Violations of energy conservation in the early universe may explain dark energy

January 20, 2017 by Lisa Zyga feature
This is the "South Pillar" region of the star-forming region called the Carina Nebula. Like cracking open a watermelon and finding its seeds, the infrared telescope "busted open" this murky cloud to reveal star embryos tucked inside finger-like pillars of thick dust. Credit: NASA

(Phys.org)—Physicists have proposed that violations of energy conservation in the early universe, as predicted by certain modified theories of quantum mechanics and quantum gravity, may explain the cosmological constant problem, which is sometimes referred to as "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics."

The physicists, Thibaut Josset and Alejandro Perez at the University of Aix-Marseille, France, and Daniel Sudarsky at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, have published a paper on their proposal in a recent issue Physical Review Letters.

"The main achievement of the work was the unexpected relation between two apparently very distinct issues, namely the accelerated expansion of the universe and microscopic physics," Josset told Phys.org. "This offers a fresh look at the cosmological constant problem, which is still far from being solved."

Einstein originally proposed the concept of the cosmological constant in 1917 to modify his theory of in order to prevent the universe from expanding, since at the time the universe was considered to be static.

Now that modern observations show that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, the cosmological constant today can be thought of as the simplest form of , offering a way to account for current observations.

However, there is a huge discrepancy—up to 120 orders of magnitude—between the large theoretical predicted value of the cosmological constant and the tiny observed value. To explain this disagreement, some research has suggested that the cosmological constant may be an entirely new constant of nature that must be measured more precisely, while another possibility is that the underlying mechanism assumed by theory is incorrect. The new study falls into the second line of thought, suggesting that scientists still do not fully understand the root causes of the cosmological constant.

The basic idea of the new paper is that violations of energy conservation in the could have been so small that they would have negligible effects at local scales and remain inaccessible to modern experiments, yet at the same time these violations could have made significant contributions to the present value of the cosmological constant.

To most people, the idea that conservation of energy is violated goes against everything they learned about the most fundamental laws of physics. But on the cosmological scale, conservation of energy is not as steadfast a law as it is on smaller scales. In this study, the physicists specifically investigated two theories in which violations of energy conservation naturally arise.

The first scenario of violations involves modifications to quantum theory that have previously been proposed to investigate phenomena such as the creation and evaporation of black holes, and which also appear in interpretations of quantum mechanics in which the wavefunction undergoes spontaneous collapse. In these cases, energy is created in an amount that is proportional to the mass of the collapsing object.

Violations of energy conservation also arise in some approaches to quantum gravity in which spacetime is considered to be granular due to the fundamental limit of length (the Planck length, which is on the order of 10-35 m). This spacetime discreteness could have led to either an increase or decrease in energy that may have begun contributing to the cosmological constant starting when photons decoupled from electrons in the early universe, during the period known as recombination.

As the researchers explain, their proposal relies on a modification to general relativity called unimodular gravity, first proposed by Einstein in 1919.

"Energy from matter components can be ceded to the gravitational field, and this 'loss of energy' will behave as a cosmological constant—it will not be diluted by later expansion of the universe," Josset said. "Therefore a tiny loss or creation of energy in the remote past may have significant consequences today on large scale."

Whatever the source of the energy conservation violation, the important result is that the energy that was created or lost affected the cosmological constant to a greater and greater extent as time went by, while the effects on matter decreased over time due to the expansion of the universe.

Another way to put it, as the physicists explain in their paper, is that the cosmological constant can be thought of as a record of the energy non-conservation during the history of the universe.

Currently there is no way to tell whether the violations of energy conservation investigated here truly did affect the cosmological constant, but the physicists plan to further investigate the possibility in the future.

"Our proposal is very general and any violation of is expected to contribute to an effective cosmological constant," Josset said. "This could allow to set new constraints on phenomenological models beyond standard .

"On the other hand, direct evidence that dark energy is sourced by energy non-conservation seems largely out-of-reach, as we have access to the value of lambda [the ] today and constraints on its evolution at late time only."

Explore further: Universe may be on the brink of collapse (on the cosmological timescale)

More information: Thibaut Josset, Alejandro Perez, and Daniel Sudarsky. "Dark Energy from Violation of Energy Conservation." Physical Review Letters. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.021102. Also at arXiv:1604.04183 [gr-qc]

Related Stories

Why we've got the cosmological constant all wrong

March 5, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Some scientists call the cosmological constant the "worst prediction of physics." And when today’s theories give an estimated value that is about 120 orders of magnitude larger than the measured value, ...

