New model of cosmic stickiness favors 'Big Rip' demise of universe

June 30, 2015
A time line of life of the universe that ends in a Big Rip. Credit: Jeremy Teaford, Vanderbilt University

The universe can be a very sticky place, but just how sticky is a matter of debate.

That is because for decades cosmologists have had trouble reconciling the classic notion of based on the laws of thermodynamics with Einstein's general theory of relativity. However, a team from Vanderbilt University has come up with a fundamentally new mathematical formulation of the problem that appears to bridge this long-standing gap.

The new math has some significant implications for the ultimate fate of the universe. It tends to favor one of the more radical scenarios that cosmologists have come up with known as the "Big Rip." It may also shed new light on the basic nature of dark energy.

The new approach was developed by Assistant Professor of Mathematics Marcelo Disconzi in collaboration with physics professors Thomas Kephart and Robert Scherrer and is described in a paper published earlier this year in the journal Physical Review D.

"Marcelo has come up with a simpler and more elegant formulation that is mathematically sound and obeys all the applicable physical laws," said Scherrer.

The type of viscosity that has cosmological relevance is different from the familiar "ketchup" form of viscosity, which is called shear viscosity and is a measure of a fluid's resistance to flowing through small openings like the neck of a ketchup bottle. Instead, cosmological viscosity is a form of bulk viscosity, which is the measure of a fluid's resistance to expansion or contraction. The reason we don't often deal with bulk viscosity in everyday life is because most liquids we encounter cannot be compressed or expanded very much.

Disconzi began by tackling the problem of relativistic fluids. Astronomical objects that produce this phenomenon include supernovae (exploding stars) and neutron stars (stars that have been crushed down to the size of 20-30 km in diameter).

Scientists have had considerable success modeling what happens when ideal fluids - those with no viscosity - are boosted to near-light speeds. But almost all fluids are viscous in nature and, despite decades of effort, no one has managed to come up with a generally accepted way to handle viscous fluids traveling at relativistic velocities. In the past, the models formulated to predict what happens when these more realistic fluids are accelerated to a fraction of the speed of light have been plagued with inconsistencies: the most glaring of which has been predicting certain conditions where these fluids could travel faster than the speed of light.

"This is disastrously wrong," said Disconzi, "since it is well-proven experimentally that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light."

These problems inspired the mathematician to re-formulate the equations of relativistic fluid dynamics in a way that does not exhibit the flaw of allowing faster-than-light speeds. He based his approach on one that was advanced in the 1950s by French mathematician André Lichnerowicz.

Next, Disconzi teamed up with Kephart and Scherrer to apply his equations to broader cosmological theory. This produced a number of interesting results, including some potential new insights into the mysterious nature of dark energy.

In the 1990s, the physics community was shocked when astronomical measurements showed that the universe is expanding at an ever-accelerating rate. To explain this unpredicted acceleration, they were forced to hypothesize the existence of an unknown form of repulsive energy that is spread throughout the universe. Because they knew so little about it, they labeled it "dark energy."

Most dark energy theories to date have not taken cosmic viscosity into account, despite the fact that it has a repulsive effect strikingly similar to that of dark energy. "It is possible, but not very likely, that viscosity could account for all the acceleration that has been attributed to dark energy," said Disconzi. "It is more likely that a significant fraction of the acceleration could be due to this more prosaic cause. As a result, viscosity may act as an important constraint on the properties of dark energy."

Another interesting result involves the ultimate fate of the universe. Since the discovery of the universe's run-away expansion, cosmologists have come up with a number of dramatic scenarios of what it could mean for the future.

One scenario, dubbed the "Big Freeze," predicts that after 100 trillion years or so the universe will have grown so vast that the supplies of gas will become too thin for stars to form. As a result, existing stars will gradually burn out, leaving only black holes which, in turn, slowly evaporate away as space itself gets colder and colder.

An even more radical scenario is the "Big Rip." It is predicated on a type of "phantom" dark energy that gets stronger over time. In this case, the expansion rate of the universe becomes so great that in 22 billion years or so material objects begin to fall apart and individual atoms disassemble themselves into unbound elementary particles and radiation.

The key value involved in this scenario is the ratio between 's pressure and density, what is called its equation of state parameter. If this value drops below -1 then the universe will eventually be pulled apart. Cosmologists have called this the "phantom barrier." In previous models with viscosity the universe could not evolve beyond this limit.

In the Desconzi-Kephart-Scherrer formulation, however, this barrier does not exist. Instead, it provides a natural way for the equation of state parameter to fall below -1.

"In previous models with viscosity the Big Rip was not possible," said Scherrer. "In this new model, viscosity actually drives the universe toward this extreme end state."

According to the scientists, the results of their pen-and-paper analyses of this new formulation for relativistic viscosity are quite promising but a much deeper analysis must be carried out to determine its viability. The only way to do this is to use powerful computers to analyze the complex equations numerically. In this fashion the scientists can make predictions that can be compared with experiment and observation.

Explore further: The mysterious dark energy that speeds the universe's rate of expansion

Related Stories

The dark side of cosmology

March 6, 2015

It's a beautiful theory: the standard model of cosmology describes the universe using just six parameters. But it is also strange. The model predicts that dark matter and dark energy – two mysterious entities that have ...

Is the universe ringing like a crystal glass?

June 26, 2015

Many know the phrase "the big bang theory." There's even a top television comedy series with that as its title. According to scientists, the universe began with the "big bang" and expanded to the size it is today. Yet, the ...

Galaxy survey to probe why the universe is accelerating

June 30, 2015

We know that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, but what causes this growth remains a mystery. The most likely explanation is that a strange force dubbed "dark energy" is driving it. Now a new astronomical ...

How fast is the universe expanding?

February 10, 2015

The Universe is expanding, but how quickly is it expanding? How far away is everything getting from everything else? And how do we know any of this anyway?

Recommended for you

How the Earth stops high-energy neutrinos in their tracks

November 22, 2017

Neutrinos are abundant subatomic particles that are famous for passing through anything and everything, only very rarely interacting with matter. About 100 trillion neutrinos pass through your body every second. Now, scientists ...

