Leading the quest to crack cosmological mysteries

Feb 13, 2012
Since 2007 UChicago researchers have used the South Pole Telescope in their attempt to help solve the cosmological mystery of dark energy. Little is known about this force, other than that it works against gravity and appears to have sped up the expansion of the universe. Credit: Keith Vanderline

Sometimes a scientist can only laugh in the face of a seemingly insurmountable challenge.

Such is the case with cracking the mystery of dark energy and its repulsive gravity, which is causing the to accelerate.

"People don't even get the term 'repulsive gravity' because the defining feature of gravity is that it's attractive," says Michael Turner, director of the Kavli Institute for . "What do you mean, repulsive gravity? Do you mean the theory is repulsive?" he jokes.

Turner calls dark energy "the most profound mystery in all of science." Cracking the problem requires collaborations of original thinkers working beyond the limits of current theories. That's why dark energy is one of three cosmological puzzles that the Kavli Institute will tackle over the next five years with $17 million in new funding from the National Science Foundation as a Physics Frontiers Center.

Also high on the institute's research agenda are the riddles of and cosmic inflation. Along with dark energy, these are the three pillars of modern , "and none of them can be explained with physics that we know," Turner says. "They're all pointing to ."

The South Pole Telescope uses a phenomenon called the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect to pinpoint when dark energy became important in the history of the universe. The SPT measures the slight temperature difference associated with the SZ effect to produce an image of the gas in a galaxy cluster. The deep dark spot in the middle of the images is the SZ effect from a cluster of galaxies. Credit: John Carlstrom/South Pole Collaboration

During its first decade as a Physics Frontier Center, the Kavli Institute helped to establish the current cosmological paradigm. The Institute, originally called the Center for Cosmological Physics, was founded in 2001 with a $15 million NSF grant. The Institute is launching its second decade with 21 key collaborators around the country and 15 institutional partners, including Argonne National Laboratory and .

The NSF created the Physics Frontiers Centers program to make significant advances at some of the most important intellectual frontiers in diverse physics subfields, says Joseph Dehmer, director of NSF's division of physics.

"By all measures, this has happened, and the 10 PFCs now operating reflect the extremely high standards of scholarship and synergy hoped for," Dehmer says. "An unexpected and most welcome benefit is that the PFCs act as talent magnets, drawing high levels of talent into physics. Another not unexpected benefit is that the triennial PFC competition constitutes a serious, high-level discussion across the subfields of physics — a rare 'unity of physics' event in an increasingly specialized field."

Argonne is a new partner in the UChicago PFC. Argonne and Kavli Institute scientists will develop large-scale cosmological simulations on the laboratory's supercomputers, as well as sensitive new detectors for the South Pole Telescope, which studies the cosmic microwave background radiation leftover from the birth of the universe. Kavli Institute scientists will investigate the dark energy question with the SPT and the Dark Energy Survey. The latter project, led by Fermilab, will collect data on approximately 300 million galaxies spanning two-thirds the history of the universe in order to measure with new precision.

New form of matter?

The mystery of dark matter may be easier to solve. Kavli Institute scientists hope to accomplish this feat within the next decade. They suspect that dark matter is made of a new form of matter, something that does not consist of quarks, neutrons or protons.

Dark matter may reveal itself through any or all of three means: direct detection via ground-based detectors at the Chicagoland Observatory for Underground Particle Physics (COUPP), indirect detection in the galaxy halo via satellites, and production of the particles at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, the European particle physics laboratory.

This still from a computer simulation illustrates the formation of galaxy clusters and large-scale filaments in a model of the universe, which includes cold dark matter and dark energy. Credit: Andrey Kravtsov and Anatoly Klypin

"Right now, there is confusion — claims of possible detections, counter-claims, and spirited debate — and the time is ripe to solve the dark matter problem. Our PFC hopes to shed critical light on dark matter," says Rocky Kolb, the University's Arthur Holly Compton Distinguished Service Professor in Astronomy & Astrophysics, who leads the PFC's dark matter effort.

is a different kind of problem. It has emerged as the most important cosmological concept since the Big Bang theory, but many of its claims have not yet been thoroughly tested. Inflation proposes that the universe expanded extremely rapidly in a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Such a swift expansion would explain some important questions that Big Bang theory alone has been unable to answer.

"We have some circumstantial evidence that inflation took place, but we'd like to make the case very strongly," says John Carlstrom, the S. Chandrasekhar Distinguished Service Professor in Astronomy & Astrophysics. A more direct indication of inflation would be to look for a minute sign of polarization in the cosmic microwave background, the afterglow of the Big Bang.

For the last decade, center scientists including Carlstrom and the late Bruce Winstein have been developing a technology capable of measuring this polarization. Now they need to deploy that technology to see what they can find.

The successful Kavli Institute proposal for the Physics Frontiers Center was more than two years in the making and included significant support from the university administration and behind-the-scenes personnel.

Winstein, the Samuel K. Allison Distinguished Service Professor in and founder of the original PFC, also played a big role in developing the proposal for renewed funding. Winstein, who lost a four-year battle with cancer last February, worked on the proposal until his last days, Turner says.

"During the last months of his life, he was parceling out his time only to the most important things, and we got a lot of his time. Our PFC is part of Bruce's legacy."

Explore further: Thermoelectric power plants could offer economically competitive renewable energy

Related Stories

Dark energy -- 10 years on

Nov 30, 2007

Three quarters of our universe is made up of some weird, gravitationally repulsive substance that was only discovered ten years ago – dark energy. This month in Physics World, Eric Linder and Saul Perlmutter, both at the ...

Cosmologists aim to observe first moments of universe

Feb 16, 2009

During the next decade, a delicate measurement of primordial light could reveal convincing evidence for the popular cosmic inflation theory, which proposes that a random, microscopic density fluctuation in ...

Kavli Gift Brightens Study of Dark Energy

Aug 04, 2004

MIT research on the most exciting questions in astrophysics and space science has been recognized by a $7.5 million gift from the Kavli Foundation that will jumpstart new studies of the cosmos. "The Kavli gift ...

