analytic spaces or algebraic varieties) rather than a manifold ? In this case "singularities" would be "natural" structures not pathologies as in black holes. It is difficult not to think of matter (or localised energy) as corresponding to a singular region of this stratified space. Has this approach been considered in the literature ?
Clarence Lewis Protin I had a look on Wikipedia to find out about Thom-Mather stratified spaces:
It mentions its use in the study of singularities. My comment about trying to apply this approach to cosmology is based on the Spacetime Wave theory:
From this worldview, singularities do not exist in physics and the laws of physics apply everywhere and for all time. Also the idea that spacetime may have a sponge like or fine grained structure (quantum fluctuations in empty space) is ruled out by the adoption of the Einstein equations of GR as the fundamental equations of spacetime at all scales. This means that if the Mass Energy tensor is identically zero then spacetime curvature must be identically zero.
This the idea of quantum fluctuations in empty space from quantum theory has to give way.
Richard
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
related to study in galaxies, space and time.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
I propose a discussion on an issue that can be brought closer through the following few questions: (1) Was the appearance of biological life on our planet, and then of humans
and their consciousness - the result of a coincidence, or rather an element of some process important on the scale of the entire universe? (2) Is the universe aware of its existence?
(3) In addition to the consciousness of people, is there another, superior consciousness in the universe? (4) Will the knowledge and technological abilities of people and their descendants
impoortant for the resumption of a new aeon of the existence of the universe, assuming the rationale of the cyclic cosmological model?
These questions are explained in more details in the text available here entitled: "Recent, new arguments for the theory of necessity of people's participation in reoccurrence of sub - Universe"
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Do such measurements make sense? Do they exist?
Comparing redshift and luminosity distances, if that is a sensible question, may bear on the 4/3 scaling hypothesis as it relates to dark energy.
Cepheid and RR Lyrae variables are well known standard candles, and important tools in the cosmological distance ladder. For example, Cepheid variables, which were discovered by Henrietta Swan Leavitt, have the property that their luminosities can be directly inferred by observing their pulsation period, which then allows one to calculate their luminosity distance, given that the observing instrument (telescope) also measures their flux.
However, although nothing stops you from making redshift measurements of relatively nearby objects, this will induce an error in any cosmological parameters inferred from these measurements (such as the luminosity distance), because the peculiar velocities of these objects would be comparable to their Hubble flow, giving you highly inconsistent results. Luminosity distances calculated by interpreting the measured redshifts as cosmological redshifts, become more reliable at larger distances, where the Hubble flow dominates over the peculiar velocities.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Cosmological explanations for our apparently fine-tuned universe are basically divided between a) a vastly huge multiverse of universes with varying fundamental force and mass constants, including the cosmological constant (where our apparently fine-tuned universe is just one universe in this multiverse), or b) a cosmic intelligence that fine-tuned our universe at its beginning to evolve stable galaxies, life and developed minds. In scientific terms, which explanation is preferable? Are there other options? Is a cosmic mind a viable scientific hypothesis for explaining our universe's origin?
Dear Dr Richard Gauthier . I agree with Dr Joseph Badir ,
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
The 4/3 laws imply that a SN1A’s luminosity distance is 4/3 of its redshift distance.
From a naive point of view, this could be consistent with Big Bang cosmology but also with a steady state cosmology.
If the 4/3 laws were valid, and if they were consistent with both cosmologies, what would that imply?
If the 4/3 laws do not distinguish between the two cosmologies, is that a logical flaw in the 4/3 laws or is it a logical flaw with one or both of the two cosmologies?
For the 4/3 laws, I refer to my projects on the 4/3 laws, and to a recent article Dark energy modeled by scaling
It would be actually useful to study where the value of this exponent comes from. Cf. here: https://sites.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay21/Ay21_Lec03.pdf, for instance.
IF the value of the exponent is the same in more than one cosmological model, that, simply, would mean that it's not possible to distinguish them just by measuring that exponent; other quantities, that are different, must be measured.
So, no, there isn't any logical flaw''.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Has anyone ever measured the velocity of light or gamma photons coming in from remote sources ?
I am pleased to read your answer, as follows: ". . . .I learned from Einstein 1911 and observation of the Shapiro delay that luminal speed is affected by gravitational potential. So the basic effect may in fact be regarded as "due to" or "caused by" the matter itself. - Regards, Johan"
This suggests that your knowledge of Einstein 1911 and your observation of "the Shapiro delay that luminal speed is affected by gravitational potential" encourages your inclination to entertain the possibility that there may be a scientifically demonstrable proof of the correctness, veracity, and lawful truth in my statement ""What I am trying say is that, theoretically speaking, the red shift is "due to" or "caused by" the matter itself, and not "by photon retardation by cumulated gravitational potential from remote sources," which I gave as my answer to your ResearchGate discussion thread question "Is cosmological shift due to photon retardation by cumulated gravitational potential from remote sources?"
Best regards.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Or can we see to the „end of the Universe“ in one direction?
The universe is isotropic in very large scales, yes.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Do you think that man will ever leave our solar system?
I invite you to the discussion.
Best wishes
Well, it seems like a utopia to me, but why not? Primitive man did not imagine that airplanes were created and one day could fly and it was achieved. So perhaps, within centuries, this purpose can be achieved as well.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
This thread is for those who want to know how to calculate Research Interest (RI) and participate in this validation study. *** Welcome to the validation study of my formula for Research Interest (RI) on the RG site! Details are in the first reply in this discussion.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
How much constrained the recombination temperature is?
Dear Soumen, extra radiation should not increase the recombination temperature.
If a understood well your question.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Dear Sirs,
This question, it seems to me, may arise in the first meeting with general relativity theory. Free falling box with its locally inertial coordinate system, e.g. in the Earth gravity field, moves the same as space particles of the real spacetime continuum. So we can imagine that around us there is "a fluid" of space particles which moves towards to the Earth center. The imaginary fluid penetrates freely through the matter.
Have the space particles some dimensions (maybe the minimal one as real water, e.g.), any properties or even any forces accociated with them, does the motion look like the viscous or ideal or non Newtonian fluid?
I would be grateful of any comments on spacetime as fluid.
Thank you for your constructive comment, Salvador. I think your point is very poignant. The "wave-particle-duality" seems to be key here. All the best, Julius
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Possibly: 4/3 scaling is a fundamental universal principle. Nothing underlies it. Why? It accounts for expanding cosmological space. Since 4/3 scaling brings 3 dimensional space, and hence everything else, into existence, it must be fundamental.
Can that be right? What favors and disfavors this notion?
The ratio between the whole volume of the universe and the dynamical part of the same volume is about 1 : 0,74... (both quantities are determined by a different irrational number). In quantum field theory it means that the ratio between the volume of the Higgs field and the volume of the electric field in vacuum space is about 0,74 : 0,26 (total = 1,0).
