E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
What's dark energy? In this illustration, the mysterious repulsive force is represented as a smooth purple grid that overwhelms the effects of gravity (represented by a lumpy green grid).
Most of the research recognized by a Nobel Prize has to do with solutions, but this year's physics prize highlights a problem that's been bugging scientists for more than a decade. And there may be more such problems to chew on in the years ahead.
"The way science makes progress is through an interplay between theory and observation," Sean M. Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology, told me today. But when it comes down to theory vs. observation, "observations always win," he said.
As an example, take the research that won today's Nobel Prize for physics: When the three physicists who won the award started charting the brightness of distant supernovae, they expected to find out how much the expansion of the universe was slowing down, in accord with the accepted theories for cosmic evolution. Instead, they were surprised to find that the expansion rate was speeding up.
"We thought this would be an interesting experiment to do, but we didn't know it would be this interesting," one of today's Nobel laureates, Johns Hopkins University astrophysicist Adam Riess, told journalists during a teleconference.
Physicists didn't have a good explanation in 1998 for why the cosmos should go against gravity's pull and fly apart at a faster and faster rate. And they still don't. Their best guess is that our universe has a built-in, outward-pushing feature known as dark energy, which appears in Albert Einstein's equations for relativity as a cosmological constant.
"Dark energy still looks like the right answer — the best guess, I should say," Riess said. Einstein's cosmological constant appears to account for the effect to within 10 percent accuracy, he said. But physicists are in the dark about the mechanism. It's as if you're watching a car speeding down the road, faster and faster. Riess said you might hypothesize that there's such a thing as a gas pedal, and that pressing on it was causing the speedup. But there's not yet any way to say for sure. And there's no guarantee that the speedup will continue. There might still be a let-up on the cosmic accelerator, "in which case all bets are off," Riess said.
So is this Nobel premature? Riess said it was important to note that the prize was "awarded for seeing or discovering that the universe is accelerating," rather than for explaining why.
Caltech's Sean Carroll of Caltech describes dark energy and the accelerating universe.for "Minute Physics."
How to crack the mystery
There are lots of experiments in the works to expand upon the discovery made by Riess and his fellow Nobel laureates, Saul Perlmutter of the University of California at Berkeley and Brian Schmidt of the Australian National University in Canberra. Just today, the European Space Agency gave its go-ahead for the 2019 launch of the $650 million Euclid space telescope, which is designed to study dark energy's effects on the large-scale structure of the universe. NASA's $1.6 billion Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope, or WFIRST, would also target the mystery surrounding dark energy.
But Riess suspects that the mystery can't be solved by observations alone. "We won't really resolve it until some brilliant person, the next Einstein-like person, is able to get the idea of what's going on," he said.
So he issued a plea to the theorists: "Keep working," he said. "We need your help. ... It's a very juicy problem, it's hard, and you'll win a Nobel Prize if you figure it out. In fact, I'll give you mine."
Carroll, the theorist, was sympathetic to Riess' plea. But he wasn't overly encouraging.
"You don't need to tell us that this is a big one," Carroll said. "Many of us have tried. I've tried. I've written many papers about it. But it's hard."
There are plenty of possibilities, to be sure. The acceleration could be caused by vacuum energy that doesn't vary over time, but is just a feature of empty space. It could be a slowly varying quality of the cosmos known among physicists as "quintessence." It could be some unanticipated twist in the nature of gravity, or a byproduct of multidimensional spheres of existence.
"I've spent my time on this, and I'm increasingly willing to predict that the answer is a boring one," Carroll said. Maybe the best that scientists can ever say is that this is just the way our universe works.
More deep, dark questions
For now, dark energy is just one item on a growing list of puzzling questions for big-thinking physicists — questions that also include:
- What's dark matter made out of? Observations from the past decade suggest that dark energy accounts for 74 percent of the universe's mass-energy content, and that another 22 percent consists of similarly mysterious stuff known as dark matter. So far, dark matter has been detected only through its gravitational effect, but physicists have come to assume that it takes the form of exotic subatomic particles that interact only weakly with the 4 percent of the universe we can see. Researchers had been hoping they'd see the signature of those exotic particles at the Large Hadron Collider, but so far there's been no sign.