Lightning, with a chance of antimatter

November 22, 2017

A storm system approaches: the sky darkens, and the low rumble of thunder echoes from the horizon. Then without warning... Flash! Crash!—lightning has struck.

Quantum internet goes hybrid

November 22, 2017

In a recent study published in Nature, ICFO researchers led by ICREA Prof. Hugues de Riedmatten report an elementary "hybrid" quantum network link and demonstrate photonic quantum communication between two distinct quantum ...

Enhancing the quantum sensing capabilities of diamond

November 22, 2017

Researchers have discovered that dense ensembles of quantum spins can be created in diamond with high resolution using an electron microscopes, paving the way for enhanced sensors and resources for quantum technologies.

Study shows how to get sprayed metal coatings to stick

November 21, 2017

When bonding two pieces of metal, either the metals must melt a bit where they meet or some molten metal must be introduced between the pieces. A solid bond then forms when the metal solidifies again. But researchers at MIT ...

104 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Reg Mundy
1.9 / 5 (16) Jun 30, 2015
"This is disastrously wrong," said Disconzi, "since it is well-proven experimentally that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light."

This is the sort of logic by establishment "scientists" that sticks in my craw. How can a negative result ever be a proof? If they had found something which moved faster than light (how about quantum entanglement as a candidate?) then the result would be that things could move faster than light. But not finding something by experiment is inconclusive, it merely means that nothing has been found YET, and that PROBABLY the theory is true, but it does not prove it.
In this case, the expansion rate of the universe becomes so great that in 22 billion years or so material objects begin to fall apart and individual atoms disassemble themselves into unbound elementary particles and radiation.

What, atoms falling apart? Expanding? Of course, this couldn't possibly be the explanation for what we call "gravity", now could it?
24volts
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2015
I thought expansion didn't affect matter....at least that's what many people on here keeps saying... This expansion theory is turning into a large load of mathematical horsecrap.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (15) Jun 30, 2015
I just let a Big Rip, and it was far more scientific than this pseudoscientific metaphysical mumbo jumbo nonsense! And this is being published where? Physical Review? It should call into question any and everything the meaningless rag has ever published.

"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén

As above...

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla

Again, as above...Pathetic the state of space science is these days, absolutely pathetic.
thingumbobesquire
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 30, 2015
Indeed. One has a sneaking suspicion that these august mathematicians have gotten into a very bad batch of monstrous moonshine.
someone11235813
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2015
Earth explodes! that's gotta hurt.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.6 / 5 (19) Jun 30, 2015
How can you guys refute this article without mentioning viscosity once?
It's theoretical physics, that means it could be wrong, all this article said was, "we think this looks promising", hardly shoving anything down your throat.
Why not get a freaking imagination?
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.8 / 5 (16) Jun 30, 2015
24volts,

The comment section of anonymous internet board is not an accurate source of information. You can look up college lectures online on youthube and well maintained articles on Wikipedia are perfectly fine, just remember to reread them later as they aren't perfectly accurate sometimes.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 30, 2015
Oops, another Big Rip...and it's sticky,I just ripped apart some atoms.
jyro
1 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2015
looks like a big condom!
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2015
Relating this article back to the one about frequency of expansion, if the expansion rate is not constant, and viscosity is the glue that slows down dark energy, then why would the viscosity go up and down ??, surely it would be a constant progression towards lower density ?
vlaaing peerd
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 01, 2015

What, atoms falling apart? Expanding? Of course, this couldn't possibly be the explanation for what we call "gravity", now could it?


Gravity isn't what is keeping atoms together. But like gravity can crush atoms (or however you want to interpret what happens with atoms in a Black Hole) the expansion from DE can be so strong even the nuclear + EM force will eventually be not powerful enough to keep molecules and eventually atoms together.

At least, that's as far as my layman interpretation goes.
syrix
5 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2015
What happens when this "Big Rip" is happening so fast that it's canceling strong nuclear force and starts to rip quarks apart? Because what I've understood, quarks never appear alone and trying to pull them apart causes increased potential energy in bond between them until it becomes energetically favorable to pull out a new quark-antiquark pair out of the vacuum field. So isn't this basically causing a huge "materialization" of dark energy and filling the space with quark-gluon-plasma much like in happened during the era of baryogenesis in early universe?
What comes around goes around.. ;)
viko_mx
1 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2015
@cantdrive85

This mental illness in modern world is highly contagious. Philosophy does not need facts, only vanity.

There is something masochistic in such conceptions of the world that promote hedonism and in society robbing the meaning of human life.
JeanTate
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 01, 2015
The paper is "A New Approach to Cosmological Bulk Viscosity" and a preprint is available for free (arXiv:1409.4918)

@Reg Mundy:
This is the sort of logic by establishment "scientists" that sticks in my craw. How can a negative result ever be a proof?
Yeah, mine too. But, fortunately for science, it's a 'lies to children' gloss, a dumbing-down that's an insult to everyone who has a university degree in science .... however in a world with ever-shorter attention spans, who's going to read two paras of carefully nuanced language concerning 'consistent with' and the nature of how science works?
how about quantum entanglement as a candidate?
Another 'lie to children' ... a great many 'somethings' move faster than light (a lighthouse's beam on the Moon, say), but the 'c is the limit' does not apply to them (no information is conveyed).
JeanTate
4 / 5 (16) Jul 01, 2015
@24volts
I thought expansion didn't affect matter....at least that's what many people on here keeps saying...
That's why you should not trust what "people on here" say, but do your own research, starting with reading the primary sources. May I ask, how many such primary sources have you read?
This expansion theory is turning into a large load of mathematical horsecrap.
Really?

A rather strongly expressed personal opinion? Sure.

An insightful comment based on a deep understanding of the relevant theory? Not so much ...
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 01, 2015
@cd: You certainly like to express your opinions in somewhat colorful language, don't you?