UBC physicists make atoms and dark matter add up

Nov 29, 2010

Physicists at the University of British Columbia and TRIUMF have proposed a unified explanation for dark matter and the so-called baryon asymmetry -- the apparent imbalance of matter with positive baryon charge and antimatter ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 124

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2012
May be this could give some hint

http://www.vacuum...id=14=en
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2012
dark matter is made of a new form of matter, something that does not consist of quarks, neutrons or protons
IMO it's mostly composed of common neutrinos. These neutrinos are behaving like the sparse antimatter. We have excessive dark matter and missing antimatter - this hypothesis is therefore the very first one, which should be taken into account. http://aetherwave...ter.html Why is it avoided so carefully?
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2012
The concept of repulsive gravity is not quite correct for antimatter, though. You may imagine it like positively curved bubble at the watter surface, filled with longitudinal waves preferentially. But such a bubble deforms water space in the same way, like the bubble of negative curvature and it slows down the spreading of surface waves in this place like gravitational lens in vacuum. http://www.aether...arge.gif The opposite curvature of gravitational potential will manifest only in mutual contact/collision of such objects or during their acceleration. The positive bubble objects will advance the negatively curved objects slightly. It's demonstration of so-called gravitational charge - a weak five-dimensional effect, which violates equivalence principle of classical general relativity and replaces it with more general one.
julianpenrod
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 13, 2012
The same lie about the universe supposedly "speeding up" at five billion years ago. The "proof" is that, at five billion light years, galaxies are "farther away than they should be". Galaxies closer in, meaning later than the "speeded up" galaxies, conform to a lower Hubble Constant. But, if the entire universe sped up simultaneously, then no part continued to move at a slower speed. So galaxies closer to us, sped up likewise. So there should be no discontinuity between the measured speeds out to the galaxies five billion years ago and the ones later, meaning, closer to us. If they "sped up" five billion years ago, it shouold be the galaxies further out than five billion light years that move at a lower Hubble Constant!
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2012
The same lie about the universe supposedly "speeding up" at five billion years ago
This is just a consequence of the fact, all galaxies are surrounded with dark matter up to five billion light years distance, which makes vacuum more dense and space-time expanded. Above this distance the dark energy effect becomes more pronounced. In dense aether model this behavior is a product of dispersion of light with quantum noise of vacuum and it manifests itself even at the water surface with surface ripples dispersed with Brownian noise of underwater. http://people.rit...4565.jpg This dispersion is nonlinear and just above minimal distance from source of waves becomes prominent and it manifests with collapsing of wavelength of surface ripples. From intrinsic perspective of observer at the water surface such a dispersion will appear like accelerated expansion of space-time, formed with this water surface.

Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2012
if the entire universe sped up simultaneously, then no part continued to move at a slower speed. So galaxies closer to us, sped up likewise
This is so-called Einstein's expansion paradox http://www.scienc...ox-85942 and the dispersive model of Universe expansion explains it clearly. Due the dispersion the seeming expansion of Universe is relative with position of observer at every place of Universe in the same way, like the collapse of wavelength of ripples at the water surface. We are experiencing accelerated inflation for remote objects at the Hubble deep field in the same way, like the remote observers will experience it for us from their own perspective. None of observers could perceive anything unusual locally.
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2012
Cosmic inflation is a different kind of problem. It has emerged as the most important cosmological concept since the Big Bang theory
In the dispersive model of Universe expansion the inflation arises naturally. At the water surface the speed of surface ripples dispersion accelerates with distance from observer in avalanche-like way and at the certain distance from observer it proceeds very fast. http://www.carden...ples.jpg Voila! - the inflation is here.

But the dispersive model is even more predicative than that and it leads to the quite opposite evolution of Universe at the long-wavelength spectrum. In radiowaves the same Universe should appear collapsing from our local perspective. http://www.aether...ples.jpg Best of all, we have some indicia of this "blue shift" observed already - they're just so "revolutionary", they're simply ignored with mainstream.
OverweightAmerican
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 13, 2012
At first I thought that picutre looked like a guy dressed as dracula playing a piano
rwinners
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2012
It seems to me that 'gravitational energy' may be either positive or negative, and perhaps this occurs on the basis of the distance of any one gravitation source to another.
I can imagine a universe in which 'too close' means gravitational and 'too far' means antiG.
Can you?
RayInLv
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2012
The hypothesis that the expansion of the universe is accelerating is based on the observation that galaxies farther away are receding faster. The speed is measured using Doppler effect and Type 1A Supernova light.

But direct measurement of the actual implied acceleration is not possible using the Doppler effect.

So their really might be no Dark Energy. That difference in speed might just be the way it is..

After all the leading edge of any expansion is faster than at other places.
Callippo
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2012
The whole notion of Universe expansion is based on the red shift observation of shortwavelenght light. But the CMBR radiation is not redshifted with distance at all and many red-shift effects (like the Sunyaev-Zeldovitch or integrated Sachs-Wolf effect) are missing for it. And distant radiowave sources even seems to attenuate with distance. In accordance with it, the remote galaxies appear larger, not smaller. http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4956 It's apparently geometric effect, similar to blurring of distant objects in foggy atmosphere - such objects usually appear larger from distance.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2012
Why the last comment was uprated with five points by vercle, although it just promotes the very same logics, like the above four posts, labeled with one point by the same person? The way of thinking of some people is really funny.
Turritopsis
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2012
"Dark Matter"

Most likely there is none.

The same energy that is expanding space between galaxies, is compressing galaxies. And causing rotation. The galaxies around the milkyway are energetically interacting with it.

The absorption (reception of energy) of all of the energy, of all of the galaxies, is compressing the milky way (missing mass type effect) causing dynamical motion (hence rotation, spinning arms).

The notion that the rotation should cause the stars to blow out of the galaxy is ridiculus. it totally undermine the nature of rotation.

The galactic spirals are caused by pressure action upon the galaxy. The pressure pushes the galaxies apart, that's inflation.

Now should galaxies (or their components) explode, that excess energy causes accelerated expansion.

Maybe even on the quantum level. On the quantum level particles can go faster than light, skip space and time. Their energy converts to field potential and they appear in another spacial coordinate.
StarGazer2011
1.8 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2012
Quick question regarding DE and expansion of space time... we measure this stuff by looking at galaxies and redshift, and talk about space time expanding. Is the space between the electron and proton of any given hydrogen atom expanding, or just the distances between galaxies?
Turritopsis
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2012
If you take a flat body of water and visualize it to be the universe, (which isn't hard, lol, because the water is made of atoms and so is the universe), a particle exceeding maximum speed of the water just pops out of it. All of a sudden the particle is flying through air, occasionally rebounding off the water surface (the universe). The particle spends most of its time in hyperspace. Like a skipping rock on a pond. After the energy levels of the particle settle it returns to the water. The rock falls into the water, skips over.