Next time you're late to work, blame dark energy

May 27, 2016

Ever since Lemaitre and Hubble's first proposed it in the 1920s, scientists and astronomers have been aware that the universe is expanding. And from these observations, cosmological theories like the Big Bang Theory and the ...

Cosmology: Lore of lonely regions

August 16, 2016

A research group led by Ludwig-Maximilians-Unversitaet (LMU) in Munich physicist Nico Hamaus is calculating the dynamics of cosmic voids and deriving new insights into our entire universe.

Recommended for you

Carefully crafted light pulses control neuron activity

November 17, 2017

Specially tailored, ultrafast pulses of light can trigger neurons to fire and could one day help patients with light-sensitive circadian or mood problems, according to a new study in mice at the University of Illinois.

Strain-free epitaxy of germanium film on mica

November 17, 2017

Germanium, an elemental semiconductor, was the material of choice in the early history of electronic devices, before it was largely replaced by silicon. But due to its high charge carrier mobility—higher than silicon by ...

New imaging technique peers inside living cells

November 16, 2017

To undergo high-resolution imaging, cells often must be sliced and diced, dehydrated, painted with toxic stains, or embedded in resin. For cells, the result is certain death.

133 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RZ49
Jan 20, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
2.9 / 5 (14) Jan 20, 2017
Rick Perry said he was going to look into them-there "violations of energy conservation", and punish whoever did it, since he will be Secretary of Energy now.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 20, 2017
Did you actually imply theoretical disproof of assumptions upon the "Early Universe"? Or did I infer it? Either way it makes no sense!
gkam
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2017
Hyper, it's gone. I think the post by RZ49 was removed by someone not conversant in science, and who assumed poor character in others. Some of mine got taken down because of some lack of science with the "moderator".

But others, such as pure personal insults are left posted.

What gives?
SiaoX
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2017
It could be an evidence of extradimensions or parallel universe. I.e. the energy didn't actually disappear - it just escaped into another dimension(s) or even parallel universe. Of course this is just an interpretation of this new interpretation (violation of energy conservation law) of already existing interpretation (dark energy) of accelerated expansion of universe (which is an interpretation of the red shift observed by itself).

How we could interpret all of it? By living in computer simulation?
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 20, 2017
FTA -
"But on the cosmological scale, conservation of energy is not as steadfast a law as it is on smaller scales."

Fractal layers are only generally similar, not exact.. (the variable sets differ).
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 20, 2017
FTA -
"But on the cosmological scale, conservation of energy is not as steadfast a law as it is on smaller scales."

Fractal layers are only generally similar, not exact.. (the variable sets differ).

IOW - there are NO violations of CoE,. Only the APPEARANCE of them. (Due to incomplete observations)
arcmetal
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2017
I only need $500 million to build my fairy translator (its that cheap since its made mostly of cardboard and light bulbs). With the fairy translator we can then speak to the fairies, and they can then tell us, and prove that all of the dark energy is really just a byproduct of their usage of fairy dust. And thus, there is no need to violate the conservation of energy to explain dark energy.
eachus
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2017
I'm curious. Was the Casimir effect operating during the early stages of the universe? Seems to me that at some point it would become a big energy sink as work was needed to pry conductive parts of the universe apart.
RZ49
Jan 20, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 20, 2017
I only need $500 million to build my fairy translator (its that cheap since its made mostly of cardboard and light bulbs). With the fairy translator we can then speak to the fairies, and they can then tell us, and prove that all of the dark energy is really just a byproduct of their usage of fairy dust. And thus, there is no need to violate the conservation of energy to explain dark energy.

I am assuming you were responding to my comment.
You're gonna need to make sure it uses a smartphone to ensure successful marketing...
And, why would you need violations of something we already have a good handle on (LOTS of experimental evidence) to explain a term used for something we know almost zero about...?
They're only violations until we can observe & determine what exactly is going on...

Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 21, 2017
I'm thinking we've got to apply the uncertainty principle on a macroscopic scale. That is energy is spread out over a much greater time interval than at the BB when there was only one Planck time. So maybe there has been 10^120 Planck times since the BB. So at the present time we are in a cooling phase, but much less that that at earlier times.
nikola_milovic_378
Jan 21, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2017
The current ΛCDM "Standard Model of Cosmology" says the source of dark energy is spacetime curvature in the form of Λ, the cosmological constant, specifically its decay from a high negative to a low positive value, and the return to a low negative value due to universal expansion. Statements that it is "far from being solved" are silly given what we already know; references to Einstein's statement that including a cosmological constant in GRT was his self-claimed "greatest mistake" are silly given we see accelerating expansion.