- Where's the Higgs boson? Researchers are also looking for the Higgs boson, the last fundamental particle whose existence is predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics. Fermilab's Tevatron collider had been in the hunt until its shutdown last week, and if there's no confirmed detection hiding within the Tevatron data yet to be analyzed, it'll be up to the LHC to spot the Higgs, which is thought to be responsible for creating the mass of some subatomic particles and has been nicknamed the "God Particle." Again, there's been no sign so far, but physicists say they should know within the next year or so whether the Higgs exists. If there's no such thing, theorists might have to rewrite one of the scientific world's most successful theories.
- Why does the universe seem fine-tuned? A good number of physicists have noted that if the fundamental constants of physics had been tweaked slightly differently, life as we know it — perhaps even the universe as we know it — could not have endured for long, if at all. If you ascribe the workings of the cosmos to God, this doesn't present a problem. But this apparent "fine-tuning" poses a challenge if you're trying to explain why the universe is just so. One possibility would be to say there's a plenitude of universes out there, and we just happen to be in a universe that works pretty well. Or maybe the universe is governed by a "feedback loop" that operates forward and backward in time. Or maybe it's some sort of weird quantum phenomenon, as Stephen Hawking has proposed. As Keanu Reeves might say: "Whoa..."
- Why does time run only one way? Speaking of time's direction, Carroll's favorite conundrum has to do with why we experience time in only one direction, moving from the past into the future. In his book "From Eternity to Here," Carroll makes the case that the arrow of time moves in the same direction as entropy, from low entropy at the time of the big bang to higher entropy today, and even higher entropy tomorrow. "The question is, why was entropy low near the big bang?" Carroll said. "I'm still very much up in the air as to the answer to that question." As he studies that question, Carroll is delving into other puzzles ranging from the origin of life to the debate about free will vs. determinism. "You don't have to get into those age-old questions," Carroll admitted. "My own impulse is to enjoy those questions and get into this."
- Was Einstein wrong about the speed of light? This is one of the most recent unsettled questions for modern physics. For more than a century, the overwhelming evidence has been that Einstein's special relativity theory was correct in claiming that nothing could move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. That's now been called into question by observations suggesting that some neutrinos achieved faster-than-light speeds during a 450-mile trip between two underground labs in Europe. Carroll said the observations are "very, very unlikely to be right," but if they are verified, that would force a radical reinterpretation of Einstein's theories.
Faster-than-light neutrinos would be far more troublesome for scientists than the speeding-up universe. As strange as the Nobel-winning supernova observations appear to be, Carroll said they actually "explain a whole bunch of things that people had been worrying about for a long while," including apparent discrepancies in measurements of the universe's age.
"Unlike the 'accelerating universe,' ... the faster-than-light neutrinos would create a whole bunch of problems to worry about," Carroll said. For example, would the phenomenon allow for backward time travel and reverse causality? Could a neutrino go back in time and "kill its grandfather"?
In a posting to the Cosmic Variance blog, Carroll floats some ideas that could get theorists out of a time-traveling jam, but it wouldn't be pretty. "If neutrinos are moving faster than light, the question is, how can we adapt special relativity to a framework which allows for this?" he said.
Riess, the experimenter, offered some advice for Carroll and his fellow theorists, based on his experience with the surprising supernova observations.
"As a lot of my colleagues say when they hear about a strange result, they go, 'Oh, that's wrong,' and usually 'How do you know?' then, 'Well, most things that are weird turn out to be wrong.' And that's true," Riess said. "But you don't want to completely close your ears and eyes to seeing weird things, because a lot of the most interesting things we see at some point were the weird things."