But why are you so insistent on displaying your ignorance, may I ask? Especially as it comes across as wilful ignorance?
"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén
Cool! Since you are such a fan of HA, how about you give us some ideas of what experiments you think could be done, to test the ideas in Disconzi+ (2015)? Or anything to do with galaxy clusters and regions of the universe with scale lengths of ~1 Gpc?
Pathetic the state of space science is these days, absolutely pathetic
Well, at least it doesn't deal in magical electricity, posit that the Sun is powered by a giant (invisible) galaxy-wide BC, etc ... aren't you a big fan of such magic?
JeanTate
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 01, 2015
@thingumbobesquire:
Indeed. One has a sneaking suspicion that these august mathematicians have gotten into a very bad batch of monstrous moonshine.
And I have a sneaking suspicion that you have not read the paper that the PO article is based on, that you have little knowledge or understanding of the underlying physics and mathematics, that ... and that you are a big fan of the logical fallacy, 'argument from incredulity' (not to mention 'argument from ignorance')
JeanTate
4.1 / 5 (15) Jul 01, 2015
@BloodyOrphan:
Relating this article back to the one about frequency of expansion, if the expansion rate is not constant, and viscosity is the glue that slows down dark energy, then why would the viscosity go up and down??, surely it would be a constant progression towards lower density?
Good question!

Not easy to answer, I think, in just 1k chars, without recourse to the math, but I think it's something like this: the viscosity Disconzi+ write about depends on many factors, such as the universe's (mass, energy) density - which is not constant - and the nature of 'Dark Energy'. While intuition as to how viscosity works, in everyday life, may provide some insights worth following up on, it won't really help when it's viscosity associated with a relativistic fluid, on huge scales, in GR ...
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 01, 2015
@syrix:
What happens when this "Big Rip" is happening so fast that it's canceling strong nuclear force and starts to rip quarks apart?
No one really knows; it's a physical regime that's not been explored experimentally, and likely never will (until the Big Rip)
Because what I've understood, quarks never appear alone and trying to pull them apart causes increased potential energy in bond between them until it becomes energetically favorable to pull out a new quark-antiquark pair out of the vacuum field.
That's pretty much how I understand it too
So isn't this basically causing a huge "materialization" of dark energy and filling the space with quark-gluon-plasma much like in happened during the era of baryogenesis in early universe?
I don't think so ... DE was ~negligible back then; in the Big Rip it totally dominates
Andragogue
5 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2015
This statement is not helpful: "The reason we don't often deal with bulk viscosity in everyday life is because most liquids we encounter cannot be compressed or expanded very much."

I would remind the reader that gases are fluids too and we have a lots of empirical experience with gas viscosities. Relativistic gas viscosity still being a special case, of course.

All in all, something else to worry about... the Big Rip. Only 22 billion years or so to go. :-(

Nice tie-in with Dark Energy properties. Thanks for the article!

Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2015
Viko,
Philosophy is not science.
Valuable philosophies follow the scientific method themselves, like the Socratic method, but I've never studied any of that stuff in a meaningful capacity.

How is this masochistic to our sense of ourselves in the first place? I love people, the gleam of curiosity in a babies eyes is one of the most beautiful things in the world to me, and its a really special thing to watch us all get older and grow as people. Even watching teenagers get in trouble brings a smile to me in private even if I have to yell at them.

If anything we are sadists because we like to talk down to you, but it's not our fault that you don't have a passing high school education in science. If you want smart people to be nice to you, quit making stuff up. We are never going to listen to you over people with actual qualifications.
NoTennisNow
5 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2015
So, how many of the "commenters" have a sufficient knowledge to competently rail about this article?
richardwenzel987
4.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2015
This might be a bit off topic but the result of an accelerating expansion, whether it results in a big rip or not, turns (it seems to me) the distant universe into something very much like an event horizon, does it not? Surely all event horizons exhibit the same behavior. I wonder about a cosmological equivalence principle, so that whatever might be true of a black hole's event horizon would apply equally well to the very distant universe. And if this were true, then that principle would put an odd constraint on the cmb, since in the distant future it would have to exhibit the characteristics of hawking radiation-- the cmb would have to be redshifted into something exactly equivalent to hawking radiation produced by the event horizon of the very distant universe. That would impose an interesting symmetry. Just wild speculation...
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2015
This mental illness in modern world is highly contagious. Philosophy does not need facts, only vanity.
Why it's exactly the same way with faith isn't it? Faith abhors facts, and vanity is what makes faithers believe that god will make things turn out the way THEY want.

Because their personal god is very familiar to them, having been created in their own image.

And he wouldn't have produced anything that they would find in any way unpalatable or unfathomable now would he?

Otherwise what good would he be?
JeanTate
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 01, 2015
@richardwenzel987:
This might be a bit off topic but the result of an accelerating expansion, whether it results in a big rip or not, turns (it seems to me) the distant universe into something very much like an event horizon, does it not?
In some ways, yes; however in the key aspects, no
I wonder about a cosmological equivalence principle, so that whatever might be true of a black hole's event horizon would apply equally well to the very distant universe
As an analogy, this likely fails on the details
And if this were true, then that principle would put an odd constraint on the cmb, since in the distant future it would have to exhibit the characteristics of hawking radiation-- the cmb would have to be redshifted into something exactly equivalent to hawking radiation produced by the event horizon of the very distant universe
The CMB would long have ceased to be visible (even a dilute plasma would be opaque to it; cd can tell you why ;-)), among other problems ...
SkyPanther
not rated yet Jul 01, 2015
Makes me wonder what happens when matter is ripped apart. To me it sounds like what the early universe was like. (Supersymmetric) So this begs the question, if this is correct, this universes could be coalescing, and de-coalescing for eternity. i.e conformal cyclic cosmology.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (11) Jul 01, 2015
mumbo jumbo nonsense!

Maybe yes maybe no. But the ideology that you are persistently marketing on this blog is definitely gobbledigook.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2015
This mental illness in modern world is highly contagious. Philosophy does not need facts, only vanity.
Why it's exactly the same way with faith isn't it? Faith abhors facts, and vanity is what makes faithers believe that god will make things turn out the way THEY want.