Let's try to stick to reality here. The dominant theory is the dominant theory because it is the most explanatory; proposing alternative explanations for already-explained phenomena requires not merely different explanations, but evidence that denies the dominant explanation. In other words, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it is not apparent here.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2017
I will point out that we have recently seen evidence in articles published on this site that the supposed "defects" in the supernova data regarding accelerating expansion have been proven chimerical.

See https://phys.org/...rse.html
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2017
The current ΛCDM "Standard Model of Cosmology" says the source of dark energy is spacetime curvature in the form of Λ, the cosmological constant, specifically its decay from a high negative to a low positive value, and the return to a low negative value due to universal expansion. Statements that it is "far from being solved" are silly given what we already know;...
Apparently references to some problem far from being solved comes from trying to calculate the cosmological constant from semi-classical EFT, as I understand, no problem with ΛCDM.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2017
Apparently references to some problem far from being solved comes from trying to calculate the cosmological constant from semi-classical EFT, as I understand, no problem with ΛCDM.
But we already know that the SM is incomplete: it doesn't have quantum gravity. And if there's to be a quantum explanation for cosmological constant it must come from quantum gravity.

But you don't need quantum gravity to make an observation, and our observations say ΛCDM. I wouldn't call knowing three out of four "far from" knowing the fourth. I'd call it 75%.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2017
Apparently references to some problem far from being solved comes from trying to calculate the cosmological constant from semi-classical EFT, as I understand,,,
Perhaps a better term would be Ineffective Field Theory.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2017
Apparently references to some problem far from being solved comes from trying to calculate the cosmological constant from semi-classical EFT, as I understand, no problem with ΛCDM.
But we already know that the SM is incomplete: it doesn't have quantum gravity. And if there's to be a quantum explanation for cosmological constant it must come from quantum gravity.

But you don't need quantum gravity to make an observation, and our observations say ΛCDM. I wouldn't call knowing three out of four "far from" knowing the fourth. I'd call it 75%.

There is only charge, so I don't think SM is real.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2017
...SM is incomplete: it doesn't have quantum gravity.
I don't think particle physics is going to help out when it comes to finding dark matter. See https://phys.org/...ity.html
Da Schneib
Jan 21, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
@Hyperfuzzy
There is only charge, so I don't think SM is real.
How can you have charge without charged particles?
Osiris1
5 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2017
Maybe what is at work here is not dark energy, but rather dork energy of the Dilbert variety. Folks playing with numbers to 'make it come out right'!
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
@Da Schneib
...SM is incomplete: it doesn't have quantum gravity.
I don't think particle physics is going to help out when it comes to finding dark matter.
We're not talking about dark matter.
So SM is complete as far as dark matter is concerned? Just checking.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2017
So SM is complete as far as dark matter is concerned?
Nope.

But we're not talking about dark matter. You might want to check the title of the article we're commenting on very, very closely. You will find that it isn't about dark matter and doesn't mention it.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
@Da Schneib
So SM is complete as far as dark matter is concerned?
Nope.

But we're not talking about dark matter.
Sorry. I was referring to SM being complete.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2017
No, you were referring to dark matter. We're not discussing dark matter.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2017
No, you were referring to dark matter. We're not discussing dark matter.
I see. No connection whatsoever. How sad.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2017
cont
Actually since there's no connection between particle physics and dark matter, dark matter cannot be a particle. Good point.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2017
I don't think you're quite getting the point, @Seeker. The article is about dark *energy*, not dark *matter*. They're different.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
@Da Schneib
I was thinking dark matter might have something to do with quantum gravity. Perhaps nothing to do with gravity at all?
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
cont
Actually as far as quantum gravity is concerned, we already have entropic gravity. I'm not sure if this qualifies as quantum gravity, but it can be shown that Newtonian gravity follows from entropic gravity. Anyway as I understand it dark energy is the reason for the accelerated expansion of the U, and IMO this is the source of gravity - the pressure of expansion. We can expand on this if I haven't already done so.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
@Hyperfuzzy
There is only charge, so I don't think SM is real.
How can you have charge without charged particles?

There is only the spherical e fields and they are diametrical, only two fields, each field is unique, it may be considered a 3 dimensional object, within the E space; which apparently describes space as having no beginning or end, i.e. empty space is only conceptual, we are space!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
@Hyperfuzzy
There is only charge, so I don't think SM is real.
How can you have charge without charged particles?

