Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why Acceleration Of A Universe Might Happen


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#1 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 06:06 AM

me; ''How about this? The universe will tend to expand due to a constant force (cosmological constant), acting like a constant impetus. The result of the constant pressure on spacetime to expand, gravity gets weaker as a result. The constant pressure will expand spacetime, but the presence of a weaker gravitational field as it expands, means the effects of the constant will intensify - giving rise to an acceleration.''

 

(in the conversations below the question posted)

 

https://physics.stac...dmann-expansion



#2 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 638 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 11:41 AM

me; ''How about this? The universe will tend to expand due to a constant force (cosmological constant), acting like a constant impetus. The result of the constant pressure on spacetime to expand, gravity gets weaker as a result. The constant pressure will expand spacetime, but the presence of a weaker gravitational field as it expands, means the effects of the constant will intensify - giving rise to an acceleration.''

 

(in the conversations below the question posted)

 

https://physics.stac...dmann-expansion

 

To start out the cosmological constant is not constant, it is increasing, ie the amount of dark energy is increasing. The amount of space between galaxies appears to be increasing, with a few notable exceptions like Andromeda which is getting closer to the milky way. There are also a handful of blue shifted galaxies at the outer limits of the observable universe.

 

As galaxies get further apart the gravitational effect between them is reduced and is tending towards 0 according to Penroses Aeons CCC. If there is a constant increase in pressure due to dark energy/quantum fluctuations, pushing galaxies apart, then this effect will compound as g is reduced. 



#3 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 01:01 PM

To start out the cosmological constant is not constant, it is increasing, ie the amount of dark energy is increasing.

 

Yes this is true, as Susskind put it more properly though by stating ''the cosmological constant becomes significant when a universe gets large enough,'' in conjunction with the evidence supporting acceleration in the late phase. We do not however know why the cosmological constant becomes significant in later cosmology, but I am proposing this is because gravity is weakening.



#4 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 01:02 PM

Of course the whole premise of the Hubble constant is that our observation of a redshift can only be due to relative motion.  Something the Steady Staters question--with some reason, such as the observation of Qasars.

 

Yes Quasars are not subjected to red shift -

 

https://phys.org/new...-mystifies.html



#5 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 638 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 01:20 PM

Yes Quasars are not subjected to red shift -

 

https://phys.org/new...-mystifies.html

 

That is not what the link is claiming and Hawkin has not published a paper on this subject as of today.   

"But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth."



#6 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 02:14 PM

That is not what the link is claiming and Hawkin has not published a paper on this subject as of today.   

"But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth."

 

I beg your pardon, I meant time dilation.



#7 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 638 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 03:27 PM

I beg your pardon, I meant time dilation.

 

I am easily confused. 

Do you have a paper supporting this claim other than the pop science link above, which presents no evidence to back up the claim?


Edited by Flummoxed, 01 April 2019 - 03:27 PM.


#8 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 03:34 PM

I am easily confused. 

Do you have a paper supporting this claim other than the pop science link above, which presents no evidence to back up the claim?

 

The paper being referenced is linked right in that "pop science" article, Flum:

 

More information: * On time dilation in quasar light curves, M. R. S. Hawkins, DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16581.x
Via: New Scientist

 

The results of Section 4 provide strong evidence that the effects of time dilation are not seen in quasar light curves. This clearly runs against expectations based on a conventional cosmological viewpoint, and so in this section we examine ways in which the results may be understood.

 

 

 

It looks legit.  It was published by Oxford in the "Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society" which they claim "is one of the world's leading primary research journals in astronomy and astrophysics, as well as one of the longest established."


Edited by Moronium, 01 April 2019 - 04:20 PM.


#9 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 09:01 PM

Most of these kinds of articles will link you to the paper near the end, as Moronium has pointed out. It's a good quick way to make sure the literature can back itself up.



#10 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 638 posts

Posted 02 April 2019 - 02:55 AM

The paper being referenced is linked right in that "pop science" article, Flum:

 

More information: * On time dilation in quasar light curves, M. R. S. Hawkins, DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16581.x
Via: New Scientist

 

 

 

It looks legit.  It was published by Oxford in the "Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society" which they claim "is one of the world's leading primary research journals in astronomy and astrophysics, as well as one of the longest established."

 

I missed the link at the bottom of the link, tried googling it and found nothing, thanks for that. https://academic.oup...5/3/1940/967150

 

"The main result of the paper is that quasar light curves do not show the effects of time dilation. Several explanations are discussed, including the possibility that time dilation effects are exactly offset by an increase in time-scale of variation associated with black hole growth, or that the variations are caused by microlensing in which case time dilation would not be expected."