Vector fields like the magnetic field and the field of Newtonian gravitation have no spatial dimension on their own. Einstein’s theory of general relativity describes the dynamical part of the volume of our universe – otherwise space cannot curve – thus the consequence is that the model of spacetime is restricted to 26% of the whole volume of the universe. The consequence is that gravity is an emergent force field (like Eric Verlinde proves for Newtonian gravity).
We may expect that ratios at the lowest scale size of reality that are present everywhere in the universe will “multiply” their ratio at larger scale sizes (like fractals do).
With kind regards, Sydney
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Mass density within the expanding Universe may be assumed to stay essentially constant due to steady formation of elementary particles by spontaneous or induced creation of vortices at an elementary scale, see attached references. No Big Bang nor Dark Matter are required under the above assumptions.
Forrest Noble: "... but not related to the supposed expansion of space."
Expansion of space ? I just imagine flying apart of astronomical systems. We obviously agree in that apparent radius Ru of the Universe is determined by distance of sight rather than by limitation of space, don't we? This view also seems to comply with observation of fully developed galaxies right at the edge of the Universe, which according to Big Bang theory should be assigned to very early stages of the Universe.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Dear Sirs,
The elevator example in general relativity is used to show that gravitational force and an inertial force are not distinguishable. In other words the 2nd Newton's law is the same in the two frames: inertial frame with homogenous gravitational field and the elevator's frame without gravitational field which has constant acceleration in respect to the inertial frame.
But every one knows that an inertial force is a force which does not obey the 3rd Newton's law. For example such forces are cetrifugal force and Coriolis force existing in the Earth reference frame. Gravitational force satisfies the 3rd Newton's law. So one can conclude that the gravitational force is not inertial.
Could you clarify the above controversy.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
It feels strange to have discovered a new fundamental physics discipline after a gap of a century. It is called Cryodynamics, sister of the chaos-borne deterministic Thermodynamics discovered by Yakov Sinai in 1970. It proves that Fritz Zwicky was right in 1929 with his alleged “tired light” theory.
The light traversing the cosmos hence lawfully loses energy in a distance-proportional fashion, much as Edwin Hubble tried to prove.
Such a revolutionary development is a rare event in the history of science. So the reader has every reason to be skeptical. But it is also a wonderful occasion to be one of the first who jump the new giant bandwagon. Famous cosmologist Wolfgang Rindler was the first to do so. This note is devoted to his memory.
November 26, 2019
What will happen once 92 years have passed since then? Is it possible to imagine?
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Due to the Unruh effect the vacuum energy for the uniformly accelerated observer looks like as the equilibrium background with the Hawking-Unruh temperature $T=\hbar a/2\pi ck_B$, where $a$ is the acceleration. So we can conclude that the vacuum energy specifies a noninertial frame of reference with respect to which one can define an acceleration of any particle (note that vacuum energy does not specify any inertial frame of reference because it is uniformly distributed in a four-dimensional continuum so that all four directions for it are identical). But as it follow from Freedmann's equations a relative acceleration of two galaxies (observers) which currently are on distance R from each other is equal to $a= (\Omega_{\Lambda}-\Omega_m)H_0^2R/2$. So if in some point of the Universe the Hawking-Unruh temperature is equal to zero for the other points it is not so. Such way the vacuum energy specifies on an existence of a center of the Universe contrary to the cosmological principle which claims that the properties of the Universe are the same for all observers. In this situation it does not matter whether we can observe the Unruh radiation or not. This means that our knowledge about the Universe and the vacuum energy are incompatible.
To solve this conflict one can assume that the Universe is a hypersphere which isotropically expands on the background of 4D Euclidean space. In such case the accelerations (with respect to background) of all points belonging to hypersphere would be equal. As an alternative, we also can assume that vacuum energy does not exist in reality. Unfortunately both of these assumptions lie beyond the standard model of physics. Can someone help me solve this puzzle?
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
We cannot receive electromagnetic signals far beyond 13,800 million light·years, but the Cosmic Microwave Background distance have been stablished in 46,500 million light·years; how it this feasible?
As the EM signal traveled across 13.8 billion light years, the universe also continued to stretch such that the source of the EM signal is now believed to be 46.5 billion light years away. In other words, as the light signal moves toward us its position relative to us continues to change and the amount that it stretches is different (less than) the stretching that occurs for the source of the light. You can think of this as marking two points (A and B) on a rubber band and stretching them. Their position on the rubber band never changes, but they move apart due to the stretching. Now think of a signal of light that is actually able to move from Point A to B while this stretching is occurring. As it moves closer to the receiving end (B), it stretches less than the stretching occurring between A and B which have remained fixed positions on the rubber band. Therefore the source of the CMBR is believed to be 46.5 billion light years away from us. This represents the distance between the two points on the rubber band. The 13.8 billion years is the actual distance traveled by the light source as it physically moved between point A and B.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Mysticism is often treated as the opposite of science. But is it? Please see
Yes, it does: in fact, current biomedical technology has made it possible to visualize brain images when a subject is in a mystical trance or meditation ("Definition, Philosophical and Scientific Bases of Mysticism", by Raúl León Barúa
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20453/ah.v57i0.2796), it has even been related to Quantum Physics ("Quantum physics and mysticism not ensino de ciências", by TR Rocha, TM de Carvalho, CM Felício - Research, Society and Developmen, 2020 - rsdjournal.org-DOI: https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v9i12.11131)
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Black Holes out of a galaxy: do they exist??? ➣➣The question is as follow.
Are there black holes outside the confines of a galaxy{*}, in the spaces between one galaxy and another???
{*}Galaxy is not meant only the Milky Way but any type of galaxy. In what way can be identified and/or measured these hypothetical extragalactic black holes???
➢➢Il quesito è il seguente.
Esistono buchi neri al di fuori dei confini di una galassia{*}, negli spazi tra una galassia e l'altra???
{*}Galassia non viene intesa la sola Via Lattea ma qualsiasi tipo di galassia.
in che modo possono essere individuati e/o misurati questi ipotetici buchi neri extragalattici???
Previous POSTS:
Is dark matter real, or have we misunderstood gravity? PHYS June 22 2021.
For many years now, astronomers and physicists have been in a conflict. Is the mysterious dark matter that we observe deep in the Universe real, or is what we see the result of subtle deviations from the laws of gravity as we know them? In 2016, Dutch physicist Erik Verlinde proposed a theory of the second kind: emergent gravity. New research, published in Astronomy & Astrophysics this week, pushes the limits of dark matter observations to the unknown outer regions of galaxies, and in doing so re-evaluates several dark matter models and alternative theories of gravity. Measurements of the gravity of 259,000 isolated galaxies show a very close relation between the contributions of dark matter and those of ordinary matter, as predicted in Verlinde's theory of emergent gravity and an alternative model called Modified Newtonian Dynamics. However, the results also appear to agree with a computer simulation of the Universe that assumes that dark matter is 'real stuff'.
The new research was carried out by an international team of astronomers, led by Margot Brouwer (RUG and UvA). Further important roles were played by Kyle Oman (RUG and Durham University) and Edwin Valentijn (RUG). In 2016, Brouwer also performed a first test of Verlinde's ideas; this time, Verlinde himself also joined the research team.