Because their personal god is very familiar to them, having been created in their own image.

And he wouldn't have produced anything that they would find in any way unpalatable or unfathomable now would he?

Otherwise what good would he be?

Vanity indeed. What can be more vane than to believe that you have been created in the image of some almighty grandiose deity ? The dangerous side of religion, or any ideology, is that is attracts so many narcissists.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (10) Jul 01, 2015
There is something masochistic in such conceptions of the world that promote hedonism and in society robbing the meaning of human life.

By "human life" this poster means his own insignificant life. He seems insulted by cosmology "robbing" his life of meaning.
If that is not narcissism, what is ?
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 01, 2015
mumbo jumbo nonsense!

Maybe yes maybe no. But the ideology that you are persistently marketing on this blog is definitely gobbledigook.

Moving electric charges is gobbledygook? Well you had better call your local power company and have them shut your gobbledygook down, because who wants to pay good money for gobbledygook!
yob2073
not rated yet Jul 01, 2015
@syrix
That comment, and question posed, was informed and worth reading.

@richardwenzel987
Wouldn't the CMB keep red shifting into longer, loonger, looonger, loooonger, loooooonger, loonnngggeeerrrrrr wavelengths? I don't catch the sequitor that red shift of CMB must necessarily result in Hawking radiation… The >end< result of hawking radiation is a (theoretical) violent burst of energy as a black hole evaporates. There's nothing contained "inside" the |exterior| volume of what exists outside the CMB. If you invoke Hawking radiation you must also account for the end product of Hawking radiation. Right? If you mean some kind of reverse Hawking radiation then that means it gets colder and colder and colder and keeps adding additional mass to our observable Hubble volume.
JeanTate
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 01, 2015
@cd:
Moving electric charges is gobbledygook?
Of course not
Well you had better call your local power company and have them shut your gobbledygook down, because who wants to pay good money for gobbledygook!
Nice diversion.

The gobbledygook is, for example:
* the Grand Canyon was formed by a giant interplanetary lightning bolt (i.e. magic electricity, not what your power company sells you)
* solid, silicate-type rock has a density of ~half that of water (due to magic electricity)
* the Sun is powered by a giant, galactic BC (invisible magic electricity)
* so distorting what Hannes Alfven said and wrote as to cause him to turn in his grave (all in the cause of magic electricity)
* stars and the ISM move ~together due to their net charges and BCs (truly magic electricity)
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 01, 2015
Moving electric charges is gobbledygook?
@cd
no - grand canyon formation by plasma discharge is, though... (as JeanTate pointed out above with other stuff as well!)

here are more:
your insistence that moon craters are formed by plasma despite observations of strikes...

Saturns storm formation!

what about your comments regarding the internet! pseudoscience posted on any gov't server is supported by the gov't, right? LOL

your comments re: Shoemaker-Levy striking Jupiter are nonsense ...

then there is the star/galaxy/etc formations all from birkland currents ...

lets not forget your outright blatant lies about astrophysicists and their education, all readily researched... as well as your continued insistence that your eu engineers and trolls (like yourself) know more about our sun than helioseismologists or astrophysicists...that is the biggest gobbledygoop of them all!
RealityCheck
4 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2015
Hi viko_mx. :)

Why do you (and Ren82 etc) keep injecting your religious/political/personal 'takes' into the science articles/discussions whose perspectives and implications should be argued based on observations, interpretations and meanings which have some reality-probability to actually be correct as to what is and what is happening around us and in the wider universe? It would help you and humanity and science/knowledge advancement/improvement if you stuck to strictly objective factors when putting your views across on the items presented in a science forum. If you want to discuss religious themes and supernatural entities then you should go to an appropriate religio-politico forum. What you keep doing here with that stuff is not only counter-productive to your 'cause' or whatever, it is also creating loss of credible observations on the science which you might otherwise have which might touch upon some real science aspect that might lead to good discussion/insight. :)
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 02, 2015
Nice diversion.
The diversion is as usual, your own.
The gobbledygook is...
* the Grand Canyon was formed by a giant interplanetary lightning bolt
You've never received a shock from a door knob? That stopped being magic about 300 years ago. Born in the dark ages were you?
* solid, silicate-type rock has a density of ~half that of water
Sure looks like a rock, and there are the silicates in the coma.
* the Sun is powered by a giant, galactic BC
And there is the local cloud, with it's magnetic field (magic?) and all.
* so distorting what Hannes Alfven said and wrote as to cause him to turn in his grave
He was pretty clear; "Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents."
* stars and the ISM move ~together due to their net charges and BCs
Skeletal structure?
http://www.cosmol...hkin.pdf
docile
Jul 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 02, 2015
@cd:I gotta say, you bring me many laughs, almost every day
[me] The gobbledygook is...
* the Grand Canyon was formed by a giant interplanetary lightning bolt (i.e. magic electricity, not what your power company sells you)
[you] You've never received a shock from a door knob? That stopped being magic about 300 years ago. Born in the dark ages were you?
That was probably the best, so far today (I filled in the part of what I wrote that you omitted)
solid, silicate-type rock has a density of ~half that of water (due to magic electricity)
Sure looks like a rock, and there are the silicates in the coma
This one came close ... especially funny/ironic considering how offended you professed to be, when Brian Koberlein pointed out that much of the eu is nothing more than "looks like a duck"
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 02, 2015
(continued)
so distorting what Hannes Alfven said and wrote as to cause him to turn in his grave (all in the cause of magic electricity)
He was pretty clear; "Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents."
So making my point for me! You really are so funny, cd!

Sun powered by giant BCs? Nah, Alfven was very clear that the Sun is powered by fusion in its core.