 

Does Micro lensing sound the most probable ? 

 

Edit the red shift is definitely measured and definitely points to an expanding universe. I don't see how a dubious result on time dilation affects this.

 

Edit Tired light model https://en.wikipedia...alsified_models and the static universe have been largely discredited https://en.wikipedia...alsified_models John Crawford referenced in the paper worked on tired light and static universe. 


Edited by Flummoxed, 02 April 2019 - 03:25 AM.


#11 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 02 April 2019 - 06:18 AM

Actually things can move in a static spacetime and still appear redshifted or blueshifted. And I am not sure why you are tagging the result as dubious, as it only makes the science complicated, there is nothing wrong with their results as far as I can tell.



#12 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 638 posts

Posted 04 April 2019 - 04:25 AM

Actually things can move in a static spacetime and still appear redshifted or blueshifted. And I am not sure why you are tagging the result as dubious, as it only makes the science complicated, there is nothing wrong with their results as far as I can tell.

 

I know things do move, and I agree are red and blue shifted as they do so, without any measurable expanding space.

 

I know mainstream views take along time to change even when presented with results that suggest contrary conclusions. 

 

However I say dubious because it is fringe and not mainstream thinking. A bit like the flat earth society, they still haven't caught on :) If the conclusions were generally accepted there would be wide spread discussion of the results, and there isn't.

 

Various aether theories should be able to detect a movement through space, they cant, therefore if you are into aether theory we are not moving through space, or the aether does not exist. A form of aether however can be viewed as virtual particles of the HUP variety not the probable none existent Feynman variety. 

 

Speculating as we are, zero point energy is calculated as being way too big to be the cause of dark energy, perhaps the calculations are wrong, and do not take into account the entanglement of space time, or the expansion could be driven by temperature of the universe cooling or some other thermal entropic thing. Damn I am back to Verlindes entropic/emergent gravity. I still haven't looked into if his ideas or Sean Carrols emergent space time can explain inflation, as I am busy with other things at the moment.  


Edited by Flummoxed, 05 April 2019 - 04:13 AM.


#13 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1288 posts

Posted 04 April 2019 - 04:32 AM

I agree with Dubbel as Energy can neither be created nor destroyed the amount of Dark Energy cannot be increasing thus it must be something to do with the elasticity of the universe, the gravitational attraction of the membrane that is time-space must be weakening with attraction to itself over time the same amount of energy is causing more of a stretching over time, unless there is truly more energy being put into the universe over time by some source such as another universe which could mean that Dark Energy from another universe is entering ours if the velocity of expansion is increasing, Acceleration usually means there is a force or work upon the system, Force = Mass * Acceleration or in this case, ForceMembrane = (EDark Energy/C2)  * AccelerationExpansion, Thus the Force of  the Universe must be decreasing or the Dark Energy of the system increasing. In an accelerating expansion one of these two conditions must be satisfied in order for the Laws of physics one of the most fundamental, the Newtonian Laws of Motion to be upheld. 

 

See this could be solved for Elasticity of a Spring or string this equation too.

 

FMembrane = -KMembrane Strength * ΔxSize of Membrane 

 

In physics the Force on the membrane should increase due to the increase of Δx if the fabric of Time-space were like a spring or String due to natural expansion the force on time-space would have to be increasing at a rate of F(E2) to continue to accelerate in expansion or the K constant of Compression is decreasing by F(k1/2) being that there is a exponential weakness or Increase of energy upon the system in a spring/String view. So either Dark Energy Pressure is increasing at an exponential rate upon the universe or the weakness of the universe's binding is increasing at an exponential rate. This also gives the acceleration or Energy a negative value in the equation which is to be expected as Dark Energy should have a negative value of the energy as it causes gravitational expansion and not attraction and should match the decompression of the membrane.

 

You can also find the compressive and decompressive modulus of the universe by solving for Force along with Area of the universe manifold and Radius then Radius after expansion.

 

Equation048.png

 

The Real question is does the lend itself to the idea of the Big Rip where the universe finally buckles and breaks under the stress of Dark Energy and Energy.

 

Buckling-Critical-Load-Considerations.jp


Edited by VictorMedvil, 04 April 2019 - 05:10 AM.


#14 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 638 posts

Posted 04 April 2019 - 11:07 AM

Actually things can move in a static spacetime and still appear redshifted or blueshifted. And I am not sure why you are tagging the result as dubious, as it only makes the science complicated, there is nothing wrong with their results as far as I can tell.

 

When there is nothing going on, and only unanswerable questions exist, speculation is a good form of entertainment. There is nowt going on, on this forum at the moment. 