There is only the spherical e fields and they are diametrical, only two fields, each field is unique, it may be considered a 3 dimensional object, within the E space; which apparently describes space as having no beginning or end, i.e. empty space is only conceptual, we are space!

Silly to even look for a minimum or maximum particle and the endeavor describes the axiomatic structure is completely illogical! Funny, this $6$# started around the discovery of everything! Charge has no mass, GR, well anyway it's embarrassing.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
@Hyperfuzzy
There is only charge, so I don't think SM is real.
How can you have charge without charged particles?

There is only the spherical e fields and they are diametrical, only two fields, each field is unique, it may be considered a 3 dimensional object, within the E space; which apparently describes space as having no beginning or end, i.e. empty space is only conceptual, we are space!

Silly to even look for a minimum or maximum particle and the endeavor describes the axiomatic structure is completely illogical! Funny, this $6$# started around the discovery of everything! Charge has no mass, GR, well anyway it's embarrassing.

[it is, what it is, axiomatic]
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2017
[ it, is not, what it, is not ] well this becomes complicated, if we are here. Look at the logic, you could actually say anything; so, this shall not be accepted as truth. There exists an infinite amount of synchronicities! So, axioms, juz say'n?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
@Hyperfuzzy
There is only charge, so I don't think SM is real.
How can you have charge without charged particles?

see comments https://phys.org/...ark.html
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2017
I was thinking dark matter might have something to do with quantum gravity. Perhaps nothing to do with gravity at all?

Actually as far as quantum gravity is concerned, we already have entropic gravity. I'm not sure if this qualifies as quantum gravity, but it can be shown that Newtonian gravity follows from entropic gravity. Anyway as I understand it dark energy is the reason for the accelerated expansion of the U, and IMO this is the source of gravity - the pressure of expansion. We can expand on this if I haven't already done so.

You seem to be referring to Verlinde's paper, "Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe," https://arxiv.org...2269.pdf This paper has not been peer reviewed and has not appeared in a scholarly journal. arXiv is not a scholarly journal and articles on it are not peer reviewed. Literally anyone can post literally anything there.

It also does not claim that expansion of the universe is the source of gravity.
[contd]
Hyperfuzzy
Jan 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2017
[contd]
The effects of dark matter and dark energy are nearly diametrically opposed.

"Dark matter" is a placeholder term for an effect that makes itself felt in the dynamics of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. They hold together more than they should. *More* gravity than we can account for.

"Dark energy" is a placeholder term for an effect that makes itself felt in the dynamics of the universe collectively. It's flying apart faster than it should. *Less* gravity than we can account for.

While the causes of these two effects are under investigation, the existence of the effects is backed by enough evidence that neither is particularly controversial.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
[contd]
The effects of dark matter and dark energy are nearly diametrically opposed.

"Dark matter" is a placeholder term for an effect that makes itself felt in the dynamics of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. They hold together more than they should. *More* gravity than we can account for.

"Dark energy" is a placeholder term for an effect that makes itself felt in the dynamics of the universe collectively. It's flying apart faster than it should. *Less* gravity than we can account for.

While the causes of these two effects are under investigation, the existence of the effects is backed by enough evidence that neither is particularly controversial.

Please let me post this! "It's like trying to explain QM to chickens!"
Homebrook
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
"violations of energy conservation" cannot occur by definition. Now you can come up with new theory in which more accurately explains the phenomenon of nature, which a prior theory fails to do, but it is an inaccurate, irrational, and misleading title for an article on a physics web site.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2017
If the vacuum fluctuation origins of the universe before inflation are correct, the entire universe is technically a violation of conservation of energy. And that's leaving out dark energy. So I'm not nearly as certain as you seem to be that there are no circumstances under which energy conservation can't be violated. I seriously doubt any of those circumstances are local, though.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
If the vacuum fluctuation origins

First understand your rational, you begin with QM, a wave equation with quanta, all made up, non-causal it works. Why? Everything is made up of diametrical spherical fields, apparently never created or destroyed and it is an entity that does not exclusively occupy space whose cloak is updated at the speed of light relative to its center. The only causal effects of motion at the relative-to-the-centers is Colomb superimposed to the superposition of all charge everywhere at the moment of measurement, i.e. what every particles see's. With enough computational power or clever superstitions.clusters .
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
@Da Schneib
[contd]
The effects of dark matter and dark energy are nearly diametrically opposed.
Dark energy compresses galaxies due to spatial expansion. This compression flattens out the spiral rotation curves and makes it appear as if there must be some dark matter force inside the galaxy pulling it together. Data shows for example at https://phys.org/...ity.html the increase in gravity as you move farther and farther out. This is because matter displaces the expanding dark energy and quantized matter doesn't expand like spacetime so the density of the dark energy and resulting spacetime expansion inside galaxies is reduced.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
@Da Schneib
...You seem to be referring to Verlinde's paper, "Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe," https://arxiv.org...2269.pdf ...