Tune in to 'Virtually Speaking Science'
Carroll and I will be talking about the accelerating universe, faster-than-light neutrinos and other weird and interesting things on Wednesday at 9 p.m. ET (6 p.m. PT) on "Virtually Speaking Science," an online talk show that I host on the first Wednesday of the month. You can listen to the hourlong show via BlogTalkRadio, or be a part of the audience at the Stella Nova auditorium in the virtual world known as Second Life. (Here's the SLURL for your teleporting pleasure.) You can ask questions during the show via Second Life chat or BlogTalkRadio's call-in number.
If you can't make it in real time, don't worry: The show will be archived at BlogTalkRadio as an audio podcast for on-demand listening. Many thanks to the Meta Institute for Computational Astrophysics for providing the Second Life venue.
More podcasts from 'Virtually Speaking Science':
- Rand Simberg on the private-enterprise vision for spaceflight
- Martin Hoffert on the future of energy policy
- George Djorgovski on science in virtual worlds
- Alan Stern on suborbital research and NASA's mission to Pluto
- Col. 'Coyote' Smith on the outlook for space solar power
- Tim Pickens on rocket ventures and the Google Lunar X Prize
More about the Nobel-winning research:
- Cosmic Variance: Dark energy FAQ
- Inside Science: The story behind the accelerating universe
- Life's Little Mysteries: What's dark energy? | How find was made
- Search for dark energy on msnbc.com
Carroll will also be a featured speaker for the New Horizons in Science symposium, presented Oct. 16-18 at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff by the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing as part of ScienceWriters2011. I'm a member of the CASW board.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also add me to your Google+ circle, and check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
How about a moratorium on calling Higgs the "God Particle"?
As I recall, that wasn't exactly the name Leon Lederman had in mind anyway.
Agreed. I am not aware of a single person who actually refers to the Higgs as the "God Particle." It is a term that does not appear anywhere except general circulation news articles; anyone who cares enough to actually read the story A) knows that it is called the Higgs boson, and B) thinks the term "God Particle" is ridiculous.
We are currently riding a wave! It wasn't a Big Bang! It was more like a drop hitting the surface of water. We are currently being drawn back to the galactic center just like a wave on the seas with a current! That is why we orbit. That is also why our galaxy orbits. As we get closer to where the drop originated the waves are coming faster. Our galaxy is like a leaf floating on the water.
I am surprised this article did not refer to the theory that acceleration may simply be an illusion. This is surprising because you all published this article just a few days back:
ww.msnbc.msn.com/id/44686707
Right, that's a good one... Thanks for the link (which I included in our earlier story about the Nobel physics prizes).
What if we live in an oscillating universe, where a Big Bang is followed by a Big Crunch? Please bear with me.
In the expansion phase, the farther back we look in time, the faster the galaxies are moving away from each other. As time goes on,the force of gravity slows them down, so that nearer (more recent) galaxies are moving slower. This is what physicists expected to see, and what cosmologists thought until very recently.
What would it look like if we enter the contraction phase? We see the really distant galaxies still in the expansion phase, as they were billions of years ago. But the nearer, more recent galaxies are already, like us, in the Crunch phase.
In this phase, galaxies are accelerating — they are leaving behind the galaxies in the past, moving away from them at an ever-increasing rate as they fall toward the Crunch Point.
Any galaxy we see from the past has to be moving slower than we are — because we’re father along in time, and therefore, farther along in the Crunch. And any galaxy we see has to be in the past, because it took time for its light to reach us.
Therefore, if we are already in the Crunch Phase of an oscillating universe, wouldn’t we see exactly what we are seeing? The really distant (far past) galaxies are still in the Expansion phase, and are moving faster as we go farther back in time and farther away in space. But the nearer ones are, like us, in the Crunch, and are moving faster as they are closer to us (father along in the Crunch).
Perhaps we’re not seeing the effects of any otherwise undetectable Dark Energy. Perhaps we’re seeing the effects of the gravity of galaxies that are ahead of us in the Crunch, ahead of us in time — and therefore, not yet visible to our observations, since, by definition, anything we see is in the past.
Corollary:
Since we only see the past, if there were inhabitants in the distant galaxies, in their time, they wouldn't see us. We would comprise their Dark Energy.
