Dark Gravity discussion

[PB666]

On 11/29/2017 at 12:45 PM, Diche Bach said:

So everything in the universe is equidistant from the center of the universe? I find that very difficult to reconcile with common sense.

When you say "all space is expanding" I suspect you are making a bit of a simplification there. My understanding is that things which are farther away _from us_ appear to be moving away _from us_ faster than objects that are closer _to us_. Moreover, I don't have the impression that the Sol system and everything within its immediate proximity (including the pixels on this screen, Trump's hair piece, and zooplankton in the Marianas Trench) are expanding at the same rate as the distant universe, eh?

There are clusters and superclusters of galaxies whose relative attractive interactions are the subjects of study and whose "filament" like forms across the universe are the subject of various synthetic graphics. I also find that rather difficult to reconcile with the idea that everything "is" the center of the universe.

Not to be confrontational, but yeah; 

Not to worry, Einstein set this up by arguing that everywhere in the Universe is relative, and because if we look to the edge of the visible we only see local anistrophy its simply easier to conclude we are at the center and not.

The argument has everything to do with quantum gravity (that handwaving model problem that no-one seems to have a clear answer to).

Space-time is the product of something [black box] that took us from a very ambiguous thing to our present ambiguous location. Here is how the fairy tail is supposed to work

Once upon a time, but precisely a time when time did not exist, the universe was very small, so small in fact that it had no dimensions, it is the geometric point. But this then made it a quantum singularity. As we know from other studies of quantum states things can be in many places at a time and time can actually go back and forth. The universe was in this state for an immeasurable amount of time and its exact position could have been anywhere, in fact everywhere in the universe (and no I have not gone back to my 70's time machine and found some unused mushrooms lying around). For a reason that remains unclear this existence became unstable, some have surmised that energy had poured into this protouniverse. . . . .that the particle was quantum gravity . . . .and after reaching some threshold (like nuclear fission) . . .that particle decayed at its quantum position(s) creating an inflationary wave. As the instability stabilized inflation slowed to almost a stop (given the uncertainty of how quantum gravity currently works we are left saying. . .) and space-time magically appeared.

This creates the problem of the discussion, depending on who you listen to and what version you believe the quantum gravity particle contained all the energy in the known universe or energy poured into the universe as that particle transformed into its current state. Making matters more difficult we cannot connect the quantum gravity particle of today's universe to space-time and so there are opinions about this. Despite what has been said here, it goes unmeasured, on its curving affects on space and time.

But suppose you had a time machine and you could go all the way back to the moment that inflation ended and you had a special pair of glasses that could see the universe, could you see the center. Probably not, in fact you would be more likely to know that you were on inflation's boundary than at the center. The reason for this is at the quantum scale, things can travel faster than the speed of light, and since at the very beginning of the universe much of the universes energy was in a quantum space-time singularity its decay was superluminal in nature (this argument is somewhat tainted by the fact that the universe was too unstable for light to exist). This means that within the inflation boundary just about everything in the universe sees a horizon that is just about uniform in every direction, no matter which way you look. Secondarily, no single observer can see more than about 1/20th of the universe (could be much much less). If you were at the exact center of inflation you will pretty much see the same thing that you would see if you were close to the edge of inflation. What we get out of this is that relative motions in the universe cannot travel faster than the speed of light . . . .except . . . . . .if they are in a different co-moving space-time reference frame (this means very far away). So that if something that is so far away from you that you cannot see it can be moving away from you at super-luminal speeds, the problem is you will never detect this . . . .you will only ever detect things moving away approaching the speed of light but never more than. This minor detail of the relativistic view of the universe means that people (physicist, tv, etc) replaced "Universe" (an intangible thing) with observable universe (something we pretend we can see all of) . . . and in the observable universe, by its very definition, everyone is at the center. There is some factual basis to this also, since gravity and light cannot travel faster than the speed of light, the physical existence of things moving superluminal with respect to us will never affect us, we are essentially forever ignorant of their existence and vis-versa.