It also does not claim that expansion of the universe is the source of gravity.
I know. I just made that up because it works. Should be good for laughs too. Not trying to be funny though.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2017
Dark energy compresses galaxies due to spatial expansion.
Nope. Dark energy is a term in the Einstein Field Equations denoted as Λ and part of the current best-accepted ΛCDM cosmology.

It can press outward (as it obviously does since it's accelerating expansion), or it can press inward, but it can't do both. Furthermore, to do what you're claiming it would not only have to press inward on galaxy clusters, but individual galaxies as well, and we'd be able to see that. It would mess up the galaxy cluster dynamics. Nice try but this won't work.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
@Da Schneib
You seem to be referring to Verlinde's paper, "Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe," https://arxiv.org...2269.pdf This paper has not been peer reviewed and has not appeared in a scholarly journal. arXiv is not a scholarly journal and articles on it are not peer reviewed. Literally anyone can post literally anything there.
Maybe someday I'll get around to reading it. I have found some typos in his stuff so I can understand it probably needs peer review. In the meantime if you check out https://en.m.wiki..._gravity you will find Newtonian gravity derived from entropic gravity. It also points out that entropic gravity doesn't explain the additional gravity at interstellar distances. This is where the additional gravity comes in from the dark energy. You can see at
https://phys.org/...ark.html where the additional gravity gradually kicks in due to the higher density of dark energy outside the galaxy.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2017
There are some pretty serious problems with entropic gravity; I'll wait to see if Verlinde's latest paper addresses enough of them that he gets it published.

Luboš Motl and Archil Kobakhidze are primary critics of it, and there are some problems with it having to do with multiple temperature baths that have not so far been solved, to my knowledge. I'm not all that fond of Motl and have questioned his credibility in the past, but he has made some good points against entropic gravity.

The jury is very definitely still out on this one. Verlinde has a fair way to go before this is on strong theoretical foundations, apparently.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
@Da Schneib
,,,Dark energy,,,It can press outward (as it obviously does since it's accelerating expansion), or it can press inward, but it can't do both.
Or so it would seem. In actuality it presses outward less inside galaxies because it's displaced by quantized matter. Meaning lower density of dark matter inside galaxies.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2017
No, I don't buy that one either. Remember, Λ is a characteristic of spacetime. It's not something you can "displace" or "push away," any more than you can displace or push away gravity. In fact, it *is* gravity. It's a term on the left side of the EFE. That's gravity. There is no shield against gravity. It passes through all spacetime, matter, energy, and everything like it's not even there.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
@Da Schneib
The jury is very definitely still out on this one. Verlinde has a fair way to go before this is on strong theoretical foundations, apparently.
As far as Newtonian gravity is concerned I think Verlinde is "Olly, Olly, all in free." That is if you can believe the mathematics and I doubt your chance of disproving the mathematics is very good regardless of what the jury says. But as far as the entanglement stuff is concerned I guess it's ok but I'm not betting the family farm on it.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2017
It's disturbing that Verlinde isn't getting published.

Pursuing the other train of posts, think about this: the Sun's gravity reaches right through the Earth and affects the Moon no matter where it is in its orbit. If it didn't, the Moon would experience a "bump" in its orbit every time there was a lunar eclipse. We could not fail to have noticed this; it would have to be included in ephemeredes. And it's not.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
@Da Schneib
There is no shield against gravity. It passes through all spacetime, matter, energy, and everything like it's not even there.
I don't think gravity passes through matter. If it did matter would not be quantized.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2017
I don't think gravity passes through matter. If it did matter would not be quantized.
See the post immediately above. We know for sure gravity passes through the Earth like it's not even there.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 23, 2017
Gravity: See the cumulative effects of so many spherical centers reaching out into infinity, albeit at the speed of light, relative to center of motion,an the rather large qty of diametrical fields. You do a summation, else ignore it and keep looking for violations.