Matter or gravity?
So far, dark matter has never been observed directly—hence the name. What astronomers observe in the night sky are the consequences of matter that is potentially present: bending of starlight, stars that move faster than expected, and even effects on the motion of entire galaxies. Without a doubt all of these effects are caused by gravity, but the question is: are we truly observing additional gravity, caused by invisible matter, or are the laws of gravity themselves the thing that we haven't fully understood yet?
To answer this question, the new research uses a similar method to the one used in the original test in 2016. Brouwer and her colleagues make use of an ongoing series of photographic measurements that started ten years ago: the KiloDegree Survey (KiDS), performed using ESO's VLT Survey Telescope in Chile. In these observations one measures how starlight from far away galaxies is bent by gravity on its way to our telescopes. Whereas in 2016 the measurements of such 'lens effects' only covered an area of about 180 square degrees on the night sky, in the mean time this has been extended to about 1000 square degrees—allowing the researchers to measure the distribution of gravity in around a million different galaxies.
Comparative testing
Brouwer and her colleagues selected over 259,000 isolated galaxies, for which they were able to measure the so-called 'Radial Acceleration Relation' (RAR). This RAR compares the amount of gravity expected based on the visible matter in the galaxy, to the amount of gravity that is actually present—in other words: the result shows how much 'extra' gravity there is, in addition to that due to normal matter. Until now, the amount of extra gravity had only been determined in the outer regions of galaxies by observing the motions of stars, and in a region about five times larger by measuring the rotational velocity of cold gas. Using the lensing effects of gravity, the researchers were now able to determine the RAR at gravitational strengths which were one hundred times smaller, allowing them to penetrate much deeper into the regions far outside the individual galaxies.
This made it possible to measure the extra gravity extremely precisely—but is this gravity the result of invisible dark matter, or do we need to improve our understanding of gravity itself? Author Kyle Oman indicates that the assumption of 'real stuff' at least partially appears to work: "In our research, we compare the measurements to four different theoretical models: two that assume the existence of dark matter and form the base of computer simulations of our universe, and two that modify the laws of gravity—Erik Verlinde's model of emergent gravity and the so-called 'Modified Newtonian Dynamics' or MOND. One of the two dark matter simulations, MICE, makes predictions that match our measurements very nicely. It came as a surprise to us that the other simulation, BAHAMAS, led to very different predictions. That the predictions of the two models differed at all was already surprising, since the models are so similar. But moreover, we would have expected that if a difference would show up, BAHAMAS was going to perform best. BAHAMAS is a much more detailed model than MICE, approaching our current understanding of how galaxies form in a universe with dark matter much closer. Still, MICE performs better if we compare its predictions to our measurements. In the future, based on our findings, we want to further investigate what causes the differences between the simulations."
Young and old galaxies
Thus it seems that, at least one dark matter model does appear to work. However, the alternative models of gravity also predict the measured RAR. A standoff, it seems—so how do we find out which model is correct? Margot Brouwer, who led the research team, continues: "Based on our tests, our original conclusion was that the two alternative gravity models and MICE matched the observations reasonably well. However, the most exciting part was yet to come: because we had access to over 259,000 galaxies, we could divide them into several types—relatively young, blue spiral galaxies versus relatively old, red elliptical galaxies." Those two types of galaxies come about in very different ways: red elliptical galaxies form when different galaxies interact, for example when two blue spiral galaxies pass by each other closely, or even collide. As a result, the expectation within the particle theory of dark matter is that the ratio between regular and dark matter in the different types of galaxies can vary. Models such as Verlinde's theory and MOND on the other hand do not make use of dark matter particles, and therefore predict a fixed ratio between the expected and measured gravity in the two types of galaxies—that is, independent of their type. Brouwer: "We discovered that the RARs for the two types of galaxies differed significantly. That would be a strong hint towards the existence of dark matter as a particle."
However, there is a caveat: gas. Many galaxies are probably surrounded by a diffuse cloud of hot gas, which is very difficult to observe. If it were the case that there is hardly any gas around young blue spiral galaxies, but that old red elliptical galaxies live in a large cloud of gas—of roughly the same mass as the stars themselves—then that could explain the difference in the RAR between the two types. To reach a final judgement on the measured difference, one would therefore also need to measure the amounts of diffuse gas—and this is exactly what is not possible using the KiDS telescopes. Other measurements have been done for a small group of around one hundred galaxies, and these measurements indeed found more gas around elliptical galaxies, but it is still unclear how representative those measurements are for the 259,000 galaxies that were studied in the current research.
Dark matter for the win?
If it turns out that extra gas cannot explain the difference between the two types of galaxies, then the results of the measurements are easier to understand in terms of dark matter particles than in terms of alternative models of gravity. But even then, the matter is not settled yet. While the measured differences are hard to explain using MOND, Erik Verlinde still sees a way out for his own model. Verlinde: "My current model only applies to static, isolated, spherical galaxies, so it cannot be expected to distinguish the different types of galaxies. I view these results as a challenge and inspiration to develop an asymmetric, dynamical version of my theory, in which galaxies with a different shape and history can have a different amount of 'apparent dark matter'."
Therefore, even after the new measurements, the dispute between dark matter and alternative gravity theories is not settled yet. Still, the new results are a major step forward: if the measured difference in gravity between the two types of galaxies is correct, then the ultimate model, whichever one that is, will have to be precise enough to explain this difference. This means in particular that many existing models can be discarded, which considerably thins out the landscape of possible explanations. On top of that, the new research shows that systematic measurements of the hot gas around galaxies are necessary. Edwin Valentijn formulates is as follows: "As observational astronomers, we have reached the point where we are able to measure the extra gravity around galaxies more precisely than we can measure the amount of visible matter. The counterintuitive conclusion is that we must first measure the presence of ordinary matter in the form of hot gas around galaxies, before future telescopes such as Euclid can finally solve the mystery of dark matter."