Maximum expansion, leading ultimately to a Big Crunch is not a new idea, and was seriously considered by many cosmologists for some time.
The problem is, there just didn't appear to be enough mass in the Universe to slow it to a stop, and begin closure at any time in the future. The best determination was that there was only about 10% of that value. So, the expansion would continue to indefinitely slow, but never totally stop.
And this was before we found that, if anything, the rate of expansion of the Universe appears to be increasing, not slowing...
Yes, the oscillating universe, aka the cyclic universe or the ekpyrotic universe, is one of the scenarios that has been considered ... here's a story I did about it almost a decade ago:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077357/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/questioning-big-bang/
I just love writing the word "ekpyrotic."
Each Galaxy was created independently by it's own "Big Bang," in a Quasar explosion. As a Galactic nursery is created, the shock wave pushes against neighboring Galaxies. It's equivalent to "Bumper Cars," at an amusement park. There is no center to the Universe, but there are centers to Galaxies.
"But Riess suspects that the mystery can't be solved by observations alone."
Of course not - we don't have a large enough frame of refrence so we assume what we know applies until we can prove otherwise (without thinking we must first prove that). Take the graphic at the start of the article for example. Each galaxy bends space-time according to its gravity well right? But each galaxy is moving within space so the bending shouldn't be symmetrical (think comet tail but shorter). Also what is the speed of light in a vacuum in unbent space-time? We have no way to measure this because our refrence points are still being affected by earth/sun/milkyway gravity alterations. It is very possible that space-time in deep space (the vast areas of nothing inbetween galaxies) acts quite differently from everything we know. In those areas, light itself could go faster than the speed of light as we know it - which could easily account for our perceived acceleration of the universe.
I find this a particularly fascinating concept as it would have massively positive implications for our being able to visit other galaxies someday. Essentially a wormhole without the hole. For lack of a better word, 'warp speed' might turn out to be more a factor of location than speed.
A thought that popped into my head:
What if it's not a force (or whatever you'd call it) within the universe that is causing the expansion of the universe to speed up. What if it's something outside the universe pulling on the universe? In essence, you're increasing the 'surface area' of the universe, which means more 'area' to 'pull', thus speeding things up.
Look in the rear-view mirror! At some point the front of the universe curves around and bites one from behind, then we should see all hell break loose as those stars and galaxies start crashing into this side of the cosmos, you know, like the incomplete donut, it looks flat until one gets far enough away to see the circle shape the universe seems to favor. If that isn't what's happening, my bet is that the force which contained all the energy and matter that I believed to be gravity is still out there pulling positve matter toward itself.
Gravitational force
When trying to understand the Universe and why things move within it, the big Question mark is gravity. The big bang Theory works off of Sir Isaac Newton's Laws of motion, which in turn are a axiom based on the effects of gravity, a deduction based on self –evidence. Gravity itself however is not well explained through these laws, so how is gravity formed? Is it formed consistently throughout the Universe by the same means? Is the Big bang only one of the ways the Universe is formed ?
So how is gravity formed ?
If someone were trying to try and explain the axiom of the numerical information known about gravity 'one" Might suggest that gravity is only a
universal common trait among objects of Mass.
Is Gravity consistently formed throughout the Universe by
the same means?
No…….Gravity is an effect which can occur upon objects of mass,
so different types or sets of conditions can produce the effect of gravity.
Is the Big bang the only one of the ways a Universe is formed ?
No…….If we step away from the laws of motion and address gravity as a form of force, which can govern motion, only affected by energy. The door-way opens to look at the formation of many solar systems in a whole new manner. Explosions occur in space, explosions have effects within OutSpace, and Explosions do not create all motion in the universe as we know it.
the information that can come from the charting of the Supernova by the three
physicist at the California Institute of Technology is an important step to
understanding the overall scheme of the Universe. " Congratulations it is a prize well deserved ".
Note : I would believe dark matter to be an atomic particle's
gravitation reflection, a gravitational anomaly created by an instance of multiple
forces which can create gravity on one object. Much like heat creates the allusion
of water in the desert.