You may actually count the number of diametrical spherical pairs, look at the strength at a point, always 1/surface_area_of_the_sphere of each point charge. You may use supposition. or assume a oscillation about the center of "mass". I would not expect that oscillation will be single valued so it will be a solution of the Fourier Transform over a finite volume. I simply calculate a dipole. Therefore gravity is a non computed value of the summation of a set of diametrical spherical fields. Next time give me a tough question. Note the summation is over dr with t as a constant. A simple fit but lacks being Holistic since it also depends upon everything else.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2017
@Da Schneib
We know for sure gravity passes through the Earth like it's not even there.
Well maybe maybe not. Gravity passes into the earth. At the center gravity is zero. Nichts. Nada. At the center of a black hole gravity is nichts. Nada. Could make for some interesting dynamics inside a black hole. I'm trying to find out about some of this but everything seems to get screened out at the event horizon. I smell a rat.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
Actually, the gravity of both the Moon and the Sun-- as well as the rest of the planets-- would be felt at the center of the Earth. Only Earth's own gravity would be cancelled out.

You shouldn't take books about gravity written for kids or the general public too literally. They try to keep things simple.

Consider this: if gravity can't pass through matter, what's attracting us to the Earth? Its own matter would block most of the gravity from the rest of it from us. We'd only be attracted by the crust, or worse yet only the small portion of the crust which was not blocked by all that matter.

This is silliness. Give it up.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
Here's another little exercise: if gravity can be blocked by matter, then Newtonian gravity is wrong. For starters, the gravitational constant is wrong; has to be, since only the part of a planet that faces a moon can attract it.

We haven't only measured the gravitational constant with planets; we've measured it with lead spheres in the laboratory.

Absolutely no way. The geometry is all wrong. The *entire mass* has to be involved; if it weren't, gravity wouldn't vary with volume, and a half-shell of a mass would attract as strongly as the whole mass.

This just doesn't work.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 23, 2017
Actually, the gravity of both the Moon and the Sun-- as well as the rest of the planets-- would be felt at the center of the Earth.
But the earth is in freefall. Like an astronaut in orbit. They don't feel ANY gravity. Ever watch a spacewalk? Put it this way. The whole universe is in free fall. Theoretically at least.
arcmetal
not rated yet Jan 23, 2017
@Whydening Gyre
I only need $500 million to build my fairy translator ... there is no need to violate the conservation of energy to explain dark energy.

I am assuming you were responding to my comment.

They're only violations until we can observe & determine what exactly is going on...

I hadn't noticed your comment, but yes, we seem to agree. My comment was directed at those in the article. At those that are so easily willing to cast aside a natural law to explain some fantasy "fairy dust".
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2017


Like an astronaut in orbit.

Astronauts feel like they are in free FALL because they are in ORBIT (Notice 'fall' and 'orbit'. I.e. zipping around the planet so fast that the curvature of their path due to gravity is equal to that of the Earth surface beneath. This is why getting from one orbit to another is NOT achieved by thrusting up/down but by speeding up and slowing down).
If they weren't doing that then they'd be falling down. That is why - when you watch a rocket launch closely - you notice that the rocket is veering off to the side and not going straight up (particularly noticeable on videos of old shuttle launches. it needs the LATERAL speed to stay to orbit.). If it went straight up it'd just fall back down once the fuel is exhausted (assuming it didn't reach escape velocity).

This comic explains it well:
https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/

This just doesn't work.

Like all his ideas. Why do we even bother?
BEGINNING
3 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2017
When scientists speak of "violations of energy conservation" they really mean supernatural creation.
FredJose
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2017
What other "law of energy" must have been "violated" with the creation of matter from energy whereby the anti-matter simply vanished without a trace?????

Scientists looking for a purely naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe have a big job on their hands:
1. The unconstrained cosmological constant.
2. The missing anti-matter.
3. The occurrence of exclusively left-handed amino acids in biological life.
4. The occurrence of exclusively right-handed sugars in biological life.
5. The existence of biological life itself.
6. The very existence of stars.
7. The very existence of planets.
This to name but a few.

Basically, the attempt at finding a purely naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe and everything in it is doomed to failure, no less.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 23, 2017
@a_p
This just doesn't work.
Like all his ideas. Why do we even bother?
Right. Go back to your happy place.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 23, 2017
What other "law of energy" must have been "violated" with the creation of matter from energy whereby the anti-matter simply vanished without a trace?????

Scientists looking for a purely naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe have a big job on their hands:
1. The unconstrained cosmological constant.
2. The missing anti-matter.
3. The occurrence of exclusively left-handed amino acids in biological life.
4. The occurrence of exclusively right-handed sugars in biological life.
5. The existence of biological life itself.
6. The very existence of stars.
7. The very existence of planets.
This to name but a few.

Basically, the attempt at finding a purely naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe and everything in it is doomed to failure, no less.

https://phys.org/...lly.html
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2017
When scientists speak of "violations of energy conservation" they really mean supernatural creation.