The resistance to motion when overcome causes a rupturing of the system. The particle with a lot of energy skips out of spacetime until the energy levels become lower than the resistive barrier, c, a wormhole is created.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2012
Quick question regarding DE and expansion of space time... we measure this stuff by looking at galaxies and redshift, and talk about space time expanding. Is the space between the electron and proton of any given hydrogen atom expanding, or just the distances between galaxies?


As the universe spreads it cools. As atoms lose energy their radius gets smaller. Until you get a BEC. At that point the atoms are superclose. Almost one atom. To us though. Size is relative. You'll see.

The energy of the atoms is causing space to grow. In the process the atoms shrink (their energy goes into expansion of space).

So as you see, as space grows, atoms shrink.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 13, 2012
Quick question regarding DE and expansion of space time... we measure this stuff by looking at galaxies and redshift, and talk about space time expanding. Is the space between the electron and proton of any given hydrogen atom expanding, or just the distances between galaxies?


Atoms and galaxies don't expand themselves because of the counter forces that hold them together, charge and gravitation respectively. The atomic size does not change.
Turritopsis
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2012
So what's wrong with the math?

We can't see atoms shrink. As they do, we do. Size is relative.

We are tied to the atomic scale.

The universe is seen as expanding faster than it should falsely. Yes, the galaxies are pushing each other apart.

The missing part of the equation (DarkEnergy) is a relative effect. If you and I are 10 meters apart and we are 2 meters tall, and we shrink to half our height (1 m) what's happened to the space between us?

It is still 10 meters, yes, but where before we were separated by 5 body lengths, now we are separated by 10 bodylengths.

In reality we wouldn't have a fixed point of reference. As we get smaller so would the measuring tape. After shrinking we'd still be 2 meters tall, using our measuring tape to gauge the distance between us we'd get 20 meters.

Such is the nature of space.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2012
We shrink in half again it's 40meters, in half again its 80 meters.

Accelerating expansion each generation.
StarGazer2011
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2012
@Turritopsis: Wow ... blew my mind a bit there:)
@Noumenon: If the attractive forces between an electron and proton keep them at same distance even though space is expanding, where does the energy to do that come from? How can you even say the distance is the same if the space being measured has changed?
Let me ask another question, if space is expanding, and attractive forces keep the distance between a proton and electron in H constant (somehow), why isnt the proton itself expanding?
My brain hurts, but I think i like Turritopsis' answer better, must ponder.
StarGazer2011
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2012
ooh ooh ... AND ... if space is expanding in all directions equally, shouldnt volume be increasing at the 3rd power of that expansion? Now THAT would be noticeable, since the ratio of volume of say Jupiter to its orbital distance from the Sun would be changing. Vjup1 = 4pir^3/3, Djupsun1 = x, expand by a factor y in all directions, Vjup2 =4pi(y*r)^3/3 = (4*pi*y^3*r^3)/3, Djupsun2 = yx, Vjup1:Djupsun1 => 4pir^3/3x DOES NOT EQUAL Vjup2:Djupsun2 => (4pir^3y^3)/3yx = 4pir^3y^2/3x ... theyre totally different, the ratio is increasing by y^2. Where x is the Jup->Sun distance and r is the radius of Jupiter. Any thoughts?
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 14, 2012
The original gauge theory was one of scale invariance (Weyl's attempt to unify GR and EM), but was shown by Einstein to be empirically wrong, and admitted so by H. Weyl. It would evolve to phase invariance instead.

http://en.wikiped...geometry
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 14, 2012
@Noumenon: If the attractive forces between an electron and proton keep them at same distance even though space is expanding, where does the energy to do that come from? How can you even say the distance is the same if the space being measured has changed?


The Bohr radius is based on physical constants that have not been observed to change. Although light from distant stars is red-shifted, the spectral lines remain the same relative positions.
Sonhouse
4 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2012
Has anyone thought about possible consequences of there being multiple universes? Suppose our universe is 'surrounded' (in a higher dimensional way) by other universes and the sum of the gravity of however many are 'close' to ours simply pulling at our universe from the outside, no negative gravity needed. It would seem like that if we were one 'universe bubble' next to millions of other bubble universes, the closest ones acting on ours.
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2012
The problem is that you enter into metaphysics proposing unobservable things i.e. unobservable matter from another universe effecting ours gravitationally.
EverythingsJustATheory
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2012
The whole notion of Universe expansion is based on the red shift observation of shortwavelenght light. But the CMBR radiation is not redshifted with distance at all


Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole reason the CMBR is in microwaves is because it has been red-shifted into microwaves from higher frequency light. How would CMBR have varying red-shifts over distance when it all comes from the same distance?
Turritopsis
2 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2012
The problem is that you enter into metaphysics proposing unobservable things i.e. unobservable matter from another universe effecting ours gravitationally.


Seriously?

How about the metaphysics of "unobservable matter" from our own universe? ie. darkmatter.
Turritopsis
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2012
Where's Otto when you need him?

Paging doctor Otto! Noumenon needs a dose of his reality medicine.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2012
The problem is that you enter into metaphysics proposing unobservable things i.e. unobservable matter from another universe effecting ours gravitationally.


Seriously?

How about the metaphysics of "unobservable matter" from our own universe? ie. darkmatter.


Dark matter is not unobservable, it just hasn't been observed yet.

There is a fundamental difference between 'unobservable' and 'not yet observed'.

Cosmologists proposing DM, fully expect it to be in this universe, and therefore observable.
Turritopsis
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2012
Alternate universes are not unobservable, they just haven't been observed yet.

See I can state nonsense too.
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2012
Alternate universes are not unobservable, they just haven't been observed yet.

See I can state nonsense too.


You mean, again.

If matter from another universe could be observed in principal, then what would make it 'another universe'?
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2012
If darkmatter from our universe could be seen then how would it be dark?
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2012
If darkmatter from our universe could be seen then how would it be dark?


If it does not emit electromagnetic radiation, then it can't be detected via that field, but this does not mean it is unobservable.

http://en.wikiped...etection
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2012
Dark matter curves the space-time and it exhibits cohesion. It's apparently a "matter", just very diluted one. After all, how some dense cloud of neutrinos would appear, for example?
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2012
Crap!

Is everything you're stating Noumenon.

Multidimensional theories are just as wild and unproven as the darkmatter theory.

You're saying M-theory (for example) is metaphysical, while the DarkMatter theory is physical.

Why don't you give me some physical characteristics of a dark matter particle.
Turritopsis
2 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2012
Dark matter curves the space-time and it exhibits cohesion. It's apparently a "matter", just very diluted one. After all, how some dense cloud of neutrinos would appear, for example?