A Pathetic Absurdity
Nobel 2011 re universe expansion: There is definitely no
dark energy or matter. Definitely. This is a pathetic absurdity:
Neutrino Velocity > Light Velocity?
I. From
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/live-chat-have-neutrinos-broken.html?ref=em&elq=94d706ec04024fdc9b3ae6e49236f125
3:05 , Alfons Weber:
OPERA has only measured the average speed of the neutrinos from CERN to Grand Sasso. But there is no reason to assume that the neutrinos became faster or slower on their way. We actually don't know of any mechanism that could have accelerated or decelerated them on the trip.
Dov Henis:
***If the total arriving neutrinos mass is less than the total starting mass their velocity would accelerate: some of the mass reconverts to energy (Einstein) acting on a decreasing mass (Newton)...
II.
A.
From “Galaxy Clusters Validate Einstein's Theory”
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/galaxy-clusters-validate-einstei.html?ref=em&elq=94d706ec04024fdc9b3ae6e49236f125
“a classic prediction of general relativity: that light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light. As a result, photons emitted from the center of a galaxy cluster—a massive object containing thousands of galaxies—should lose more energy than photons coming from the edge of the cluster because gravity is strongest in the center”
B.
Energy/mass dualism and light, why not and neutrino…
By the below updated comprehension of gravitation light will lose MASS as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the MASS loss suffered by the light. It is due to the energy/mass dualism that the loss of mass would be loss of energy…
The universe cycles between two poles: singularity/all-mass , and maximum-expanded/nearly-all-energy.
E=Total[m(1 + D)] (D = distance travelled by mass since singularity)
Update definition of gravitation per the above E,m,D relationship. The essence/definition of gravitation is:
“Gravitation Is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass”.
C.
What, whence and whither, mass format:
In the expanding universe the point of formation of the light, or of the neutrinos, of any mass format, is - “as far as the mass format is concerned” - its
singularity point. Its motion distance is D. Its m decreases as D increases, maintaining a constant mD = E and therefore accelerating …
Look Ma! It’s Converting!
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
http://universe-life.com/2011/09/21/the-lhc-chases-its-tail/
PS:
Universe expands per Newton's motion laws, obviously...
Also, universe physics constants should vary, probably slightly, between galaxies clusters due to varied clusters sizes...
Also, the clusters formed by dispersion at inflation…
DH
Want solutions to these mysteries? Follow the link, read the whole page.
If you're still skeptical after that, look at the rest of the web site.
There are three mysteries: 1) The gravity of dark matter appears to hold galaxies and galaxy clusters together; 2) the anti-gravity of dark energy appears to be pushing distant galaxies apart; 3) Black holes capture visible matter, and nothing appears to escape.
My theory is that ultra-subatomic (smaller-than-Planck-length) particles made up of "dark matter/dark energy" pair-bonds are the ultimate building blocks of baryonic matter (our visible universe). These hypothetical pair-bonds are so strong that only the extreme centrifugal forces inside of a black hole can tear them apart. The black hole acts as a centrifuge, taking in baryonic matter and separating the "heavier" dark matter from dark energy. Dark matter is flung outward and absorbed into the galaxy, while dark energy is ejected along its axis, perpendicular to the galactic plane and into the depths of space, where its expansion pushes distant galaxies farther away.
The Big Bang could be considered to be an intrusion of baryonic matter into what we know as our three-dimensional space-time continuum. The fusion of "dark matter/dark energy" would have been the result of the super enormous temperatures and pressures of the Big Bang. Since the natural order of the universe is a separation of dark matter/dark energy, the universe would now be "cleaning up after itself" and restoring the natural order.
I like to refer to my hypothetical "dark matter/dark energy" bonds as the yin-yang model. That would explain the inner conflict within humans, since we are all ultimately made up of these opposite qualities: part of us wants to belong (yin), and part of us wants to be free (yang). This would also be the cause of the eternal struggle between good and evil, although good and evil are relative to the observer. The black holes will eventually separate all the pair-bonds and restore the universe to equilibrium.