More information: Margot M. Brouwer et al, The weak lensing radial acceleration relation: Constraining modified gravity and cold dark matter theories with KiDS-1000, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2021). DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040108 ----- ABSTRACT. We present measurements of the radial gravitational acceleration around isolated galaxies, comparing the expected gravitational acceleration given the baryonic matter (gbar) with the observed gravitational acceleration (gobs), using weak lensing measurements from the fourth data release of the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS-1000). These measurements extend the radial acceleration relation (RAR), traditionally measured using galaxy rotation curves, by 2 decades in gobs into the low-acceleration regime beyond the outskirts of the observable galaxy. We compare our RAR measurements to the predictions of two modified gravity (MG) theories: modified Newtonian dynamics and Verlinde’s emergent gravity (EG). We find that the measured relation between gobs and gbar agrees well with the MG predictions. In addition, we find a difference of at least 6σ between the RARs of early- and late-type galaxies (split by Sérsic index and u − r colour) with the same stellar mass. Current MG theories involve a gravity modification that is independent of other galaxy properties, which would be unable to explain this behaviour, although the EG theory is still limited to spherically symmetric static mass models. The difference might be explained if only the early-type galaxies have significant (Mgas ≈ M⋆) circumgalactic gaseous haloes. The observed behaviour is also expected in Λ-cold dark matter (ΛCDM) models where the galaxy-to-halo mass relation depends on the galaxy formation history. We find that MICE, a ΛCDM simulation with hybrid halo occupation distribution modelling and abundance matching, reproduces the observed RAR but significantly differs from BAHAMAS, a hydrodynamical cosmological galaxy formation simulation. Our results are sensitive to the amount of circumgalactic gas; current observational constraints indicate that the resulting corrections are likely moderate. Measurements of the lensing RAR with future cosmological surveys (such as Euclid) will be able to further distinguish between MG and ΛCDM models if systematic uncertainties in the baryonic mass distribution around galaxies are reduced.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
The document: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4285.9289
Mathematically the question is to determine all the transformations realized between some coordinate systems which have a physical reality for the experimenters: each of these four-dimensional coordinate systems is formed by a cartesian and rectangular coordinate system of a three-dimensional Euclidean physical space, and by a particular temporal parameter which is qualified as cartesian and whose construction is specified. We obtain then a group of nonlinear transformations that contains the Poincaré group and is described by about fifteen real numbers.
Interpretation:
1 / The paradox of Ehrenfest:
If the elements of a family of observers are not motionless the ones with recpect to the others, in other words if their world lines are not elements of a unique physical space, then even in the context of classical kinematics, how they can manage to put end to end their infinitesimal rules to determine the length of a segment of curve of their reference frame (each will naturally ask his neighbor not to move until measurement is ended) ? this is the basis for the proposed solution to Ehrenfest paradox. Inspired by the expression of the law of Hubble, every theory must provide explicit or implicit assumptions to compare "the proper distance" D (which can vary over time) which separates an arbitrarily chosen experimenter P from a certain object, and "the proper distance" D' which separates another arbitrarily selected experimenter P' from the same object and this because it is admitted that this concept of proper distance has a physical meaning even in a non-comoving reference frame.
2 / The authorized relative motions are quantified:
I establish an Eulerian description of the construction of all the physical spaces of the "classical kinematics" and an Eulerian description of the construction of all the physical spaces of nature in the context of the new theory. In classical kinematics all the authorized relative motions between observers can be described by two arbitrary functions of the universal temporal parameter (one of the rotation and one of the translation) and in the context of the new theory, all the authorized relative motions between observers are described by at most 15 real numbers. A notion of expansion of the universe is established as being a structural reality and a rigorous formulation of the experimental law of Hubble is proposed.
Thank you.
The Modification of Special Relativity:
The Modification of Newton's Gravitational Law and its Application in the Study of Dark Matter and Black Hole: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-373969/v1
The Physical Cause of Planetary Perihelion: Precession:https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-536456/v1
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Redshift of radiation energy density has been taking place since the early universe due to the expansion of the universe. How much energy has been lost? How does our cosmological model account for it?
That question doesn't make sense, because in a curved spacetime energy isn't a well-defined quantity. The reason is that invariance under time translations-which is the symmetry that expresses the fact that energy is conserved-isn't a global symmetry under these circumstances.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Alexander Ostermann and Gerhard Wanner, 2012, Springer, Geometry by its history.
On Euclid at page 30: "The fourth postulate expresses the homogeneity of space in all directions by using the right angle as a universal measure for angles; ..."
I thought on this topic during research of homogeneous spaces. Euclid (mathematician) was sufficiently wise to state it carefully: "All right angles are equal among them". He doesn't specify what is the value of right angle (as per Euclidean geometry) or even if this value is bounded etc.
I believe if Euclid would live today he would express the postulate something like: "All figures constructed as two perpendicular straight lines are congruent". And this statement is more evidently connected to homogeneity.
The 4th postulate of course is necessary for space homogeneity, but it was also quickly deducible from the 1st common notion: "Things equal to to the same thing are also equal to each other". If "thing" is "right angle" then each right angle is equal to all other right angle (the deduction only works for right angles of finite value). This postulate however is not sufficient for homogeneity.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Dear members,
I would like to know a complete list (with detailed use) of the application of the Euler Mascheroni constant, hopefully in current research in physics and others fields of exact science.
I would like to know special formulas in cosmology, quantum mechanics, statistics, etc., where the constant appeared with a very good explanation of why it is or at least valid arguments of the equations that contain that constant.
I am exploring its use.
Thanks!
Carlos
Euler-Mascheroni constant arises whenever there is regularization of logarithmically divergent integrals.
In mathematics, it is ubiquitous in the theory of Gamma function and hypergeometric functions.
In physics, there are many examples including renormalization in QFT (regularization of Feynman integrals), Coulomb corrections, Moliere’s theory of multiple Coulomb scattering, etc.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
For example, there are several cosmological solutions such as:
• Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (Friedmann equations)
• Kasner
• BKL singularity
• Gödel
• Milne
• etc,
IT MEANS, THAT GR ist not the final Theory of Gravity.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
..
Because we always wonder;
- where we came from,
- how we were created,
- who we are...
And questions like that...
I think we realized that we can't answer these questions just looking our home(earth).
Universe tells us the past, present and future. And it makes me really very excited. 🤩
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Space-time has 4 dimensions. Space has 3 dimensions.
If both co-exist, then a length in 4 dimensions with a fixed amount of energy should be 4/3 as long in 3 dimensions if the length in 3 dimensions corresponds to the same amount of energy. Because in 3 dimensions there is 4/3 as much energy per dimension.
If physics is stuck in a paradigm trap, that might explain problems relating to the cosmic constant a(t), the expansion of space, the cosmological horizon problem, cosmological inflation, Everett’s many worlds hypothesis, as well as terrestrial examples of the 4:3 ratio such as metabolic scaling and Richardson’s wind eddies, among others.
Or not.
How can physics climb out of a paradigm trap if it unknowingly stuck in it?
Preston,
I think you are right, time is not a dimension like the 3 spatial dimensions. Minkowski space time as 4 dimensional is a useful mathematical characterization but does not physically model time . Time flows, spatial dimensions provide a static reference frame for location.
Best.
Bob Shour
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Dr. Hans-Otto Carmesin is a prolific theoretician who wrote among other things, these two books:
Modeling SN1a data:
That said, he leads a field where a lot of unsupported claims are tossed around without anything to support it. That is why they are unsupported..:)
As Dr. Carmesin professed, scientists should follow the teachings of Aristotle and always use the simplest possible model that is consistent with Reality.
Dr. Carmesin's model has nonlocality, dimensional transitions, the usual suspects (Dark Matter and Dark Energy), and an epoch-dependent Dark Energy (figure 8.15 on the first book above).
It is a fantastic work and from my point of view, unnecessary and incorrect.
Unnecessary because there is HU which is capable to explain everything Dr. Carmesin explained without the need for a Big Bang, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, epoch-dependent Dark Matter, Polychromatic Vacuum. Because of that, Aristotle and Occam's Razor would support HU and rebut Dr. Carmesin's work.