No. Nothing in nature is 'super' natural. Nature is the final arbiter of what is. That we have found something that seems marvellously consistent (conservation of energy) doesn't really mean that it has to be so for all circumstances. If it can be shown that conservation of energy can be violated then it will be relegated to a similar level as Newton's law of gravity - very accurate under normal circumstances but not applicable in extreme circumstances. (I.e. in that case it isn't wrong. It just not universal. It'd still be a very good law to use for most intents and purposes)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017

Basically, the attempt at finding a purely naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe and everything in it is doomed to failure, no less.

So? That's what science is all about: Finding stuff out. No one is saying that we have found the answers to everything yet.
But simply going ahead and blindly declaring that "gods must be the solution" to any and everything doesn't get us anywhere (it's also particularly useless, because you can't DO anything with that answer. You can't even test it.)

There's still a lot of unanswered questions. If there weren't we wouldn't need scientists.
But every time, throughout all of history, that a scientist has found out anything: part of the answer was "nope...no gods involved at all"
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 23, 2017
When scientists speak of "violations of energy conservation" they really mean supernatural creation.

No, they really mean it's something we haven't figured out why it happens - yet...
Accounts
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2017
Isn't the Big Bang, in and of itself, the biggest violation of conservation of energy/matter that has happened?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2017
Funny, nobody gets it, diametrical spherical fields, apparently never created or destroyed, we see the wrinkles, i.e. we an object within this sea. These DSF's never change, updated at the speed of light relative to there centers, from that center to infinity. Get it! Within an infinite sea, there exist how many possibilities for life? With this perspective, I see no violations, every field wrinkle is defined by the motion of its center, note all aggregates attract? How could galaxies form if there centers are moving toward each other? This is a single minute section of the carpet!
arcmetal
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2017
Isn't the Big Bang, in and of itself, the biggest violation of conservation of energy/matter that has happened?

Yes, that's an obvious clue its nonsense.
arcmetal
3 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2017

Basically, the attempt at finding a purely naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe and everything in it is doomed to failure, no less.


That's quite the paradox you stepped into. It may seem like there are "supernatural" events out there, but once they are scientifically explained they then get a natural explanation attached to them.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Jan 23, 2017
Isn't the Big Bang, in and of itself, the biggest violation of conservation of energy/matter that has happened?

Not necessarily. If e.g. you count gravity as a negative in the energy equations then you get a zero sum energy universe. The way I understand this theory it would mean that the stuff we observe is 'simply' a symmetry break into mass and its associated gravity field which cancels out energy-wise.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 23, 2017
@Da Schneib
There is no shield against gravity. It passes through all spacetime, matter, energy, and everything like it's not even there.
I don't think gravity passes through matter. If it did matter would not be quantized.
Maybe we should walk that back just a tad. I found "atoms turn out to be 99.99999999% empty space" Reference https://www.physi....74297/. So expanding spacetime, the source of gravity I'm saying, passes right through the gravitating body, only not through the 0.00000001% containing matter (maybe less between the ears). Matter just goes along for the ride.

Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 23, 2017
"there is a huge discrepancy—up to 120 orders of magnitude—between the large theoretical predicted value of the cosmological constant and the tiny observed value. "

Problem being the theoretical predicted value adds up all contributions from the vacuum energy virtual particle contributions, as I understand. In order for an energy to be realized or observed its wave function has to be collapsed. But its wave function extends from now to eternity if I remember correctly. They can't all be collapsed instantaneously.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 24, 2017
cont
I read something about Feynman saying to collapse a wave function is like borrowing from the future. Like when it's all gone it's all over. Like gas in the tank. Conservation of energy in 4 dimensions. And it's being recycled in the black holes and when something lights a spark it likely starts all over again.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2017
"there is a huge discrepancy—up to 120 orders of magnitude—between the large theoretical predicted value of the cosmological constant and the tiny observed value. "

Problem being the theoretical predicted value adds up all contributions from the vacuum energy virtual particle contributions, as I understand.
All we know about, except gravity. That's because there is no theory of quantum gravity, so its contribution can't be added to the prediction. You can't claim a contradiction between quantum mechanics and cosmology when we know the quantum mechanics is incomplete.