His papers are chock-a-block full of equations and high falutin' mathematics, which in no small part earned him his Nobel; you and your fellow eu fanatics insult him every time you diss mathematics, and the total lack of any publications - from you or any of the fans - in the style of Alfven seems to me to be deliberate mockery of his life's work.
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 02, 2015
@docile:
We actually observe the distant galaxies larger, not smaller
The paper you cite is about 'local' galaxies, not 'distant' ones: "Based on magnitudes and Petrosian radii from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey [...] at low redhift (z <0.2) ..."
because the red shift is caused with scattering of light at the density fluctuations of vacuum (which are known as a CMBR noise) - not with expansion of space-time
Um, no.

How did you come to that conclusion, may I ask? It's an especially odd one, because 'scattering' is chromatic, but the observed redshifts - attributed to metric expansion - is achromatic ...
JeanTate
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 02, 2015
@docile:
while ignoring the really important [...] findings
Which would they be, docile?

Please be as specific and detailed as you can
docile
Jul 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Jul 02, 2015
Oh boy. ...heeeere we go (*grabs popcorn*)
JeanTate
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 02, 2015
@docile:
For example [...]
Thanks
Woodward 1990
Hmm ... "An experiment using this technique gives preliminary results that, to order of magnitude, corroborate GRT [general relativity theory]"
Podkletnov 1992
'It remains an open question whether gravity modification can be repeatably observed using the full set of Podkletnov and Nieminen [1] conditions. As far as the present author is aware, no confirmation or re-observation of the effect has been published in any peer reviewed research journal" (Woods 2002 arXiv:physics/0204031) to take just one example
Shawyer 2005
I can't open it
Poher 2002
Your link is to Poher+ (2011) and I could not independently find it using my standard search tools, so I was unable to see what papers had cited it (do you know?).

Not an auspicious start, I must say ...
docile
Jul 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
version782
1.2 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2015
The end of the universe starts with the trumpet blast, signaling the start of Judgement Day.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2015
Umm, why do you expect, that the findings, which I gave here as an examples of ignorance of mainstream physics will be cited, republished the less?
Have you not visited the NASA spaceflight forum? See post #1103 by "flux_capacitor" on this thread for links to Shawyer's theory paper, and links to some of his data published as patents and conference papers:
http://forum.nasa...313.1100
docile
Jul 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JeanTate
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 02, 2015
@docile:
no confirmation or re-observation of the effect has been published...what papers had cited it
Umm, why do you expect, that the findings, which I gave here as an examples of ignorance of mainstream physics will be cited, republished the less?
Well, for starters some were cited; more importantly, I think you have a quite inaccurate understanding of how (most) scientists work, and what motivates them
The lack of citing of interesting results, the lack of attempts for their reproduction the more is just a one of most reliable indicia of pluralistic ignorance and pathological skepticism
Perhaps it's more an indication of your uncritical approach to this material?
This criterion applies to all findings - including these presented with mainstream physicists and widely presented in popular media.
Just so I understand, you recommend accepting every idea, irrespective of whatever empirical evidence there is? I'm sure this is not correct, but ...
mytwocts
5 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2015
mumbo jumbo nonsense!

Maybe yes maybe no. But the ideology that you are persistently marketing on this blog is definitely gobbledigook.

Moving electric charges is gobbledygook? Well you had better call your local power company and have them shut your gobbledygook down, because who wants to pay good money for gobbledygook!

Prove your claims on plasma stuff.
Prove your claims that all cosmology and GRT is "horsecrap".
Prove that all who disagree form a "herd of incompetence".
Be prepared for a very very critical reception.
And explain to me who I can get a lifetime of free electricity from your theories.
Thanks
mytwocts
5 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
The end of the universe starts with the trumpet blast, signaling the start of Judgement Day.

What size of trumpet would be required to bring the good tiding to every corner of the universe?
Don't you think the creator of black holes and dark matter (and muons: why oh why) has switched to whatsapp by now ?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2015
You've never received a shock from a door knob?
@cd
python logic? really?
your entire argument to JeanTate is hand waving PYTHON logic?

you might as well have just posted the following link:
https://www.youtu...MhU_4m-g
mytwocts
5 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2015
... For me it's just an indication of politically inconvenient result. Is it because this finding is difficult and expensive to reproduce? Not at all, the graphite soaked with water is one of cheapest materials, which you can invent here. Maybe this is just a problem for superconductor research, which is running on similar principles, like the Big Pharma research: the cheap easy to reproduce chemicals don't interest anyone here. But the greatest problem here is, such a finding apparently contradicts the mainstream theories, according to whose such an effect shouldn't occur there.

More likely, however, it is an irreproducible result. What proof do you have of a conspiracy? Has the author suddenly disappeared? Everything you say is totally unchecked. Nonsense.
NoTennisNow
5 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
Nothing can go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. But are there no restrictions on how fast space itself can expand. If inflation is correct, then this has already happened.
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2015
@NoTennisNow
Nothing can go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

How do you know that? A perfect vacuum is IMPOSSIBLE to create, so maybe the speed of light in it is infinite or zero, or anywhere inbetween.
JeanTate
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 02, 2015
@Reg Mundy:
A perfect vacuum is IMPOSSIBLE to create, so maybe the speed of light in it is infinite or zero, or anywhere inbetween
If it's impossible to create a perfect vacuum, then the speed of light (c) in it becomes moot, right?

And the practical - per tests of hypotheses, models, theories, etc - question becomes "what is the measured value of c, in poor vacuums, good vacuums, really 'hard' vacuums, etc?"

And the answer to those questions is ... ?
mytwocts
5 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2015
Nice diversion.
The diversion is as usual, your own.