So how do we make this distinction work . . . In the beginning there was a quantum space-time particle and it was the universe, while if you has a magic quantum time watch and could stop it, it had a center, maybe. But that is immaterial to the point of veiw because what matters is the center of inflation. This quality is not measurable because their is no way to fix the universe and also measure the inflationary sphere, All distal surfaces on the inflationary sphere in space time are always too far away to be measured (thats why it was a big bang and not a small bang).   Looking from the inside. . . .As it decayed the cohesive universe decayed into a spherical evolutionary gradient of observable universes (remembering that observations require space and time), since we live in a space-time universe we cannot observe the state of the quantum universe and since its center is a quality of that state, it cannot be simply observed. That which cannot be observed or inferred is assumed by science not to exist. 

See I answered the question without really giving an answer.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by PB666

[PB666]

On 11/29/2017 at 1:02 PM, Diche Bach said:

Gravity causes pubic grabbing(?) . . . 

Quantum gravity caused everything, almost. I think [Coughing] came from an alternative universe.

At least the way I understand this, A quantum space-time singularity of infinite energy density (meaning that the energy level was so high that no coherent means of measurement was effective). As described by one energy theorist the protouniverse was so hot that it was cold. This means there is no hv, no matter, no sub atomic particles, nothing, except a super-energetic quantum gravity point. 

As we see from observations of distant stars space-time distortions (waves) carry energy over very great distances, so we understand that there should be a particle that carries energy, these are so-called scalar energy.

But for our current universe to exist that point particle needs to be spread out into something that creates our space-time. This had to be a very energetic process given our observations of space-time distortions.

Where the uncertainty comes into the argument is this, during the process in which a largely 'quantum' space-time universe ends and something resembling our Universe with strong-force, electromagnetism, . . . . . . there may have been additional energies that poured into the universe as the intense quantum state dissipated/fractured.

THere has been proposed an intermediate field between quantum singularity and space-time called the inflaton field. Without being two critical its an intermediate state of cosmic gravity in which no dimensions exist to the current state where space-time exist. We know however that space-time has a ubiquitous Higg's field in it with a non-zero vacuum state (The particle associated with the field is tremendously energetic). Therefore energy must invade space-time. Or alternatively space-time cannot be produced if energy is also not added to the system. As stated above, a quantum gravity singularity gives rise to inflation which gives rise to space-time. For this to happen scientist to create a phase transition to true vacuum.

In this Universe, I should say, particularly since Heisenberg, nothing is ever true, we only at best have perspectives on the truth. There is never anything that is truly a vacuum in all sense of the emptiness of space. To simplify this we can think of the Inflaton as being quantum vacuum 'pre'-space but with a huge energy potential. With any huge unsustainable energy potential its never possible to deliver a pure outcome such as pure space-time with only higgs feild that propagates . . . . .so in that sense public discussions of pubic grabbing do make some sense. 

Hope this explains the problem.

 

On 11/29/2017 at 1:44 PM, Green Baron said:

Simply let go of the idea that the universe exploded into something. It began very small, but we can not define the initial moment, physics start when it already had a certain size, somewhere at the start of what is called the "inflation". And yes, the expansion doesn't make halt in our proximity or in us, we just don't realize as we have no other reference.

Yes, it is simple. The expansion simply adds up with distance. Imagine the distance between 2 points 1m apart gets larger by 1cm in 1 minute. A third point another meter away "flees" with 2cm/minute, and so on. And there is no speed limit to this expansion. The speed limit is "only" for things with mass inside this expanding space, it is a "local" speed limit. Pedestrian area :-)

As to the center: the universe is thought of to have probably no "edge", or the other way round, to be infinite. Should become clear if we adopt the idea that it did not explode into something. No edge, no center. Or, with a little philosophy, the "center" is everywhere and so why not right here.

Hope that wasn't totally wrong, ready for being corrected.

Actually our only valid perspective is the CMBR, inflation was drafted to explain the lack of overwhelming anistrophy. Once you have inflation you need inflation of something (transitional space-time) from something (quantum space-time).