Dark matter, energy...?
An
Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything
I. EOTOE, Some Implications (I)
A.
EOTOE is an Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything.
In essence it states that all things in the universe, nouns and verbs objects
and processes, originate and derive from the energy-mass dualism.
Origin and essence of this derivation are expressed mathematically by
E=Total[m(1+ D)] (D = distance travelled by mass since singularity)
Which suggests that the universe cycles between two poles: singularity/all-mass
, and maximum-expanded/nearly-all-energy.
The “nearly” all-energy leaves behind some mass formats that begin
consolidating by gravity, when it eventually overcomes expansion as the mass
fueling the expansion is nearly depleted, becoming very small m multiplied by
very large D = E .
B.
Thus the essence/definition of gravitation is:
“Gravitation Is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass”.
Gravitation is the “monotheism” and the “ genesis” of the universe.
Singularity, at D = 0, is the very brief all-mass pole of the universe. The
Big-Bang-inflation did not produce matter or anti-matter. It was the beginning
of mass reconversion into energy, of increasing D fueled by decreasing m.
The conjectured gravitons, smallest basic particles, most probably do exist,
but must be with mass, and gravitons microclusters must “big-bang” during the
on-going expansion at a resolution of their energy-mass superposition.
This is rationally commonsensical, therefore it is scientifically probable.
Inflation started with the whole universe m shattering into fragments that
evolved into, became, the galaxy clusters. The clusters expansion is fed at a
constant rate by m-fuel. Since expansion accelerates, since the clusters depart
from each other at an ever increasing velocity, we learn that the rate of
m-to-E reconversion in the universe is constant. The accelerated expansion
derives from the ever decreasing m of each cluster.
C.
Thus the essence/definition of evolution, natural selection is:
Mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their
successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to
temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass
to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion.
This explains why black holes and humans, in fact all mass formats, must feed
themselves in order to survive.
This explains that the essence of quantum mechanics of all processes is the
detailed procession steps, the evolution details, between physical states
ordained for natural selection.
D.
Thus comes to light the universe inspected progressively in greater detail.
Science reveals the universe’s nature-scope and directing drive, followed by
technology studying its evolution details-aspects, followed by engineering
exploitation of the attained information. This suggests the specific weight,
importance, of science, technology and engineering in considering of research
or enterprise plans and implementation.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
PS1:
Definitely: Dark energy and dark matter YOK! Universe's m reconverts to E at a constant rate…
Universe accelerated expansion is per Newton's motion laws, obviously…
Also, universe physics constants should vary, probably slightly, between
galaxies clusters due to different clusters sizes...
Also, the clusters formed by dispersion at inflation…
PS2:
The singularity constituents must have been the smallest elementary particles.
They may be designated gravitons, but they MUST HAVE MASS. They were born at
the energy-mass superposition resolution, together with the fragments that
became galaxies clusters.
At expansion D increases, therefore m decreases, which per Newton mandates mass
and matter acceleration. This goes on, most probably, at a constant rate of
mass-to-energy reconversion, at an energy-mass resolution, mandated by the
equality of both sides of the top equation.. And this resolution is, for each
graviton, most probably in a format of a minuscule big-bang.
This is a lesser fantasy than the dark matter and energy fantasy. Such
mass-energy gravitons may be omnipresent within each galaxies cluster,
maintaining each cluster as a primordial Newtonian body and being the
fuel-driver of expansion.
II. EOTOE, Some Implications (II)
This equation describes the presently expanding universe:
E=Total[m(1 + D)] D = distance travelled by mass since singularity
This equation describes the future contracting universe:
E=Total[m(1 + D)] D = reduced
expansion distance travelled by mass in the preceding expansion phase
Implications:
The base units of mass - may be designated gravitons but MUST have mass - are
not temporal, they never disappear.
In the present expanding universe they are in motion as mD away from the
singularity point.