Gravity from adjacent branes is causing our brane (space-time) to bend. The gravity leaking through from adjacent branes is causing a lensing effect in our universe.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2012
Multidimensional theories are just as wild and unproven as the darkmatter theory.

Multidimensional relativity is a hot topic, in particular just with respect to dark matter models. For many relativists it will be quite palatable approach not to change the general relativity as such - just to add some extra dimensions to it. After all, the general relativity itself is four-dimensional theory already and even Einstein wasted with five-dimensional gravity a substantial part (if not whole) rest of his life.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2012
In dense aether theory the multidimensional approach has its firm place, but you're not required to use it, because the concept of nested density fluctuations in just 3D space is roughly equivalent. For example, the hyperdimensional gravity field is behaving like slimy non-Newtonian fluid, which can be described with needle-like particle geometry. Where the extradimensions are here? Just inside of compacted geometry of spherical particles of this non-Newtonian fluid. http://www.physor...795.html
So, whereas I'm not big friend of schematic fuzzy theories like the F-, K-, L- or M-theory, I can still recognize the importance of extradimensions for future formal physics. But for most laymans its dual aetheric version will be more palatable.
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2012
@Turritopsis

As I said DM is proposed as a physical matter that can be detected in principal. If it is shown that there is not anything actually out there, that is, if no DM is found, cosmologist are not going to keep the idea around anyway, ....whereas the multi-universe idea to kept around despite not being observable even in principal. If another universe could be detected, in principal, it wouldn't qualify as 'another universe'.

Invoking 'another universe' of degrees of freedom to explain phenomena in this universe is the epitome of the tail-wagging-the-dog, IMO, and is not science proper.

This is the problem with string theory,.. invoking an inordinate amount of empirically unjustified degrees of freedom or variables, eventually can solve any problem, and therefore not apply to any particular universe uniquely. Actually if string theory is testable but the empirically unjustified degrees of freedom are just considered mathematical constructs, it will be considered science imo.
StarGazer2011
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2012
@Noumenon: Guage/phase invariance, cool thanks. I think thats what Turritipos was getting at. Still not clear how having the ratio of the volume of a sphere and that centre of the speres distance to a separate point doesnt violate guage invariance by allowing access to the underlying expansion factor. Maybe it will become clear reading about phase invariance.
Noumenon
3.1 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2012
@Noumenon: Guage/phase invariance, cool thanks. I think thats what Turritipos was getting at. Still not clear how having the ratio of the volume of a sphere and that centre of the speres distance to a separate point doesnt violate guage invariance by allowing access to the underlying expansion factor. Maybe it will become clear reading about phase invariance.

No, phase invariance came after Weyl's original gauge idea, and was applied to qm, ... nothing to do with the above.

I only mentioned Weyl's original gauge theory in reference to the idea put forth by Turritopsis of scale symmetry, ,... at least that's how I read his post.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2012
Why don't you give me some physical characteristics of a dark matter particle.

DM (preatomic space junk) looks very similar to protons and neutrons, except smaller, and without the quarks. DM is a product of DE. DE and spacetime fabric are one, and the same.
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2012
Dark matter appears at places, where the gravity is shielded. Because gravity itself is the product of gravitational waves shielding, the dark matter is formed with areas where the gravitational waves are more richer. The more galaxies are aligned to line, the stronger this shielding is. http://www.aether...ines.gif
The gravitational waves are essentially longitudinal waves of vacuum, whereas light waves are transverse waves. The solitons of light wave are photons, the solitons of gravitational waves are the neutrinos. The dark matter is therefore richer to neutrinos and it appears like dense cloud of tiny sparse bubbles of vacuum, where the CMBR noise is more intensive.
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2012
Because massive bodies inside of Universe are in dynamic motion, the dark matter fibers which are connecting them are movable and they're jumping from galaxy to galaxy. Whenever conjunction of galaxies will occur, then the dark matter fibers are enforced between them along their common axis. http://www.aether...foam.gif In this sense the dark matter fibbers are similar to gluons inside of atom nuclei. In addition, the dark matter foam penetrates deeply inside of galaxies - actually it replicates itself, and it connects individual star clusters there, being a part of nested foam hiearchy there.

http://www.aether...sion.gif
typicalguy
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2012
I like the idea that dark matter consists of a huge amount of tiny black holes created at the big bang. I understand that micro lack holes are impossible in relativity without extra dimensions as in string theory and since I don't believe in string theory, I have to admit my preference to explain DM is almost certainly the right explanation. If micro black holes are possible at all then the big bang conditions MUST produce them in large quantity.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2012
even Einstein wasted with five-dimensional


Dimension 0.

Coolest dimension (D1, D2, D3), time (T1) last (D0). D0 is the 5th and weirdest dimension. It allows travel to any dimensional point (D1', D2', D3') from any point (D1, D2, D3) with complete disregard for space time.

If a particle breaks lightspeed it tunnels through zero space. It cannot occupy space time because its broken its law.

Blackholes break spacetime laws.

As a particle falls into a blackhole its speed reaches c, crossing the blackholes horizon accelerates the particle further towards the singularity.

c reached at approach of horizon. Accelerates past horizon towards singularity. Any velocity past c places the particle in dimension 0. Wormhole.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2012
Light speed is reached by the time the particle reaches the blackholes event horizon. Acceleration continues after crossing the event horizon on way to singularity.

The particle is in another dimension.

D0.

Maybe? It'll return when its velocity falls under c.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2012
Light cannot escape a blackhole because the blackhole is faster. Faster than light. Infinite in speed as it takes zero time to move in dimension 0, lol.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2012
But for that particle to get anywhere actually requires dimensionality of some sort.

That's the hyper field.

The particle to get anywhere requires a routing.

Because the particle is 3D the course will correspond. The wormhole conforms to 3D particle therefore the wormhole is 3D.

D0 becomes a 3Dimensional world.

The travel takes time in hyperspace but is no longer part of space-time, only energy potential.

The particle still experiences spacetime but no longer corresponds to ours.

New spacetime rules apply.

If directionality is applied a wormhole could be controlled to emerge at any spacetime point. 0 seconds to go 12 billion light year distance. 12x10^9/0=? lol

Wait the speed is already up there.

Infinite.

As it comes into D0 it comes out D0'. No time lapse.

The particle experiences zero space as if it were 3D 'cause it imprints.

Like the air around my body is in the shape of my body. Inverse me.
Turritopsis
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2012
If you were running a race and you exceeded c you could get to the checkered flag, turn around and watch remnants of your energy return to yourself, lol.

That is called anti-radiation. Instead of you radiating energy away, you anti-radiate it to you.