[sevenperforce]

13 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

I see people say this and while I of course do not disbelieve the claim it certainly doesn't make any sense to me. Gravity is what holds everything "down" on Earth and to escape that gravity one has to exert force in a limited array of directions. The same seems to be true for the relationship between virtually all objects between which gravitational interactions can be observed: they are not "flat" they are curvilinear. So yeah, if we look at some massive signal like the cosmic microwave background maybe that suggests "flat?" But given that all the baryons seem to be subject to curved gravitational dynamics, how is it actually edifying to refer to "the universe" as being gravitationally flat? Even the filiament structures of superclusters are thought of as long term emergent patterns of the very same sorts of gravitational dynamics that cause rocks and stars and balls of gas and galaxies to swirl around one another in curves, eh?

The curvature of the universe is only meaningful at the scale of cosmic filamentary structures; everything smaller is dominated by local gravitational effects. The question is this: when you zoom out to the largest levels, where you're looking at galaxy cluster filaments, is there any overall curvature? Is there warping around a preferential axis? Are the cosmic filaments aligned, or are they being pulled in one direction more than any other direction?

As far as we're able to tell, the answer is no. Supercluster filaments are randomly-distributed and have no particular alignment; redshift measurements show no bias in any given direction.

This means the exouniverse is hundreds of times larger than the observable endouniverse. If it wasn't -- if, for example, the endouniverse was a sphere with an edge only a few billion lightyears outside our observations at the nearest -- then there would be a dramatic bias in observed redshift, because gravity would be pulling everything toward the endouniverse's original center. We would see galactic redshift at one extreme much higher than galactic redshift in the opposite direction. Yet we do not.

In addition to redshift, this also matches our calculations of the values for dark energy.

Our measurements indicate that if the exouniverse is finite and bounded, it must be have a volume at least 100 times greater than the endouniverse in order for its curvature to be "hidden" in our experimental error.

13 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

Oh dear, that double negative I imagine was a mere typo, but what now the mystery is killing me!  Are you saying the exouniverse (great term by the way, did you come up with those distinction!?  )  IS infinite or IS NOT infinite.

Yeah, sorry. Typo fixed. And yes, I just came up with those two terms yesterday, because I was trying to express things concretely in this thread.

13 hours ago, YNM said:

You can tell you're rising up though. Not in the universe.

For all intents and purposes, the microbe can't tell that it's "going up" so much as it can only tell that everything is moving away from it.

13 hours ago, YNM said:

Also, that would makes it that your "reachable" universe gets bigger and bigger. It also happens in ours without the need for expansion - the extent of the observable universe gets bigger and bigger by nature. The universe's expansion as is called by cosmologist isn't that expansion.

Yeah, my analogy doesn't include anything for the speed of light, lol.

[YNM]

4 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

For all intents and purposes, the microbe can't tell that it's "going up" so much as it can only tell that everything is moving away from it.

If what you're referring to "moving away" as other bubbles, that's an even worse analogy. That'd imply every object in the Universe is expanding, which it isn't.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, YNM said:

If what you're referring to "moving away" as other bubbles, that's an even worse analogy. That'd imply every object in the Universe is expanding, which it isn't.

Well if inflation created all space, everything could be shrinking as space-time fractures the universe into smaller and smaller parts. The end of the initial inflation may have determined the ultimate size of the universe and subsequent expansion is just a way to stuff everything into it.

I have to say that I don't like these analogies. The problem with big-bang divination is that all our basic facts about the big bang come millions of years later when matter cooled enough to create a non-opaque light to travel down.

100s of times larger than the 27 billion light years we can see is speculation. The idea that we could not see the center is equating that the CMBR is the only measure of anisotrophy in the Universe, but there could be other measures.