Nice TuQuoque.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2015
Seems dark energy could answer a few questions. So what is matter? A form of condensed dark energy? Gravity would be the pressure gradient between dark energy and matter? The gradient between the pressure of dark energy and heavy matter would be less than that of the gradient between this pressure and less heavy matter. Therefore lighter objects experience more pressure gradient from dark energy than heavier ones. Interesting consequence if the dark matter pressure decreases. Heavier objects will evaporate before lighter ones, that is they will return their condensed energy back to the dark energy before lighter objects. So the first thing to go in the end times would be the largest black holes, assuming the dark energy eventually runs out. Perhaps they would then become white holes. Interesting consequences for the speed of gravity - would these pressure gradients all travel at the speed of light? Or would the gradients more likely travel at a speed proportional to their magnitude?
docile
Jul 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
@RealityCheck

I appreciate highly the science based on facts. Unfortunately here the articles in the sections cosmology and biology are not imbued with the spirit of truth. To call them science is your right of course, but every other partisipant in this forum also have the right for him personal opinion.
JeanTate
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 03, 2015
@docile:
it's a result of scattering of light with density fluctuations of vacuum, which are known as a CMBR noise
Nope, that can't be right ... first, such scattering would very likely be chromatic (you have empirical evidence otherwise? let's see it!), but redshift is achromatic; second, it can't produce the observed cosmic time dilation
The fact, that both dark energy, both dark matter are result of the scattering of light at the density fluctuations of vacuum can be verified easily by its wavelength dependence
And that "wavelength dependence" is what, precisely, may I ask?
if we would observe the Universe in the radio-waves
"we" have; see SUMMS, FIRST GB6, VLSSr, to take just a few examples of extensive surveys in the radio part of the electromagnetic spectrum
it would appear shrinking instead!
Nope, the universe still appears to be expanding ...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
@cd:I gotta say, you bring me many laughs, almost every day


You think I'm funny, like a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh?

www.youtube.com/w...NtUCshxY
docile
Jul 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
NoTennisNow
5 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2015
Speed of light in a vacuum is a universal comstant. Again, instead of carping about how do you know this, do some research before you run your mouth (actually put something in writingwriting in this case). I rest my case and stick to my first comment I made in my original post to this article.
docile
Jul 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JeanTate
4 / 5 (8) Jul 03, 2015
@docile:
such scattering would very likely be chromatic (you have empirical evidence otherwise? let's see it!)
Yes, it is - the images of distant galaxies are larger in visible light
z<0.2 is not "distant"
and more luminous in radiowaves than expected
Your source contradicts your claim
According to expanding space-time model they should be smaller instead
Nope, they appear smaller, then larger, as z increases, as expected
and way less brighter. In accordance with this model most of phenomena related to red shift essentially disappear at the CMB wavelengths (CMB photons cannot scatter with itself)
Your source does not say that, and is inconsistent with Planck results
If we observe the Universe at the CMB wavelength, it looks most transparent - and also steady-state
Nonsense; it "looks" the same in a great many wavelength windows (cont)
JeanTate
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2015
(continued)
The more we get from this wavelength, the less transparent it gets (check the GZK limit, for example)
Nope. It's 'more transparent' in radio, in hard x-rays, FIR, and gammas (up to the GZK limit). How do reach such conclusions, may I ask? You seem to have cherry-picked sources - some popsci, some papers - without understanding what's in them
well, we are actually living in this mirror universe - it's everything larger than the wavelength of CMB (~ 1.9 mm). Above this scale the relativistic contraction driven with gravity outperforms the quantum mechanical expansion driven with pressure of radiation
Word salad nonsense (sorry to be so blunt). As you can see when you plug the appropriate numbers into the appropriate equations and turn the handle (assuming you can even grock what "the quantum mechanical expansion" even means). Cosmology word salad is not the least bit (scientifically) nutritious ...
docile
Jul 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JeanTate
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2015
@docile: Here is your original claim (I CAPped some words, for emphasis):
the IMAGES of distant galaxies are [...] more luminous in radiowaves than expected
Your source does not mention any "IMAGES of distant galaxies", nor IMAGES of any kind. And your source does not identify the source of the greater-than-expected radio flux, merely notes that it (combined background) is 5-10x greater than expected, using a particular model.

From Seiffert+ (2008 arXiv:0901.0559):
After removal of estimates of foreground emission from our own Galaxy, and the estimated contribution of external galaxies, we present fits to a combination of the flat-spectrum CMB and potential spectral distortions in the CMB. [...] We also find a significant detection of a residual signal beyond that which can be explained by the CMB plus the integrated radio emission from galaxies estimated from existing surveys
(cont)
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2015
@docile (continued): According to ADS, Seiffer+ (2008) has some 30 cites. Many of these examine the 'excess flux' - which ARCADE2 reported - in considerable detail; a fairly common result is Vernstrom+ (2011 arXiv:1102.0814); from the abstract:
If the ARCADE 2 measurements are correct and come from sources, then there must be an additional population of radio galaxies, fainter than where current data are probing. More specifically, the Euclidean-normalized counts at 1.4 GHz have to have an additional bump below about 10 μJy
Which is a quite different interpretation than yours ...
This is a common prediction of quantum mechanical equations for wave packet of free particle. Instead of gravitational collapse (as general relativity predicts) this wave packet is supposed to expand into infinity spontaneously. Our quasi-stable world at the human observer scale therefore violates both theories ...
No, it doesn't. You might benefit from taking a course in QM, and one in GR ...
mytwocts
4.9 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2015
[Dark energy is just denomination of the alleged expansion of the Universe

No it is not.
red shift [is] a result of scattering of light with density fluctuations of vacuum ...

Prove it.
[q This scattering is reinforcing, because ...
Prove it.
Until you prove anything, do not go public and keep your day job.
NoTennisNow
5 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2015
Faint of heart should beware of entering into cosmology.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2015
@cd:I gotta say, you bring me many laughs, almost every day


You think I'm funny, like a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh?

http://www.youtub...NtUCshxY

You have no credibility because you make statements such as "examples of ignorance of mainstream physics" while at the same time you have been consistently to produce evidence or peer reviewed work supporting your own views.
Do your homework properly and if you then still can produce an observation or calculation of the required extremely high quality -mainstream physics quality - you may actually be taken seriously.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2015
"have been consistently" read "have failed consistently"
docile
Jul 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2015
cantdrive and his puppets let's one rip everytime they open their mouths, always ending on a 1 out of 5, lol this clown will never learn to drive ;)

Well said Captain and the rest of the reputable scientists !
mytwocts
5 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2015
Until you prove anything, do not go public
..?! Who invented such a criterion ... ?
Common sense. Are you familiar with that concept?
If yes, do you have any?
If yes, use it.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2015
Until you prove anything, do not go public
..?! Who invented such a criterion ... ?