Those of them that hit a whatever mass format and move it become inert. This
will go on until all or nearly all of them cease moving forward, i.e. until D
ceases growing.
When D ceases growing gravitation will overcome the inertial motion away from
the singularity point and will start pulling them back towards it. It is then
that D will start diminishing, to maintain the equation’s equality…
And MORE, MUCH MORE:
The rational commonsensical, and therefore scientifically probable, implication
is that Space is imbued with these massed gravitons that are continuously left
behind during Expansion… also as micro clusters sized between gravitons and
neutrinos…
III.
EOTOE, Some Implications (III)
Classically:
Energy = dynamic quality, the capacity of acting or being active, a fundamental
entity of nature that is transferred between componentsts of a system in the
production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the
capacity for doing work.
Mass = Mass is the quantity of inertia possessed by an object or the proportion
between force and acceleration referred to in Newton’s Second Law of Motion.
Per EOTOE :
E=Total[m(1 + D)] D = distance travelled
by mass since singularity
Energy is mass in motion.
The mass of the universe is either in motion or in the form of inert massed
gravitons, with which the universe is imbued.
m of the EOTOE equation is only the energetic m, the m which is in motion.
The inert gravitons do not play a role in the E,m,D relationship. At the
(present) universe expansion phase mass reconverts to energy at a constant
rate, leaving behind inert gravitons. Inert gravitons become energetically
active when they are reset in motion, i.e. when acted upon by energy, such as
by gravity during the universe re-contraction phase.
Dov Henis (comments from the 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com
On Light And Dark Mass And Energy
http://universe-life.com/2011/10/03/on-light-and-dark-mass-and-energy/
IV. EOTOE,
Some Implications (IV)
This equation
describes the future contracting universe:
E=Total[m(1 +
D)]
D = reduced expansion distance travelled by
mass in the preceding expansion phase
Elaboration
and conjectured implications:
D is the distance travelled by mass in all
spatial directions emanating from the Big-Bang singularity point. During
contraction it decreases, accompanied with increasing m effected by the
constant E.
A commonsensible
conjecture is that contraction is initiated following the Big-Bang event,
steadily re-forming the Universe Singularity simultaneously with the inflation
and expansion, i.e. that universal expansion and contraction are going on
simultaneously.
Additional
conjectured implications are that the Universe is a product of A Universal
Black Hole with a Singularity consisting of mass gravitons, and that
gravitation is a weak force due to the graviton’s size.
Dov Henis
(comments from the 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/2011/10/07/eotoe-some-implications-i/
http://universe-life.com/2011/10/14/eotoe-some-implications-2/
http://universe-life.com/2011/10/26/eotoe-some-implications-iii/
What if what we consider "dark energy" is really just energy that's been "frozen" by reaching absolute zero or gravitation so strong it is no longer energetic? The reason dark matter and dark energy seem to be far more abundant is because all possible energies are slowing to zero as they collide with the accumulating dark energy, rather than self-annihilating? Black holes could then be considered to be galaxies that are "inside out" which is why we can't detect them easily. We simply cannot percieve this, but all other systems decay. Furthermore, since mass converts to energy at the speed of light, perhaps energy returns to mass at absolute zero, but it does so as dark matter/energy, which "pushes back" on the remaining materials of the universe, keeping it from blowing completely apart altogether. Because a black hole can even ensnare light, perhaps the light is not destroyed or annihilated, but slowed almost to a complete stop. However, it is still energy, so it cannot be destroyed. It is transformed into dark energy and begins to return to a material state at a rate we cannot detect, possibly because it takes too long to observe; in other words, such a process began before the big bang and will take longer than it will take for the all the regular matter in the universe to be destroyed or converted into energy. Instead of accelerating particles to the speed of light, why don't we try containing them and reducing their speed as close as we can get it to zero? This would be impossible on the surface of the Earth, since Earth is always in motion. Perhaps if can get photons to absolute zero or the event horizon of a blackhole, they will change into a type of material we can't yet perceive because we see energy as matter that has been accelerated to the speed of light. What happens if we do the opposite?