Attached is my summary of the problems I found on Dr. Carmesin's claims that SN1a distances support his work.
#########################################
#########################################
#########################################
This is an ongoing discussion.
Dr. Carmesin provided a reply to my objections and confirmed that he is not sure if his model can predict the SN1a distances.
In fact, he said: "My theory does not fail to predict these distances. I just did not calculate these distances yet for a good reason: I tested my full theory by calculating the measured Hubble constants of the Hubble tension."
First, that is not a good reason. Second, I calculated the distances according to his model and the model failed. See the plot and the attached python script.
#########################################
My plot of his model showcases that the model fails to predict the observed distances.
I also drive home the fact that Dr. Carmesin's model modifies the meaning of H0 (the Hubble Constant). Because of that comparison of results are not straightforward and seems to not have been considered before.
The plots also show that HU model predicts the observed distances without any parameters.
Dear Hans-Otto,
I thank you, in the name of all the readers, for your books and wisdom.
I also derived Quantum Gravity and offered everyone these articles.
I remind you that my work has no parameters and that my prediction for the G-dependence of the Absolute Luminosity yielded a G-factor that was off just by 11% from the observed.
My Quantum Gravity theory predicts the maximum density inside a Black Hole and creates Matter directly from deformed space.
Here is the maximum density inside a Black Hole:
I also predicted the position of Earth in the Hyperspherical Universe and replicated the CMB observations (together with the spherical harmonic spectral decomposition). I did that using interdimensional hyperspherical harmonic spectral decomposition, after a grid search for the best location. Here is the grid search:
Here is Planck's CMB observation:
and here is the hyperspherical harmonic acoustic spectral simulation of the same:
at Earth's position:
χ= 339.46 degrees
θ = 341.1 degrees
ϕ= 104.08 degrees
More details here:
Here is the Equation of State of the Universe:
Here is the 3D Map of the Observable Universe:
CENSORSHIP
My theory has been published since 2007 and it has been censored at Los Alamos archives and mainstream journals (including the one where Dr. Amendola is the editor)!
You have your voice. You are allowed to publish your work. I am not.
I have a story to tell, one that is distinct from the story you tell and that everyone wants to hear.
Can Scientists handle that? Science should be able to do so.
I would like you to offer to be my endorser at Los Alamos Archives.
Best Regards,
Marco Pereira
PS- Please confirm that your theory failed to predict the SN1a distances and please provide me with its E(z).
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
I am looking for a PhD in philosophy of physics in the field of cosmology, relativity and foundations of space-time physics. I would like to get some advises regarding this. Thanks a lot for the help.
Try these:
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
In calculating the orbit of Mercury according to QM, it becomes open [1]. This is our answer to this question. A second answer is that GR requires QM.
According to the Niels Bohr view, it is not that the universe is quantum ontologically, in its essence as Natur, but we give it an observed quantum model, and interpret it that way.
"Physics concerns what we can say about Nature," explained Niels Bohr [2]. As one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics, Bohr explained further, that "there is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description".
In that sense, TR (topology reduction) by the author can be understood as providing the topological basis -- TR means "that a continuous path in a higher dimension must be discontinuous when projected in a lower dimension".
TR does not change Wirklichkeit (nature as we oserve it), nor Natur (nature as unkown, unseen) as divided by Kant, in German. TR just changes how we observe nature. In that sense, TR changes physics -- Niels Bohr explained -- as physics concerns what we can say about nature, and there our description changes, although the facts remain the same.
A similar situation happens with the number Pi, currently. We realize Pi as (3.141592...) is not measurable. Does it exist in nature, nonetheless?
To give a short answer, NO. The universe is a non-euclidean space, where the ratio of a circumference to its diameter must stand as the ratio of two finite integers. The value is similar, may change according to the local curvature, but the curvature is never zero and we can use use finite digits for the ratio. Rather than a particular value, the quantum becomes a rule.
This … changes GR, to a quantum basis -- what we were long waiting for -- harmonizing GR and QM.
While not changing values very much locally, the long distance predictions can become very different. For example, the orbit of Mercury becomes open, as we published [1]. The precession of Mercury is a sweep, and Mercury can escape!
And, with an open, spiraling out, orbit, Mercury can excite a sympathetic resonance with the Sun, wobbling in a growing faction, and even escape the Solar system in that growing orbit (see cosmological models). This could result in an exchange of orbital places of Venus <-> Earth, and the extinction of life on Earth -- by the growing temperature on Earth.
This is unlikely, but now more possible. The consequences of investigating Pi -- even though Pi should not exist in nature, as an infinite precision number, thinking about it can be instructive
Regarding GR and QM, what is your qualified opinion? Have we hit all the right reasons to modify GR, as in [1]? While not changing values very much locally, the long distance predictions can become very different.
REFERENCES
[2] Petersen, A. The Philosophy of Niels Bohr. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 19, No.7, 1963.
We show in cited work that one can connect geometry with energy, through quantum entanglement, so that the curved geometry of spacetime can emerge naturally from the wave function.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
The Big Bang was an explosion. In an explosion, everything flies away from everything. Neither our galaxy, nor Andromeda were created immediately after the big Bang. However, all this bulk of matter from which Andromeda was produced, should recede from us.
So, what's wrong here?
It is not the case that 'everything flies away from everything' at all length scales. If it were, then galaxies, stars and planets would never have formed. At smaller length scales matter clearly does coalesce under the action of gravity. The Andromeda galaxy, being our nearest galactic neighbor, is part of our local cluster of galaxies orbiting around a common center of gravity, so it would not be odd at all if some of those galaxies were sometimes moving towards each other.
The large-scale expansion of the Universe usually considers the relative movement of local clusters of galaxies, which apparently are all moving away from each other.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
A. Bejan, A. Almerbati and S. Lorente have concluded that the economies of scale phenomenon is a fundamental feature of all flow (moving) systems, animate, inanimate, and human made’ (https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4974962).
The universe’s space everywhere flows — expands — outwards from its beginning. Economies of scale appear to arise in flowing systems. Is cosmogenesis an economy of scale phenomenon for the entire universe?
Are the physics of cosmogenesis and economies of scale the same?
According to piling evidence, the cosmos driving forces are based on electromagnetic forces besides gravity. I recommend to watch videos on the following YouTube channel. Scientifically, the work of people behind those discoveries is very rigorous.
The task will be to find out what is the medium facilitating interactions among economic subjects. Similarly to electromagneti forcess among stars.
Definitely, cosmological processes are affecting economy at many scales. One example would be earthquakes & volcanoes that are triggered according to the latest research by activity of the sun (it is better to say that they are correlated.)
Your idea can bring a lot of interesting results when studied sufficiently in depth. That paper about correlation of solar activity and volcanic activity is probably shared in the project '"Complexity Digests ..." If not then ask me, I will find it for you.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
It is commonly accepted that General Relativity has its own 'bare' cosmological constant that contributes together with the cosmological constant resulting from vacuum energy density for an effective cosmological constant. Are there any candidates for this 'bare' cosmological constant?