Antiradiation is time reversal.

Like tachyon energy.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2012
Control of a wormhole could actually place a particle in any of 4D (D1,D2,D3,T1).

Depending on how antiradiative energy is applied.

You could appear any time coordinate from 0-13.7 billion years.

But I don't think the universe exists in any than the current state. Futures evolving, pasts already evolved.

Some believe tachyon energy allows for travel in time.

Possibly.

I believe only present exists. How many concurrent nows exist is beyond me.

But tachyon energy is the capture of your own time. Instead of radiating it away as normal you also gain it back because your radiation returns to you.

T1 minus its equivalent amount = zero time.

Inverse time nulls time.

Only space is cheated. Time still evolves. Which is good you can leave the earth arrive at mars in 0 seconds. Come back in 0 seconds.

Only the present exists in our dimension. Arrive in real time. No paradox.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2012
Some believe tachyon energy can be used for time travel.

It's possible.

I think not, I think tachyon energy can only nullify time. Like T1 plus antiT1.

Only the now exists, I think. The future will evolve. The past has already evolved. Now we are evolving.

Which is good if you enter a wormhole in Earths orbit and reach Mars in 0seconds. Do your thing for 72 earth hours and return to Earths orbit in 72 hours.

No paradox.

Only space is cheatable. Time isn't.

You wouldn't arrive in a distant future or distant past because those don't exist.

Time is not travelable.

You won't come back to some distant future when you return from your journey, or come back to meet yourself. Only one now exists in our universe. The antiradiation just nulls time. What you radiate (time 1) you antiradiate (time 2, equivalent to inverse time1). T1-T2=0

How many other universes exist in their nows? Anywhere between 0 and infinite in my opinion, lol.

Are those other nows reachable?
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2012
Tachyon energy halts evolution. Like a "pause button" on the universal remote. Lol.

Pun intended.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2012
Is 'Turritopsis' an alternate spelling of 'Tourette's, ...because that's what you seem to have.
typicalguy
4.7 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2012
Tachyon's are an unproven particle type. They have even less to prove their existence than dark matter. With dark matter, we can tell through observation that SOMETHING is happening. Tachyons on the other hand are just the name of any particle going faster than C. No tachyons have been confirmed and they are complete constructs of theory. When people's equations pop out tachyons, they go back to the drawing board and try to correct the problems that led to them.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2012
Velocity of c is reached as a particle approaches a blackholes event horizon. The particle gains additional velocity between the event horizon and the singularity.

Meaning. As a particle enters a blackhole it departs space-time, because no speeds greater than c are attainable within it.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2012
I like the idea that dark matter consists of a huge amount of tiny black holes created at the big bang. I understand that micro lack holes are impossible in relativity without extra dimensions as in string theory and since I don't believe in string theory, I have to admit my preference to explain DM is almost certainly the right explanation. If micro black holes are possible at all then the big bang conditions MUST produce them in large quantity.

Quarks, electrons, neutrinos, etc. are higher dimensional micro black holes. Some dark matter could have been created during the big bang, but most of it is continuously being created by dark energy (spacetime fabric). You are correct that string theory (M-theory) is not the final solution
manfredrc
not rated yet Feb 16, 2012
This stuff is way above my pay grade. I can follow some of it but then you guys get to the math. Sigh. Time to hit the books again.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2012
My God.

I literally cannot tell the difference any more between the cranks and the so-called scientists any more.

You can't even get two people on the same thread to agree with what the observations are, never mind the interpretation of the prevailing theory.
javjav
not rated yet Feb 17, 2012
@Turritopsis: Wow ... blew my mind a bit there:)
@Noumenon: If the attractive forces between an electron and proton kee
p them at same distance even though space is expanding, where does the energy to do that come from? .


No additional energy is needed, it is the oposite, energy is needed to expand space and accelerate massive objects, not too keep them as they are.

You need to apply energy to expand the mass of a pizza, and then the olives on it will accelerate, but they will remain the same size
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2012
My God.

I literally cannot tell the difference any more between the cranks and the so-called scientists any more.

It's pretty easy. Those with a profile rating of 2.5 or less on average are most likely cranks. Those with ratings of 2 or less are either conspiracy theorists or religious nutjobs (or both).
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2012
My God.

I literally cannot tell the difference any more between the cranks and the so-called scientists any more.

It's pretty easy. Those with a profile rating of 2.5 or less on average are most likely cranks. Those with ratings of 2 or less are [most likely] either conspiracy theorists or religious nutjobs (or both). [Or maybe their language skills aren't as eloquent as ours, leaving them misunderstood.]


I must say, I agree with you antialias_physorg.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2012
energy is needed to expand space and accelerate massive objects.


Which is exactly what StarGazer2011 was asking.

Where is that expansion energy coming from?

Atoms are radiating energy which is expanding space. As they radiate their energy away they get smaller (they shrink like a stricken, flaming, radiating match). Atoms shrink as the universe grows.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2012
The olives...will remain the same size


No. They will dehydrate, shrivel and shrink.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2012
Erm. They get smaller? But mass stays the same? How does that work?
And the ratio of proton size to electron size also stays the same? And the energy of emitted photons stays the same even though when the atoms 'shrink' the difference in orbital energies shrink with it - so that when we excite an atom we should get, upon the electron falling back, photons of lesser energy?
...

Somehow - and I can't put my finger on it - there might be some tiny issue with this 'theory'.

Oh, wait. My bad. I figured it out. There are no tiny issue. It's just complete BS.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2012
Alright how about another approach then.

We can agree atoms radiate energy, correct?

We can agree on the energy-mass equivalence, correct?

So how can atoms lose energy/mass through radiation (alpha, beta and gamma) without losing mass/energy?

Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2012
mass stays the same


In relation to other mass. That's how.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2012
We can agree atoms radiate energy, correct?

No. Why should they? I don't see atoms spontaneously radiating photons away all the time. If they did we'd all be constantly aglow.

We can agree on the energy-mass equivalence, correct?
Sure

So how can atoms lose energy/mass through radiation (alpha, beta and gamma) without losing mass/energy?

Alphas are helium nuclei. An atom that decays by expelling an alpha loses that mass (and some more because the nucleons rearrange into a more stable - less energy intensive - configuration. This energy saving is converted into the impulse of the expelled alpha)

Betas are electrons. A neutron in the nucleus is converted to a proton and an electron (which is expelled along with an antineutrino for impulse reasons). Note that netrons are heavier than protons - so there is your lost mass (plus, again, the kinetic energy which, as above, comes from reconfiguration )

There's also beta plus which is basically the same with positrons

antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2012
Gamma decay is photons. Gamma decay happens usually after alpha or beta decay because the atom is usually left in an excited state after those decays (i.e. electrons of that atom are in 'higher' orbitals than their ground state). When they fall back to their ground state they emit that energy as a photon (a gamma)

This is lost energy (and therefore lost mass). Excited atoms DO have more mass than those in their ground state.