 

Where did I see this quote 

 

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

- Carl Sagan

 

All things MAY be entangled to a certain extent, this includes the Dark Matter effect, which is likely not due to real particles of any kind. Dark Energy which can not violate conservation of energy. The HUP and zero point energy. Virtual particle exchanges which are only theoretical but help with the maths and Feynmans diagrams. Perhaps those virtual particle exchanges are done via entanglement.

 

Dark Matter / Virtual particles aka Feynman have never been detected, the mechanism behind gravity is ultimately due to quantum mechanics and likely entanglement. Dark Energy if via the HUP or zero point energy is not real energy ie the HUP can violate conservation of energy for small periods of time, before repaying. If virtual particles momentarily appear expanding space time, then disappear before more VP reappear and further expand space time, does space time have to shrink once the VP that stretched it disappears. 

 

Space time is viewed traditionally as curved under general relativity, it can equally be viewed as flat, using a flexible ruler. ie if the ruler is at a tangent to a BH it measures a standard length, if you rotate the ruler ie your eye towards the BH the ruler shrinks. This is like looking at a shadow, ie things are distorted. 

 

There may be more to what we observe in space time than meets the eye, and trying to understand it from Newtonian mechanics point of view or a space time viewpoint, MAY not be accepting the universe as it really is, however satisfying and reassuring that might be  :sherlock:

 

Edit a couple of good links on entanglement I picked of another forum https://www.sciencen...og&context=117 

"

Entanglement can’t be visualized in spacetime terms because entanglement precedes spacetime. You need entanglement to have spacetime — it is somehow more fundamental than spacetime. So you cannot understand entanglement as something that happens within spacetime.

This strikes me as very close to Bohr’s original insight, first articulated in 1927, that a spacetime description and a cause-and-effect description are mutually exclusive. Almost nine decades later, physicists may be on the verge of understanding why those two views are incompatible, and may soon be able to show that entanglement itself provides the resolution of its own mystery."


Edited by Flummoxed, 04 April 2019 - 11:10 AM.


#15 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1288 posts

Posted 04 April 2019 - 02:48 PM

Well Time-space I agree could be entanglement bonds here is a Entanglement space. (ω1/dr13 )∇(X,Y,Z)- (ω2/dr23)∇(X,Y,Z) = 0)


Edited by VictorMedvil, 04 April 2019 - 02:58 PM.


#16 devin553344

devin553344

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 04 April 2019 - 06:13 PM

me; ''How about this? The universe will tend to expand due to a constant force (cosmological constant), acting like a constant impetus. The result of the constant pressure on spacetime to expand, gravity gets weaker as a result. The constant pressure will expand spacetime, but the presence of a weaker gravitational field as it expands, means the effects of the constant will intensify - giving rise to an acceleration.''

 

(in the conversations below the question posted)

 

https://physics.stac...dmann-expansion

 

If space-time expanded I would think the planets would just slide and stay in their original positions, seeing that space is without friction. In order for your idea to work, distance itself would have to expand between systems. And I don't think that is possible without some ambient dark energy. Even an either would still be without friction. In other words it would take a tremendous amount of energy to push against the systems within the universe. Where's the energy in your idea without dark energy?



#17 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 638 posts

Posted 05 April 2019 - 04:12 AM

A force of a dark nature ie unknown or speculative cause is causing the accelerated expansion of the universe ie distance between galaxies is increasing, with one or two alarming exceptions ANDROMEDA.  :eek:

 

We can assume :sherlock:

 

1: there is some underlying microscopic or quantum reason for the expansion. 

 

2: there is some inertial reason ie the spinning universe idea.

 

3: other DARK reason, 

 

I dont buy the spinning universe idea :out: . I am interested in the underlying cause of the expansion and of gravity and of the creation of matter, which I think has a quantum cause :shocked: would anyone agree or disagree. 

 

Looking at pre bang what drove the inflationary period assuming it happened?, what caused the matter to come into existence from space assuming it never existed before?, what caused gravity to slow the initial inflation and the formation of galaxies? and why are they now appearing to accelerate apart? Could it all be connected zeropoint energy, quantum fluctuations, virtual particles, dark energy. Can this all be modeled ? (de sitter+anti de sitter?+?+?+? space)

 

PS the terms dark energy(cosmological constant) and dark matter are just acronyms for dont know what the **** causes that effect but adding the term makes the math work. 

 

My uneducated opinion is DARK energy is a result of the HUP in a zero or low gravity environment, would any one disagree?


Edited by Flummoxed, 05 April 2019 - 04:16 AM.