Dear Stefan Ruster,
"quantum theory is correct."
Quantum theory in general is no more than a bad joke. Every one of these so-called theories is almost completely wrong. Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, Is the best mathematical system that we have to make predictions in the quantum world. But the logic of it is no better than 'woo' physics.
Advocates of the logic and theories believe that local hidden variables have been dis-proved, but they are wrong. Einstein believed there was no such thing as an aether based upon his proposal of Special Relativity. For this reason, he proposed warped space in General Relativity. But he too was wrong for the same reason.
Since Einstein's proposals we have observed the Zero-Point-Field for more than 70 years now. We have proposed the Higgs field, dark matter, dark energy, gravitons, quantum foam etc. Even if some of these fields are pure fantasy, there are proven background fields that could rightfully be called an aether.
For the theory of quantum mechanics to be correct none of these fields could be involved with the quantum world. For General Relativity to be correct, none of these fields could be involved with gravity. Since both of these theories require the non-existence of these fields at solar-system scales they can be mathematically correct, but both theoretically wrong for the same reason. That's why IMO they don't and cannot agree with each other, and why no theory of everything could ever be correct without the inclusion of at least one background field that interacts at all scales to explain reality, mathematics aside.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
The New Science of Cryodynamics and Its Connection to Cosmology
This was ten years ago.
He was born in 1931.
Everyone does.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
I think every matter is made up of fragments of energies. On that point, everything in nature is a creation of energies existing in the universe, even every living being.
So, what are the scientific evidence which has been proved? any scientific publications? laboratory findings using human and animal models? and Why human being doesn't feel internal and external universal energies which flowing and circulating internal body cavity and in the universe?
It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
The standard LCDM cosmology is thought to work well at explaining the large scale structure of the Universe. However, the unexpectedly fast local expansion (Hubble tension) might indicate that we are in a large local supervoid:
This is not feasible in LCDM, but is in alternative gravity theories like MOND, where a standard background cosmology is preserved but structure formation is enhanced - as discussed further in this blog, and the linked YouTube video below it:
In addition to voids, evidence for unexpectedly fast structure formation is also provided by El Gordo, which rules out LCDM cosmology at high significance:
In light of these publications, references therein, and other works, is it still true that LCDM accounts very well for the large scale structure of the Universe?
Dear Indranil Banik,
I agree based upon present theory, but I propose a far older universe but not one infinite in age. One in which it takes at least 50 billion years to form large galaxy cluster structures, in total contrast to present theory.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
His disproof of cosmic expansion is a catastrophe for Stockholm, and for the young generation’s trust in their elders. And for the survival chances of humankind.
Sept. 24, 2020
Zwicky brightest human being since 1929?
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
The total energy of two bodies in gravitational interaction must be
(m1 + m2) c^2 - G m1 m2 / r ,
where r is the distance between them. When r is  G/c^2 times the reduced mass, the total energy and hence the total mass vanish! It is the Schwarzschild radius, so a black hole may form. Does it necessarily have zero mass? Is this not contradictory?
Recognizing the simple theory of the electron radius https://wikimili.com/en/Classical_electron_radius they only have the mass deficiency. Let the Black Hole be a matter sphere. Than its gravitational energy due to self interaction is E_g = - (3/5) G M^2/ r If r is the Schwarzschild radius than G M m /r = m c^2 /2 for the probe mass m so r = 2 G M / c^2 so we have E_g = - 3/10 M c^2. Now let M be the nuclear (rest) energy of all matter at infinity which would build the Black Hole sphere than we have:
M c^2 - 3/10 Md c^2 = Md c^2 where now Md is the dressed Black Hole Mass. So finally Md = 10/13 M so 3/13 of the constituent infinity mass deficiency.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Dear Sirs,
The 1st law in Newtons principia are now understood as two statements: the determination of inertial frame reference (if F=0 then a=0 and if F is not equal 0 then there is some body accelleration "a"); there is in nature at least one inertial frame reference. Theoretically I can understand it a little bit. As we have such a determination of inertial frame reference then the 2 nd Newton law is not directly followed from the 1 st law, or this determination is partly independent of the 2nd law. So it looks like logically good.
But what we have in experiment? I do not know whether there is any research on experimental determination of any particular inertial system (like International Celestial Reference System) using the 1 st Newton law. So in practice we use the 2 nd law (e.g. school example - foucault pendulum plane rotation). Could you clarify on the experimental and theoretical determination of inertial frame reference. You know there are teachers that see the 1st law as the consequence of the 2nd law.
The Galilean invariance, Dr. Anatoly A Khripov, the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames if there is no acceleration due to an external force. But sometimes a conservation law (momentum, or energy) is needed experimentally to be tested.
For example, the capillary movement without viscosity of the 4He isotope is based on the Galilean invariance of energy and momentum, despite it is a quantum liquid, showing how general is the Galilean invariance.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Zwicky 1929: Brighter than the next 91 Years
Otto E. Rossler
Faculty of Science, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle, 72076 Tübingen, Germany
Sept. 24, 2020
Abstract
Fritz Zwicky was a lone wolf. There is a wonderful German-language autobiography of his, titled "Everyone a Genius." He was fearless as a mountaineer and as the first visitor to Hiroshima in 1945. His discovery of Cryodynamics, sister of deterministic Thermodynamics, is highlighted. A dark age thereby manifests itself over 3 generations.
------------------------------------------------------
No one else has played in the same league so far. Fritz Zwicky in 1929 correctly explained the freshly discovered cosmological redshift law of Edwin Hubble’s as being caused by the gravitational interaction of the passing light rays with the cauldron of moving galaxies. The recently discovered fundamental science of Cryodynamics, sister of Thermodynamics, has proved Zwicky correct. As a consequence, the “Big Bang” has ceased to exist.
This is a maximally embarrassing claim to make, of course, since the whole world has grown accustomed to the Big Bang as a fact of nature. It appears impossible that all of humankind, including thousands of textbooks and the Swedish Academy itself, should have overlooked a new fundamental science, twin to Thermodynamics, for 91 years. And so more than a century after the discovery of Thermodynamics itself.
This convincing reasoning notwithstanding, no criticism of Cryodynamics has surfaced since it was first described in 2011. To witness, a long review paper remains without critical response (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-64334-2_30), as do several follow-up papers written by differing authors. The first detailed mathematical proof of the sister science to Thermodynamics is contained in the 2011 doctoral thesis of Klaus Sonnleitner on the Störmer-Verlet algorithm applied to a chaotic Hamiltonian system: StV4. This German-language dissertation (https://docplayer.org/12694730-Dissertation-vorgelegt-von-dipl-math-klaus-sonnleitner-aus-erftstadt-frauenthal-bei-koeln.html) still awaits translation into English. The connection to Zwicky’s work was drawn only later. Thus the re-discovery of Zwicky’s insight was slow in coming. Indeed, the existence of a whole new fundamental science is the price one has to pay. Thermodynamics and Cryodynamics do prove to be of equal rank, notwithstanding the more than a century long time gap that lies between their discoveries.