Lets create this logic there cannot be a center because I cannot see anisotrophy at the CMBR.
1. If your visible universe is at the center then you could not see anisotrophy.
2. If the rate of inflation (IOW the in c and not distance) then you might see anisotrophy at most positions, BUT if that radius was 3c (that means the universe is 80 billion ly across in psuedospace-time units) only those obeservable universes closest to the outside might see differences in CNBR, assuming energy pour uniformly into the universe. This is because information on the edge would take 1c * 13.8 billion years to reach observable universe centers that are 2c from the center. We can calculate the interior volume as 4/3πr3 33.8c, while the peripheral volume is 79.2 more than 1/4 th of the observable universes will lack any edge anisotrophy, there are no good statistics that can be made.
if the inflation radius is 4c then more than 1/3rd will lack, 5c approximately half. For the argument that there is no center you would have to be in a universe that is close to 1c in radius and observed no anisotrophy. Such a statistical certainty is unlikely.
3. Note all discussions of predicted cohesive size of the universe have been removed from wikipedia (for good reason), there are inflation theories suggesting that the universe is infinite or rolls out on the horizon of the universe and is infinite. So even if you were close to the edge at the beginning of your epoch (your local big-bang) that by the time stuff evolved it would essentially be anisotrophic. In either theory postulating a center is a futile effort since there is almost no way to confirm or deny its existence unless some distortion of the laws of phsyics occurs in a distance related fashion and we could penetrate other comoving space to test this.

Quote

According to the theory of cosmic inflation initially introduced by its founder, Alan Guth (and by D. Kazanas ^[24]), if it is assumed that inflation began about 10⁻³⁷ seconds after the Big Bang, then with the plausible assumption that the size of the Universe before the inflation occurred was approximately equal to the speed of light times its age, that would suggest that at present the entire universe's size is at least 3x10²³ times the radius of the observable universe.^[25] There are also lower estimates claiming that the entire universe is in excess of 250 times larger than the observable universe^[26] and also higher estimates implying that the universe is at least 10^1010122 times larger than the observable universe.^[27] - wikipedia's observable universe.

So that the size of the universe in observable universes size range from a little bit bigger than our own (typologically based science) to gazillion times bigger based on the time in which inflation begins . . . . . .minding that during the time [coughing] that the universe was a quantum space-time singularity time had absolutely no meaning what-so-ever. I repeat that our view of anisotrophy is entirely based on CNBR and we haven't much of a clue as to what is quantum gravity was or its internal stability or how it evolved in the universe including during inflation . . . . .or when time became a useful measure.

 

Edited December 2, 2017 by PB666

[YNM]

@PB666 I guess the problem is because you can never be sure what exactly is outside our vision. There's the CMB, CNB, and C-GW-B, but none of them goes beyond a limit. Trying to tell beyond it is like trying to tell beyond time.

The only way to be able to tell what's likely outside is by modelling what difference would really arose out of the different models, and see whether things stick. It might not be anisotropies - it might be as simple as size of the largest observable patterns in the Universe. But we would have to be very, very cautious.

Edited December 2, 2017 by YNM

[sevenperforce]

13 hours ago, YNM said:

If what you're referring to "moving away" as other bubbles, that's an even worse analogy. That'd imply every object in the Universe is expanding, which it isn't.

No, in the analogy the vapor in the bubbles represents empty space between galaxies and galaxy clusters while the surfaces of the bubbles represent matter.

[YNM]

39 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

No, in the analogy the vapor in the bubbles represents empty space between galaxies and galaxy clusters while the surfaces of the bubbles represent matter.

That would imply some of the bubble bursts and matter goes in together. Also, new bubbles are created always, which to a good extent is also what we observe today at CMB and such. Doesn't have much analogy with the universe's "expansion", ä.

Edited December 2, 2017 by YNM

[sevenperforce]

25 minutes ago, YNM said:

That would imply some of the bubble bursts and matter goes in together. Also, new bubbles are created always, which to a good extent is also what we observe today at CMB and such. Doesn't have much analogy with the universe's "expansion", ä.

The point was the illustration of metric expansion and bounded/unbounded/observable. Not trying to get at the mechanics of it, hah.

[YNM]

9 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

The point was the illustration of metric expansion and bounded/unbounded/observable. Not trying to get at the mechanics of it, hah.

Well technically there're a, ȧ and ä. To be honest, expansion is only ȧ, but the accelerated expansion is ä. And the last one is what boggles everyone... and I kind of getting it that dark gravity tries to answer that.