So to answer your question: All forms of decay end up with the decaying atom losing some mass.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2012
Why don't you go in the darkest room you can find, take an infrared camera, and see if your body is "aglow"ing photons.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2012
All forms of decay end up with the decaying atom losing some mass.


There you go.

As atoms emit energy, they shrink in size.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2012
Yes. Chemical processes in our bodies (as well as anything else that heats us up like motion, impacting radiation from outside, ...) excites atoms (i.e. lifts the occasional electron into a higher orbital). When that falls back then a photon is emitted (usually infrared).

You may know that cooled atoms do not radiate because no energy was put in that can radiate out (unless they decay via alpha or beta decay)

Summary: atoms only radiate stuff that was either in them and unstable to begin with (alpha, beta, gamma) or stuff that was put in there first from other sources (anything from infrared to gamma - depending on the source)
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2012
As atoms emit energy, they shrink in size.

No.

An atom does not decay via alpha or beta decay and stay that same type of atom. It is transmuted (because the number of nucleons and/or protons change) to a lighter element. The sum over energies stays constant.

Uranium that decays via alpha decay gives you thorium and an alpha - not a smaller uranium.
When uranium decays via beta decay it gives you Neptunium and an electron

Iron (which is very stable) stays the same. It doesn't emit anything, ever, unless you first excite it by putting energy in - and then you get EXACTLY that energy out again when it radiates that away.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2012
No. Why should they? I don't see atoms spontaneously radiating photons away all the time. If they did we'd all be constantly aglow.


Actually, they do radiate energy: infrared.

In the absence of nearby fusion or fission heat source, all matter would eventually cool to absolute Zero, or at least arbitrarily close to absolute zero over cosmic time scales.

if you were out in the middle of space between the Sun and Alpha Centauri, the temperature is only a few kelvin. If you made a cloud of gas that was hot there, the energy would radiate away, through infrared, back to a local equilibrium...eventually.

the reason you aren't glowing is because visible photons are only emitted at a higher temperature, in most cases.

After all, night vision and other thermal cameras work by detecting body heat and other ambient heat radiating away from a person's skin and organs...

Actually, you ARE glowing, you just can't see it.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2012
You don't get it. As space gets larger (as distances between galaxies grow), energy diffuses. As density becomes lower the temperature of the universe does. The temperature of the universe is approaching absolute zero as time evolves (thermodynamics).

Atoms follow the trend.

Cool hydrogen close to 0 Kelvin and watch how the atom gets smaller in radius.

Is it still a hydrogen atom?
Lurker2358
2 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2012
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermographic_camera

Glowing dog.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2012
But it's not spontenous. That's the point.

Atoms aren't shrinking. If they're radiating photons then they aren't radiating stuff that wasn't put in first. And then they radiate EXACTLY that amount away that was put in. Not more. Not less.

When they expell particles (alphas, betas) then they don't shrink to smaller versions of themselves. They are transmuted to a lighter atom type on the periodic table. You can't go on beyond the lightest element (actually iron is already the stopping point because it is the most stable coming from both ways: fusion or fission...if you want iron to 'decay' (or fuse) even more you have to first bombard it with energy)

Cool hydrogen close to 0 Kelvin and watch how the atom gets smaller in radius.

Wherever did you get that idea?
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2012
Heat it back up and it grows.

If the universe suddenly shifted and started heading towards a big crunch, the density would start increasing, so would temperature.

Atoms would start to grow and space would begin to shrink.

Got it?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2012
Particle accelerators add energy to protons. Protons grow in size with relation to the energy they receive.

As energy is lost the opposite takes place: the protons shrink in size.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2012
Heat it back up and it grows.

Again I ask: Where did you get that idea?

What happens when you cool an atom (take away energy) is this: it vibrates less. It's size (distance of electron from nucleus) stay the same.
What happens when you heat up an atom (put in more energy) is this: it vibrates more (distances stay the same)

If you put in much more energy you can cause an electron to go to a higher orbital (which would technically make it larger for the duration). But you get EXACTLY that amount of energy back when the electron falls back to its ground state - as it does shortly except under the most drastic conditions...and under THOSE conditions you usually are way beyond ionization energy. I.e. you put so much energy in that the electron flies off and you are left with a proton and an electron (what is called a plasma - which doesn't classify as atoms anymore)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2012
Particle accelerators add energy to protons. Protons grow in size with relation to the energy they receive.

Protons in particle accelerators
a) Aren't atoms
b) Don't grow in size (they increase in impules because their mass stays the same but their speed grows. They have more energy. What you possibly mean is that their REST MASS grows. That is the mass that they WOULD have if all that kinetic energy were converted to mass and the proton WERE at rest. This is just a fictional number because the proton cannot be brought to a halt and retain that energy/mass. It would shed the energy.
c) Their cross section changes. This is NOT to be confused with size. Cross section is a measure used to denote the PROBABILITY of two particles interacting. This can be highly nonlinear (e.g. in fusion reactors neutrons of very low speed or of very high speed may have a low cross sections with respect to the moderator material while those of average speed may have a high cross section)
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2012
vibrates less


Exactly.

The electron cloud radius from nuclei gets smaller.

The atom doesn't vibrate as much.

The atomic radius, the electromagnetic field of the atom, reduces in size. In your words the atom vibrates in a smaller 3D volume.

The distance to the nuclei reduces in a dispersive (expanding) field. The em energy of interacting quarks and electrons produce radiation.

The atom is neutral. It is hot. It radiates heat as the negative and positive charges partially and fully annihilate (this is why there is a varying spectrum, minor interactions disperse lower energy photons, eg. heat).

As the universe is expanding it is cooling. The quarks and electrons are ineracting and producing photons, a full interaction produces a gamma photon (high energy quanta density), electron, positron, atomic ash (neutrinos).

So yeah, as space grows atoms shrink (lower vibrational energy).

Gamma rays will push you away into oblivion.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2012
The electron cloud radius from nuclei gets smaller.

No. Orbital geometries are quantized. They don't grow or shrink. At all.

If an atom vibrates as a whole then it may LOOK bigger (just like if you take a ball and move it very fast back and forth it may LOOK like it is a line - but it always stays a ball).