Not surprising then is the fact that the new fundamental science of Cryodynamics causes repercussions in the fabric of science at large. Even the survival of humankind is at stake. This is because a famous mega experiment – the “LHC” at CERN – proves to be unsafe to earth: A fact which was impossible to fathom before the discovery of Cryodynamics.
Dr. Sonnleitner unfortunately passed away shortly after obtaining his degree in old age. His dissertation reveals the unprecedented “numerical conscientiousness” of its author. The connection to Zwicky’s work then took several years to surface. So did the discovery of the general survival risk undergone by a humankind underestimating Zwicky the Great.
I thank Nils Schopohl for a discussion.
----------------------.
Have a look at
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
If quantum information is stored on the Event horizon of the black hole (according to the Holographic principle), What happens to information when black holes evaporate or merge?
Have a look at
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
According to Weyl and Chandrasekhar, general relativity (GR) is a triumph of speculative thought. But it is a well-known fact that GR is initiated by two analogies. Analogy is known to be a weak reasoning in science and philosophy. To redress the case this type of reasoning is renamed as Equivalence Principle (EP) in relativistic physics. The renaming, however, could not hide the fact that the presented analogy was not flawless. Irrefutable disproves were side-stepped and the analogy was instated to be the seed of new kind of physics. EP was defended by reducing the size of the lab and the duration of the experiment. This type of defending is like the proponents of flat-earth idea defend their case by reducing the patch of the land for examination until their pseudo-science theory is proven.
The attached document is a short description of EP analogies and its well-known critics. The document also introduces a new EP based on Uniform Deceleration of a spaceship in open space. This new analogy results in a different curvature of light in comparison to what original EP has established using uniform acceleration. The author believes that none of the conclusions from EPs should be allowed in science as they are based on inconclusive comparison/analogy and they ignore glaring flaws in the argument.
The author would like to present this new EP for discussion and criticism.
I agree with all your criticism.
JES
p.s.
It would be interesting to see a new theory evolve from your insight.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
A revolutionary Finding awaits the final Clinch: c-global
Otto E. Rossler
Institute for Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, 72076 Tubingen, Germany
(December 22, 2014)
Abstract
The global nature of the speed of light in the vacuum, c, was given up by Einstein in December of 1907. A revival of the status c had enjoyed during the previous 2½ years, from 1905-1907, is in the literature for several years. The consequences of c-global for cosmology and black-hole theory are staggering. Since black holes are an acute concern to date, the question of whether a c-global transform of the Einstein equation can be demonstrated represents a vital issue.
********
Imagine Einstein’s c were not just a local constant of nature everywhere, as one reluctantly believes since late 1907, but rather a global constant. The return to this 1905-1907 view would revolutionize physics. For example, cosmic expansion which requires its speed to be added to the local c would no longer be a physical option. Secondly, quantum mechanics would cease to generate problems in its unification with general relativity. Thirdly, black holes would be stable and hence be voracious at any size.
But is the speed of light c not a global constant anyhow? While every layman and most every physicist believes so, this status was lost by c in late 1907. To witness, just look at the famous “Shapiro time delay”: Light from a distant satellite has, when grazing the sun on its way towards earth, an increased travelling time compared to the sun’s absence [1]. This experimentally verified implication of Einstein’s theory is canonically believed to reflect a locally reduced speed of light c [1]. With c-global, however, an increased depth of the space-time funnel around the sun is keeping c constant along the whole path [2].
Is this unfamiliar proposal physically correct? There are two pieces of evidence, each sufficient. First, the famous Schwarzschild solution of the Einstein field equations was shown to possess a global-c transform [3]; hence the global constancy of c exists mathematically. Second, the famous “equivalence principle” between ordinary kinematic acceleration and gravitation – postulated by Einstein in late 1907 – is based on special relativity alone with its global c. The equivalence principle was indeed recently proved not to imply a reduction of c downstairs in the constantly accelerating Einstein rocketship [4]. The third piece of evidence exists by implication: a global-c transform of the full Einstein field equations. It only waits to be written down.
Why not rather wait with granting c-global a broad visibility in the scientific community, given the embarrassing cosmological consequence mentioned? It is the other implication (regarding black holes) which justifies the visibility. Black holes currently have a chance to get produced down on earth. Only an absolutely un-ignorable global-c transform of the full Einstein field equation can possibly force the 6 years old LSAG “safety report” of the most prestigious experiment of history to be renewed in time, before the start at twice world-record energies planned in two months. The reward to the representative of Science magazine who accepts this paper for publication will lie in the emergence-in-time of the existing but not yet made-explicit “global-c Einstein equation.” This task is literally superhuman because finding the transform requires a unique strength of mind or else serendipity and hence predictably takes decades. Therefore, the manpower – the many alerted readers – of Science represents a planetary resource needed for once in the face of the self-closing time window.
I thank Wolfgang Müller-Schauenburg and Boris Hagel for a discussion. For J.O.R.
References
[1] I.I. Shapiro, Fourth test of general relativity. Physical Review Letters 13, 789-791 (1964).
[2] A half-pseudosphere replaces the Flamm paraboloid.
[3] O.E. Rossler, Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: Gothic-R theorem demonstrated in Schwarzschild metric. Fractal Spacetime and Noncommutative Geometry in Quantum and High Energy Physics 2, 1-14 (2012). Preprint on: http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/chaos.pdf
[4] O.E. Rossler, Equivalence principle implies gravitational-redshift proportional space dilation and hence global constancy of c. European Scientific Journal 10(9), 112-117 (2014).
(Oct. 22, 2020)
Dear Prof.,
I was thinking about the following line of arguments: for a global constant light speed, acceleration must become zero if something is moving with light speed. Acceleration is given by force divided by mass. Hence either mass increases to infinity or force decreases to zero. Since a force needs a force carrier like a photon, a global constant light speed would result in a force reduction on a pure geometrical argument.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Universal biogenesis
Brain equation
Smile theory
Artificial persons
Spiral chaos
Sound of chaos
Hyperchaos
Cryodynamics sister of Thermodynamics
Augustinian cosmology, confirmed
Lampsacus Hometown
Connecting quantum physics with general relativity.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Dirac and others combined the physical properties of vacuum space to predict a large energy in space, sometimes described in Planck units. Other researchers looked into the vacuum and found little energy there. Also the cosmological constant is small which might not agree with a strong energy field.
In other threads I have suggested that the physical laws reside in vacuum space and are enforced by the Dirac Sea of energy. In that work I partitioned the vacuum energy into four parts to correspond with the four forces with nearly equal parts of curving and reverse curving energy. The same concept can be represented in Lagrange functions and Lagrange density functions, where potential energy is curving like gravity and kinetic energy is reverse curving.
Zero Point energy was discussed for and against a source of the Dirac Sea. Casimir experiments eventually tilted the argument in favor of large energy in the Zero Point. Already discovered the charged W particles and neutral Z were found to have large energy in week interactions, more that the combined energy of interacting particles.