Common sense. Are you familiar with that concept?
If yes, do you have any?
If yes, use it.

Yet, here we are discussing the metaphysical "Big Rip", Phys.org would have about four articles in the whole of the 'Astronomy & Space' section if the unfettered stupidity of your comment was followed. You obviously are devoid of any sense, common or otherwise.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2015
cantdrive and his puppets let's one rip everytime they open their mouths, always ending on a 1 out of 5, lol this clown will never learn to drive ;)

Well said Captain and the rest of the reputable scientists !

I take pride in my 1.4 out of 5 rank average, I know I'm doing something right.

"Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it."
Henry Ford

Your comment above regarding Cap'n Stupid only goes to prove my point in your inability to think and your extreme ignorance. Cap'n Stupid is so far from a "reputable scientist" the notion reflects a comedy of infantile stupidity, in the grandest meaning of the term.

mytwocts
5 / 5 (8) Jul 04, 2015
But I already proved it. Even little children can see ...

A jpg is your proof?
Little children can understand non-linear cosmology ?
Are we on the same planet ?
mytwocts
5 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2015
cantdrive and his puppets let's one rip everytime they open their mouths, always ending on a 1 out of 5, lol this clown will never learn to drive ;)

Well said Captain and the rest of the reputable scientists !

I take pride in my 1.4 out of 5 rank average, I know I'm doing something right.

"Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it."
Henry Ford

Your comment above regarding Cap'n Stupid only goes to prove my point in your inability to think and your extreme ignorance. Cap'n Stupid is so far from a "reputable scientist" the notion reflects a comedy of infantile stupidity, in the grandest meaning of the term.


Apparently, you believe that you are the only person in the universe who can think.
Narcissism.
Semmster
not rated yet Jul 04, 2015
Looks like we're destined to come to a sticky end.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2015
cantdrive and his puppets let's one rip everytime they open their mouths, always ending on a 1 out of 5, lol this clown will never learn to drive ;)

Well said Captain and the rest of the reputable scientists !

I take pride in my 1.4 out of 5 rank average, I know I'm doing something right.

"Thinking is th......

Of course monkeys can't understand ratings, 1.4 out of 5 being very low btw... so meaning your'e doing something wrong not right ;) (the average joe however does understand it ;)

It's been noted that you take pride in the dumb comments you deliver over the years, no need to mention it.. ;) we know :D

Again Captain, Mytwocts, JeanTate, Antialias, Excellent comments from you.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2015
Until you prove anything, do not go public
..?! Who invented such a criterion ... ?

Common sense. Are you familiar with that concept?
If yes, do you have any?
If yes, use it.

Yet, here we are discussing the metaphysical "Big Rip", Phys.org would have about four articles in the whole of the 'Astronomy & Space' section if the unfettered stupidity of your comment was followed. You obviously are devoid of any sense, common or otherwise.

"Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes. "
https://en.wikipe...rcissism

Like a glove.
nevermark
5 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2015
@syrix,
What happens when this "Big Rip" is happening so fast that it's canceling strong nuclear force and starts to rip quarks apart?


I think that is a fantastic question.

Two seemingly unstoppable forces in opposition. Any experiments or models that can shed light on what happens in that situation should lead to deep insights, assuming the Big Rip is a likely scenario.

My uneducated guess would be that this would result in a profound matter/energy phase transition in the universe. Perhaps the result of Dark Energy being needed to create new quarks to maintain color charge balance would bring an abrupt halt to expansion. Whatever happened would be interesting.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 05, 2015
What happens when this "Big Rip" is happening so fast that it's canceling strong nuclear force and starts to rip quarks apart?

That is what the Big Rip is.

In order if particles (like protons and neutrons in a nucleus, or even the quarks within them) to hold together they have to be connnected by a force. The mediation of these forces works by the exchange of force carriers (photons for the electromagnetic force, gluons between quarks for the strong nuclear force, W/Z bosons for the weak force, gravitons for gravity (possibly) ).
These force carriers are also subject to the comsic speed limit. If the expansion speed exceeds that of light within the volume where such a force carrier wants to do its work then two particles connected by them cannot feel the the mutual forces anymore (the force carriers never reach the other particle) - and then stuff flies apart.

It'd be like every particle sitting within its very own private event horizon (without the gravity).
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2015
Speed of light in a vacuum is a universal comstant. Again, instead of carping about how do you know this, do some research before you run your mouth (actually put something in writingwriting in this case). I rest my case and stick to my first comment I made in my original post to this article.

So you can prove that what I stated is untrue? Perhaps YOU should do some research before shouting YOUR mouth off....
Quote your sources, and if they are conclusive I will apologise to you.....fat chance!
JeanTate
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 05, 2015
@docile:
Why the vacuum cannot scatter its transverse waves in the same way, like the water scatter its transverse waves?
Perhaps it can ... but you need more than a 'why cannot' to make the case
After all, both they contain the same density fluctuations (CMB noise and Brownian noise)
Perhaps they do, but what is the spectrum of the 'CMB density fluctuations', by characteristic size? In particular, what is it at x-ray wavelengths, for example? If there are ~no such CMB density fluctuations at even close to ~angstrom scales, pop goes your idea, right?
Therefore the water surface analogy explains both the red shift, both the dark energy with scattering of light with CMB noise
I think you left out a boatload of intermediary steps in your logic ...
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
JeanTate

And the answer to those questions is ... ?