This is why...
The distance to the nuclei reduces in a dispersive (expanding) field. The em energy of interacting quarks and electrons produce radiation.

...is not observed. No radiation is PRODUCED.

The atom is neutral. It is hot. It radiates heat as the negative and positive charges partially and fully annihilate

Nope. Electrons have a full charge (no electrons with partial charges have ever been observed). No annihilation takes place. Electrons can't interact with the protons in the nucleus because of Pauli exclusion. Their orbitals are quantized. (A rare exception is beta decay, but that produces and entirely different signature - as explained before)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2012
(this is why there is a varying spectrum, minor interactions disperse lower energy photons, eg. heat).

This, too, is not observed. Atoms have very characteristic, quantized values of absorption and emission (Exatly the energies of electrons to go between the quantized orbitals). This is why we see absorption and emissin LINES in (solar) spectra.
http://en.wikiped...troscopy

As the universe is expanding it is cooling.

Only due to redshift (because of expansion) of already created photons. Atoms don't grow or shrink. That's the thing with the QUANTIZED nature of some stuff which frobids exactly thyt sort of thing. If we didn't have that then the universe would have ceased to exist long ago.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2012
You don't get it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2012
You don't get it.

I just think you really need to start getting an understanding of some very basic physics before formulating theories.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2012
You can go on thinking whatever you like.
Shootist
2.2 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2012
Why the last comment was uprated with five points by vercle, although it just promotes the very same logics, like the above four posts, labeled with one point by the same person? The way of thinking of some people is really funny.


Where is Oliver? At least his crackpot theories were entertaining.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2012
At least his crackpot theories were entertaining
= easy to disprove.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2012
It's pretty easy. Those with a profile rating of 2.5 or less on average are most likely cranks. Those with ratings of 2 or less are either conspiracy theorists or religious nutjobs (or both).
Oh really? Let's see what you got big mouth!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2012
Oh really? Let's see what you got big mouth!

You have a problem with my opinion? You think those that consistently get rated as 'trash' on this site are all unknown Einsteins who just happen to be misunderstood and/or actively repressed by the establishment - and so they must now resort to grassroots approaches for their genius and convert every teenager commenting on an unimportant sci-journalism site to their cause as a first step in their genius plan for ascent to grandeur and recognition?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2012
Oh really? Let's see what you got big mouth!

You have a problem with my opinion? You think those that consistently get rated as 'trash' on this site are all unknown Einsteins who just happen to be misunderstood and/or actively repressed by the establishment - and so they must now resort to grassroots approaches for their genius and convert every teenager commenting on an unimportant sci-journalism site to their cause as a first step in their genius plan for ascent to grandeur and recognition?


Searching for recognition under a pseudonym?

What an idiot.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2012
For me this is just a form of entertainment. Like watching TV.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2012
Reading your comments, btw, goes to show: you don't have to know what you're talking about or make any sense in order to get a high ranking.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2012
Those with a profile rating of 2.5 or less on average are most likely cranks. Those with ratings of 2 or less are either conspiracy theorists or religious nutjobs
Most of my posts are downvoted with single person, which indicates, the crank is rather this voting troll - not me.
Searching for recognition under a pseudonym?
Ideas are important, their authors not.
bewertow
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2012
In this thread: people demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect:

http://en.wikiped...r_effect
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2012
In this thread: people demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect:

http://en.wikiped...r_effect


In this comment stands a person with delusions of grandeur, he himself is exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger effect he brings up on almost a daily basis.
bewertow
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2012
In this thread: people demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect:

http://en.wikiped...r_effect


In this comment stands a person with delusions of grandeur, he himself is exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger effect he brings up on almost a daily basis.


Have you even read about the Dunning-Kruger effect? I don't think it means what you think it means.
Turritopsis
2.3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2012
How about stopping all these insults and name calling (and psychoanalysis) and we all start freely sharing our thoughts?

I really enjoy reading alternate theories and ideas from all of you commentors. How about civility and an open discussion. If you disagree with something feel free to express why.

Nobody is perfect and there is something to be learned from everyone.

The best and most effective way of solving the mysteries of the universe is through open discussion and idea sharing.

Let's put an end to this childishness.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2012
Does it have to do with competence levels?

Like those that are less competent aren't competent enough to analyze their own level of competence clearly?

Is that it?
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2012
To make the problem maximally simple for laymans: in Big Bang cosmology only most lightweight elements were supposed to form. The more heavy elements (like the tellurium) and the less or lightweight elements (like the lithium) we will observe in the distant areas of Universe, the worse for Big Bang theory, the better for alternative steady state model. In Big Bang theory the space-time expands and the light is moving with fixed speed, in the steady state model the Universe is at rest and the light is moving with variable speed.

If you cannot understand even this high-level logics, then it has no meaning for you bother with integrals, Riemann spheres and whole complexity of formal math of contemporary cosmological theories, because their logics is even much more complex and you wouldn't understand it anyway.

It's as simple, as it is and it has no meaning to lie about it.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2012
In dense aether model the Universe is just random, which means, from our limited perspective we cannot observe any trend in it, so it's essentially steady state for us. Nevertheless, the random model means, the Universe never stays at rest and its density is not fully constant, as the Doppler anisotropy of CMBR indicates. So that the most probable evolution is somewhere between the Big Bang cosmology and Steady state model. Laura Mersini believes, that the Universe is behaving like giant quantum wave, which is traveling from place to place and ignites the nucleosynthesis there and I do believe, this is the most close to reality. Our Universe appears like landscape under the fog, so that we always appear at the center of its visibility area. But because there is no apparent reason for having the Universe completely flat, our Universe follows the same hyperbolic geometry, which we can observe inside of every fluctuation of CMBR. IMO the Universe appears like the clouds or Perlin noise.
bewertow
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2012
reported for dense aether pseudoscience crap. It's so annoying how you bring up your ridiculous ideas in every thread you find.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2012
reported for dense aether pseudoscience crap. It's so annoying how you bring up your ridiculous ideas in every thread you find.
Why is it ridiculous? Are your comments more meaningful? The explosion of Universe from initial singularity (which was "nothing" in the same moment and beginning of time) is more meaningful for you? What is so ridiculous with idea, Universe is eternal and random from limited human perspective? Every hyperdimensional object appears random and fuzzy from perspective of limited number of dimensions.

The calling something ridiculous without relevant counterarguments is a religious stance and an appeal to ridicule logical fallacy, nothing more.
bewertow
1 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2012
I think you don't even understand basic math or physics.