[PB666]

Looking for something else and found this paper

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/publications-of-the-astronomical-society-of-australia/article/constraining-a-possible-variation-of-g-with-type-ia-supernovae/70513C64971B60C22A8232B64C37243B

 

[PB666]

http://spaceworldsnews.blogspot.com/2018/03/feature-every-second-counts-to-trace.html

Synchronizing the effort to explore distortions in space-time.

[tonates]

And yet the dark energy in cosmology is a hypothetical kind of energy.

[PB666]

On 4/5/2018 at 4:57 AM, tonates said:

And yet the dark energy in cosmology is a hypothetical kind of energy.

The problem of dark energy is that gravity is a tensor in space, e=mc² alters the structure of space-time, for example it is believed that at the event horizon of a black hole quantum space time units (i.e. the fleeting cells in the quantum foam) are pancaked. Dark energy is the opposite, but there is no opposite of an un-pancaked unit of foam, either the cells are randomly equal in all dimensions (a big problem when dealing with quantum space-time since at the quantum level neither space or time exists). Noting that these dimensions of quantum space-time are _all_ relational. That is to say the qualities of space and time do not exist unless related to other quanta. When you relate sufficient enough qualities you have resolution (think Copenhagen problem). Quantum space-time (i.e. quantum gravity) is a hypothetical particle (spin = 2 boson) that has scalar qualities. To confound the problem even further, if we roll back time, while the total amount of energy in spacetime decreases with respect to time quantum space-time increases . . .such that going back far enough quantum space-time 'cell' is the entire universe and all the energy of the universe is quantum space-time. At this point only the point exists, there is no space or time since there are no relations. During the expansion phase of the universe, energy within space-time potentials becomes other forms of energy. The energy in space-time is not therefore a normal type of energy. For example if QST was like mass of a blackhole, the universe would never inflate. Thus prior to inflation quantum-space time can be thought of as this huge potential of energy, a kind of dark-heat, completely invisible, but under the right conditions so blazing hot that there is no means of measuring it. Even inflation itself is wrapped up in the potential, any massless quantum singularity can be at any point in the universe, and inflation might just be a probabilistic interpretation of where all those points the QST singularity thought it might be before is subdivided itself into a more foamy existence. But at the end of inflation some sort of conversion of potential energy did occur, otherwise the manifestations of expansion do not exist. So recognizable space-time is an inflationary quality of the Universe. It is not necessarily all the qualities that give rise to manifest space time. Physics come into existence at that boundary of inflation and expansion.

Dark energy implies that there is an opposing force. If you recall the other post that energy = change of momentum/change of [something else]. The relative momentums of comoving space times are changing ..increasing velocity. To arrive that these changing velocity there needs to be a change of energy, but they are not pushing off each other in any measurable way. The alternative is that quantum-space time is the recipient of something . . . more foam. Foam does not actually exist, its a placeholder analogy for something that is so counter-intuitive we have no means of describing it. If I give you a handful of quantum-foam its would be a kin to me placing in your hand fairy-dust. As stated above foam assumed existence is entirely in the relational. The foam exists only as information conduit, it allows light to move and fields to be generated and propagate. So then something non-massive is being crammed into space in which creates a disequilibrium with the standard tensor. IOW imagine me throwing a stack of pancakes that really want to be soccer balls. How do we know this, if these units are all relational and we cannot see the units (it appears only to be something in the cold vacuum of space). We cannot see comoving space-time between galaxies. Dark energy might just be our misunderstanding of how quantum space-time behaves.

All of this is tied up in the standard gravitational constant -G- which some have postulated is not constant. In fact no two experiments have ever arrived at the same value to the same level of precision as plank's constant. Gravity seems to vary slightly depending on how it is measured, it might also be true that if  we measure G in the cold darkness of space. I can describe this another way, we have an understanding of space-time based upon our comoving reference frame, and observations around us. But on the Universal scale of space-time there are all kinds of exceptions, when we add a time component the exceptions for 'the beginning' are wildly exceptional. Dark energy may just be an exceptional way that space-time behaves in the coldest vacuums of space.