Suppose I postulate that the speed of light is always not quite "c" depending on what medium it is travelling thru'. So, in almost perfect vacuum, it is 99.999999999999etc. percent c. Interesting then that depending on medium, light would always experience refraction as it progresses between different densities of matter, e.g from extremely tenuous in intergalactic space thru' merely tenuous as it passes huge clumps of matter. As the refractive index change is extremely small, there would be miniscule refraction differential between wavelengths, almost achromatic..... So, do we need gravitic lensing? No, we don't, and that knocks away a support for the existence of the force we call gravity which is merely a manifestation of the effects of matter expansion (we brings us back to the relevance of this discussion to the article, and the dis-assembly of atoms over time..).
Over to you...
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2015
Hi docile, Jean Tate. :)

Re 'vacuum', light propagation and diffraction/dispersal etc. Consider in context...

1) The QM 'vacuum' model has a full gamut/spectrum of 'virtual' transient particles/features 'fizz' in and out quickly everywhere; hence all light frequencies would be 'on average' 'dispersed/attenuated equally over long deep space travel distances.

2) The 'lensing' galaxies gravity well 'gradient' has vast radial reach, so every EM frequency would be accommodated along a radial segment, where 'angle' of incident' spread of light is 'converged' at the 'focus' (our observer position 'here') so ALL EM frequencies coincide because if incident light is of all frequencies over a vast radial gradient 'front', then they would be refracted accordingly and the outermost diffractions 'angles' would be merged with the innermost diffractions 'angles' to give 'single' but 'mixed EM' image from differing 'lines of flight from source' as if 'all from one path'.

Gotta go! Bye. :)
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2015
@Reg Mundy:
Suppose I postulate that [...] So, do we need gravitic lensing? No, we don't ...
Interesting.

Why not test this idea of yours, using numbers? See if you can model the observed 'gravitic lensing' (usually called 'gravitational lensing') with characteristic values for the various media (ISM, IGM, ICL, etc), and whether 'almost achromatic' matches what is actually observed (e.g. consistent redshifts, within observational uncertainties, which are the same from ~1.4GHz (radio) to ~0.1nm (x-ray)).

If your idea is still standing after some simple BOTE (back of the envelope) calculations, then dive in more deeply, ... and publish your findings in the form of a paper (and wait for the phone call from Sweden) ...
IronhorseA
not rated yet Jul 06, 2015
What happens when this "Big Rip" is happening so fast that it's canceling strong nuclear force and starts to rip quarks apart?

That is what the Big Rip is.

If the expansion speed exceeds that of light within the volume where such a force carrier wants to do its work then two particles connected by them cannot feel the the mutual forces anymore (the force carriers never reach the other particle) - and then stuff flies apart.


Sounds like the period of inflation after the big bang.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2015
Sounds like the period of inflation after the big bang.

Well, according to the model there weren't any particles around at the time inflation started.
swordsman
1 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2015
The viscosity of space is determined by the curvature of electromagnetic waves. By my calculations, it is equal to 1/c. This wave property is one indication that space is filled with matter. Another indication is that space has electric and electromagnetic properties, resulting in the Coulomb and magnetic constants of space. Modern physics is concentrated on particle theories, and has been for decades. However, the theories keep going around in circles. Planck covered most of these difficulties, resulting in his electronic model of the atom, and consequently his quantum theory.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2015
The only big rip is the sound of the massive shit today's scientists try to pass off as science.
Johnpaily
1 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2015
That is interesting and it is common sense. These extremes are points at which what we call God [call it by any names], Intervenes. We can also visualize it as consciousness and Intelligence of the Cosmic Being Unfolding. There is little doubt about this theory but the question is what creates the BIG BANG and what stops the BIG RIP. There is very little doubt to the fact that we are heading for a Big Rip. The earth is breaking down and RIPPING APART because human greed for material power that is leading to exponential increase in heat of the environment. The question is how God will intervene. My take is that it is through the awakening of Human consciousness and Intelligence such that he emerges out of slavery to religions, name and forms to Know God as Truth and Light and Force creates and gives Life. Creation here needs to be understood as transformation
JeanTate
5 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2015
@swordsman:
The viscosity of space is determined by the curvature of electromagnetic waves. By my calculations, it is equal to 1/c
Impossible.

"1/c" is an inverse speed, with units of TIME/LENGTH. Whatever 'the viscosity of space' is, it most certainly is not something with those units!

Care to try again?
mytwocts
5 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2015
The viscosity of space is determined by the curvature of electromagnetic waves.

That concept is undefined.
Planck covered most of these difficulties, resulting in his electronic model of the atom, and consequently his quantum theory.

You mean Bohr.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2015
That is interesting and it is common sense.

There is very little common sense in your post, though.
There is very little physics in your post.
Repent.

TimLong2001
not rated yet Jul 06, 2015
@Steve 200mph Cruiz: Actually all sciences were originally subcategories of philosophy. You are correct in asserting that philosophy, and especially philosophy of science, follow the scientific method. I did an interdepartmental (physics, engineering & philosophy of physics) graduate thesis on relativity and the light principle, in "1985-86" (graduated in Dec. 1985 but it's in the 1986 Microfilms International). Anyway the upshot is that the velocity of light can only be described as the "characteristic velocity of E-M radiation." The Lorentz transformation (formerly the Poincare' transformation) had success in calculating relativistic data without the "speed limit" by using the Fresnel Dragging Coefficient (an aether drag term which was discredited with the demise of the aether by the Michaelson-Morley Experiment results BUT can be understood as a "negative helicity" when applied to the binary photon structure (QED), and possibly with the QCD quark-antiquark pairs.
(cont'd)
TimLong2001
not rated yet Jul 06, 2015
(cont'd from above) A miniscule photon mass (ignored when calculating atomic masses and was later defined as zero) is critical when calculating the dynamics of the binary (+/-) pair, averaging a zero charge per cycle. To understand this mechanism, it would be good to study the "pair formation" characteristics of the 1.0216 MeV "Threshold" gammaray, as well as the electron-positron "annhilation" mechanism. (ref., Alfred Goldhaber and Michael Nieto ,Theoretical Division LANL, "The Mass of the Photon", May 1976, Scientific American.) This also has serious implications for an alternate understanding of the background red shift, per the Poynting-Robertson effect, as well as gravitational lensing, absorption and re-radiation, interference effects, and dispersion.

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.