Do you even have a math/physics degree? I doubt it.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2012
You didn't listen me, right? Now I'm just explained you, why the formal thinking is useless, if not a barrier in the further universe understanding - and you're still repeating the question about my formal education. Whereas the question of author is not relevant in formal thinking at all. Whether the validity of logical deductions depends on their author? It just illustrates, how deeply the proponents of formal thinking are actually dependent on belief in meritocracy. If you have problem with my deductions, just try to disprove them first - just after then you can ask about my qualification. If you cannot oppose me logically, then it's evident, my qualification is still better than yours one - no matter how good you're feeling in it. In brief, I'm willing to argue with proponents of formal logical thinking at the strictly logical level only.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2012
To make the problem maximally simple for laymans: in Big Bang cosmology only most lightweight elements were supposed to form.

To make it simple: This is wrong.
As with any reaction you get a slew of products. The laws that govern these reactions are probabilistic. This means that the chance that you get a hydrogen atom is immense. The chance that you get a helium atom is much less. The chance that you get Lithium even less so, etc.

BUT the chances of getting heavier elements are NOT zero and you will get ALL kinds of elements (stable and unstable) given such a huge amount of energy present (hydrogen will just be the vast majority of stuff oyu get).
The early universe wasn't totally uniform (es evinced by the CMBR) there were turbulences. Tubrulence always means that you can have local concentrations of energy that allow you to do things that are improbable.
(another example is the production of heavy elements in supernovae - which require energy input to happen)
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2012
To make it simple: This is wrong.
This is not wrong. http://physicswor...ws/48654 And it's actually very easy to solve it: if the Big Bang theory has no problem with the abundance of heavy elements and with the lack of these lightweight ones, then we should stop the funding of the corresponding solutions ASAP. We, tax payers want our money back after then. We should go trough ArXiv.org article by article and ask for the return of grant money payed for every publication dealing with nucleosynthesis problems back into public resources of grant agencies.
bewertow
1 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2012
dark matter is made of a new form of matter, something that does not consist of quarks, neutrons or protons
IMO it's mostly composed of common neutrinos. These neutrinos are behaving like the sparse antimatter. We have excessive dark matter and missing antimatter - this hypothesis is therefore the very first one, which should be taken into account. http://aetherwave...ter.html Why is it avoided so carefully?


reported for aether crap
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2012
Turbulence causes energy density peaks per volume of space in time. 

Supernovae blasts are so intense that the energy from the stars inner core is squeezed into the stars outer sphere. the energy density goes up. Heavy elements are produced.

Wouldn't the BigBang (the original blast) have the highest level of turbulence wrt the evolution of the universe?

Shouldn't the original blast stemming from a singularity of [hypothesized] infinite mass and density produce heavier elements than any subsequent blast (such as Supernovae)?
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2012
reported for aether crap
Some ideas are simpler to censor, rather than oppose in logical manner, huh? The era of hypocrite sectarian cheaters is already ending anyway: we have no money to keep them alive.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2012
Shouldn't the original blast stemming from a singularity of [hypothesized] infinite mass and density produce heavier elements than any subsequent blast (such as Supernovae)?
It's generally assumed, the Big Bang produced a diluted mixture of bosons and fermions due the inflation, from which the elements condensed gradually, hydrogen first. Frankly, I don't understand the underlying logics of this model anyway, because the most stable elements are those at the center of periodic table, so they should be formed first and the Universe should be full of iron already. But the Big Bang proponents are considering the general lack of heavier elements during nucleosynthesis.
http://physicswor...ws/48654
IMO the Big Bang theory is simply BS from inside out in every aspect of it and it has no meaning to speculate about it, but your question is still relevant.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2012
Stability wavers corresponding to the field that the elements find themselves in.

Fissile uranium is containable (without fissing) within an electromagnetic field.

Pressure (force field) can hold a fissile atom together. When the pressure is removed the atom begins to fiss.

The expanding universe is cooling, so density is dropping, so temperature is lowering, pressure is releasing.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2012
We may be wrong...

IMO the Big Bang theory is simply BS


...but I agree with you.

There are just so many contradictions when you examine nature and compare it to the hypothesized Big Bang model.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2012
Pressure (force field) can hold a fissile atom together. When the pressure is removed the atom begins to fiss.
From where (a LINK) you got this?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2012
Fissile uranium is low in neutrons (therefore tendency to split).

The nuclei is rich in protons (positive charge). The nuclei wants to blast apart.

Applying a magnetic field around the fissile atom constricts the ability of the nuclei to split.

The positive nuclei tries to split but the positive field won't allow it to split into anything (by constricting the space the atom has to evolve in.)
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2012
Here I isolated the nuclei. No electrons are factored. Therefore a magnetic field holds the nuclei together.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2012
A LINK... Do you understand, what the link means? I'm not wasting my time with Internet trolls, who are just inventing stuffs. You should have a source for every claim provided - if you haven't it, then you just finished for me.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2012
In the real world the fissile atom is contained by the forces from the surrounding non-fissile atoms, such as is found before enrichment.

The electromagnetic fields of the non-fissile atoms surrounding the fissile atom keep that fissile atom under pressure.

The fissile atom is encompassed by surrounding matter.

This keeps the fissile atom pressurized, without room to expand.

The fissile atom is contained under pressure. No room to grow.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2012
Removing the fissile atom from its pressurized surrounding allows it to split.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2012
A LINK - or just admit the lie. It's so simple. Anyway, even without link you're badly off topic here with your uranium story. Do you realize it?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2012
Which causes an energy drop of the atom and an energy increase of surrounding region.

The energetic conditions of the fissile atom are lowered once the atom fulfills the fission reaction.

The low energy conditions of the surroundings which allowed for the fission to take place are increased. The regions surrounding the reaction gain energy.

The atom releases energy, the surroundings receive that energy.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2012
Neutrons are used to initiate fission in a controlled manner. By bombarding a nuclei with neutrons you can precisely control when the fission reaction will take place.

Neutrons are used because of their neutrally charged nature, atoms don't reject them as they do charged particles. This allows neutrons to penetrate nuclei.

Protons can be used to initiate fission as well, but the energy required for a proton to penetrate an atomic electromagnetic field is too high. It is not feasible, neutrons do the job without em resistance.

Fission takes place naturally, spontaneously, without neutron bombardment when atoms are given breathing room.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2012
A nucleon is made of quarks and is held together by gluons.

Moments after the big bang the universe was a quark gluon plasma.

This would mean that the universe was at one point a single nuclei.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.