Other threads discussed the possibility that W and Z particles borrow energy from the vacuum governed by uncertainty principle for magnitude and time interval. A Higgs field was postulated from theory and decades later largely accepted as proven by experiments.
Discussions continued to find a vacuum expectation value for the Higgs field density. By estimate of one researcher the potential energy for Higgs is about 2.5×1045 J/m3, more than in a neutron star, but less than Planck energy. For nearly flat space this potential must be counter balanced by a kinetic energy field, possibly a Zero Point or some kinetic field that is not identified.
It seems that new discoveries can be made in properties of vacuum space.
How Does The Higgs Field Relate To The Dirac Sea Of Energy?
Your answer to this discussion thread question is most remarkable! Since it contains both familiar and unfamiliar material, , some of it textbook, some of it theoretical, or speculative, or so it seems to me, I would like to retain a copy of it, as follows:
" Sydney Ernest Grimm . added an answer to this discussion thread ("How does the Higgs field relate to the Dirac Sea of Energy?") on October 31, 2020, as follows:
Dear Jerry Decker , Our universe is non-local and it is one enormous system. That means there is always a direct relation between the Higgs field and Dirac’s “Sea of energy”.The first problem is the scope of Dirac’s “Sea of energy”. Because the term is dedicated to the appearance and disappearance of free electrons. The concept shows that the proton and the electron are a duality. It is a bit confusing because the proton is small and stable and the electron is relative large (at low velocities) and unstable.
The proton is stable because the concentration of quanta forces the Higgs field to decrease a local scalar of the Higgs field. The result is a vectorization of the flat Higgs field around the proton (the creation of Newtonian gravity) and a local deficit of quanta around (the electric field) we know as an electron. Thus the “attraction” between the proton and the electron is the created surplus of energy of the proton in relation to the local deficit of energy we call electron. If we could merge the energy of a proton and the energy of an electron we will get “neutral vacuum space” again.
The fact that an electron is a local deficit of energy in relation to the average energy of vacuum space around is in line with the nature of measurements. We can only detect differences (relations) between observable phenomena. Everything that is underlying observable reality is totally hidden. If we want to know the properties of everything we cannot detect we have to determine its existence and the properties with the help of the general properties of the universe (physic laws, constants and principles).Although we can speculate about the total amount of energy that is represented by everything we cannot detect, the amount of energy that is available in the universe is the “free surplus of quanta” of the electric field.
Suppose we can isolate a volume of 1 m2 vacuum space. If the “free surplus of quanta” within this volume is not enough to create a concentration of quanta equal to a proton, there will not emerge a proton but only a virtual proton. Because there is not enough energy to decrease a local scalar of the Higgs field. But a virtual proton is like an electron. It can appear and disappear like the electrons in Dirac’s “Sea of energy”.
Now we start to “wipe out” the amplitudes of the electromagnetic waves within our 1 m2 isolated volume of vacuum space. But after a while it shows that we cannot create “empty” vacuum space. The configurations of the electromagnetic waves change if we near “0 degrees Kelvin” but there is a minimum “threshold” of electromagnetic radiation. Just because observable reality is created by the underlying hidden structure of space itself and not created by the observable phenomena (a really primitive concept).
We can imagine that all the dust clouds and stars are concentrated in black holes. We can also imagine that all these black holes merge together, creating the situation that vacuum space is transformed into “zero point space”. That means that the “free surplus of quanta” everywhere in the universe is concentrated in the “one and only” black hole. Actually, in this situation the enormous black hole and all the zero point space around is also a duality. Just like the proton and the electron. Because the properties of the first are determined by the latter (and visa versa).
With kind regards, Sydney
Recommended / Share
• 1 Recommendation
Thank you, and best regards and wishes.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Should a manned mission to Mars, which could be implemented in a few years, be an international mission, or rather a national one, inspired and organized according to the familiar concept of the 1970s, of international rivalry of the leading economically and politically largest countries?
Apparently a manned mission to the planet Mars is now technically possible.
Researchers working on space exploration programs argue that it is technically possible that humans already have the necessary technology to carry out a two-year manned mission to Mars.
First of all, it is necessary for the US President to issue a program of a manned mission to Mars.
A similar program in the 1980s was announced by then US President John F. Kennedy.
The plan of a manned mission to the moon was fully realized at that time.
However, the current mission to Mars, technically possible, would require large financial outlays for the implementation of this mission.
Perhaps it would be necessary to organize an international consortium that would organize an international manned mission to Mars.
Maybe it could also be an international crew of this mission?
Then mission costs could be spread over several countries and it would have global significance in terms of international cooperation.
The previous analogous manned space mission, i.e. the manned expedition to Earthly Princes in the 1970s, had the significance of political rivalry between the then US and the Soviet Union.
It was a symbolic technological race.
Is the planned manned mission to Mars also inspired by this type of international competition, for example between the US and China or possibly also some other countries?
China is rapidly developing technologically, aspiring to become a global powerhouse in a few years time. 1 not only in the scope of production of various goods and economic growth but also in the matter of having the most modern innovative technologies implemented in various economic applications.
In the US, a very large, historically high public debt can be a significant finns barrier to finance and thus the USA will organize a manned mission to Mars in the next few years.
If this mission to Mars is mainly inspired by this new international rivalry in terms of having technological capabilities, it is currently difficult to predict which country will win the race and be the first to organize manned missions to Mars?
In view of the above, I ask you with the following question: Should a manned mission to Mars, which could be implemented in a few years be an international mission, or rather a national one, inspired and organized according to the familiar concept of the 1970s, of international rivalry leading economically and politically the largest countries?
Same as fighting the COVID pandemic, we have the technology and know-how ... but not the wisdom to work collaboratively. #Greed #Ego #Individualism
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Will this be the final incarnation of this question?
My purpose in asking these questions is to motivate the kind of physical theory that accepts that Physical Laws are part of The Universe, as opposed to standing outside it. And that rules governing The Universe must stem form The Universe itself. Otherwise, we should be asking: Where do the Physical Laws come from?
"Laws of the Universe" is ambiguous between regulative properties and statements about regulative properties. If laws are aspects, tendencies, or dispositional properties of the universe then they are just that, namely physical features. Self-reference and logical circularity can only arise in referential symbol systems that are used to describe or model the universe and its dispositional properties.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
According to Kardashev Scale, can a Type I Civilization be able to develop artificially intelligent system that surpasses it's own intelligence to match the intelligence of higher civilizations in the hierarchy?
Due to phase-wise knowledge addition, it is true that each future intelligence system surfaces the previous one. I agree with Muhammad Ali.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question
Dear Researchers,
I want to buy a telescope and request for the suggestions. Which one should I buy with better resolution?
Thank you
Ayaz Mohmood Dar If you just want a general view, a telescope with a wider aperture is best. Also, just to start don't spend too much money on extra eyepiece lenses, as these can get very expensive: wait until you know more about what you want to look at.
• asked a question related to Cosmology
Question