In order for an energy to be realized or observed its wave function has to be collapsed. But its wave function extends from now to eternity if I remember correctly. They can't all be collapsed instantaneously.
This is called "entanglement." We don't completely know how it works yet. We're still working it out. I don't see what it has to do with either quantum or cosmological predictions of Λ.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 24, 2017
@DaSchneib
...there is no theory of quantum gravity, so its contribution can't be added to the prediction.
I thought they were using QED.
sedumjoy
not rated yet Jan 24, 2017
I thought they got into this mess to begin with by using QM to calculate the energy of the vacuum with virtual particles zipping in and out of existence. That's a violation of conservation of energy right there but you can get away with it since it is a short period of time. allegedly. So what's the bid deal with a little more conservation of energy violation.Of course I am not sure if this is the correct concept of dark energy since there are so many different definitions it just depends who you read or ask. The other problem is that some physics geeks say that there is a multiverse so this is not even a problem because eventually you are going to get one. You can always theorize something you can't prove to prove another point. As they say. "Run in up the flag pole and see who salutes".
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
I thought they got into this mess to begin with by using QM to calculate the energy of the vacuum with virtual particles zipping in and out of existence. That's a violation of conservation of energy right there but you can get away with it since it is a short period of time. allegedly.
Lawrence Krauss says whole universes could flicker into and out of existence
So what's the bid deal with a little more conservation of energy violation.
I don't think you can apply conservation of energy at the quantum level because you can have particles going forward and reverse in time.
You can always theorize something you can't prove to prove another point. As they say. "Run in up the flag pole and see who salutes".
For example, per Krauss, we can test conservation of energy by measuring the flatness of spacetime. We can make it flat by assigning 70% of the mass in the universe to spacetime. Then you can scurry up the flagpole and watch all the physicists salute.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
You can't claim a contradiction between quantum mechanics and cosmology when we know the quantum mechanics is incomplete.

Was at a talk two weeks ago where they showed how physicists are looking for indirect evidence for a fifth force which may resolve this. Direct evidence isn't possible, yet, because the energies required to probe this deep are several orders of magnitude higher than the biggest colliders can muster. But indirect evidence can be had by measuring whether the proton is unstable.

Intrigueing is, that the characteristic energy lines of the EM, weak and strong force all meet at almost exactly that energy level where proton decay is speculated to occur. Kamiokande hasn't found anything, yet (so there is only a lower bound for proton decay or protons decay not into the expected set of candidates). Maybe Super-Kamiokande will find something.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2017
with virtual particles zipping in and out of existence. That's a violation of conservation of energy right there

Where did you get the idea that virtual particle pairs violate conservation of energy? Virtual particles may have negative energy.
https://en.wikipe...particle
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
Virtual particles may have negative energy.
https://en.wikipe...particle
Actually negative kinetic energy. For example when the negative energy virtual particle becomes real and gets expelled from around black holes. Or at least I assume that's the case with Hawking radiation?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
@DaSchneib
...there is no theory of quantum gravity, so its contribution can't be added to the prediction.
I thought they were using QED.

QED is only one quantum theory. There are two others we know and one other we don't. The two we know are QCD and electroweak theory; the one we don't is quantum gravity.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2017
@DaSchneib
...there is no theory of quantum gravity, so its contribution can't be added to the prediction.
We don't need more contributions. At least more positive contributions. Here's a hint:
Virtual particles may have negative energy.
So apparently we haven't been figuring in those negative contributions.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2017
Ummmm, I don't think you quite understand what "contribution" means in this context.

You have a tendency to oversimplify things. If it was all that simple we'd've figured it out long ago.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 26, 2017
Ummmm, I don't think you quite understand what "contribution" means in this context.
Help me out here.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jan 26, 2017
"Contribution" in this context can be positive or negative.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 26, 2017
"Contribution" in this context can be positive or negative.
Negative contributions don't sound very probable when you're 120 orders of magnitudes too great. Maybe I'm just oversimplifying things again but doesn't seem likely.
Merrit
5 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2017
Not sure why scientists are so focused on matter antimatter unbalanced. There could be equal amounts of each in the universe. Just because our local universe is dominated by matter doesn't mean elsewhere isn't dominated by antimatter.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 26, 2017
Just because our local universe is dominated by matter doesn't mean elsewhere isn't dominated by antimatter.
Elsewhere being like way out there. Theory being at the time of baryogenesis the energy density of antimatter was less than that of spacetime so antimatter was expelled to the outer reaches. But the outer reaches at the time of baryogenesis was really not that far. So theoretically as spacetime cooled its energy density fell below that of antimatter. If that is the case then antimatter will now be gravitating. That could eventually mean sayonara. So all may not be darkness as the visible universe disappears. Instead we may be seeing blue shifted galaxies and when they collide with normal red shifted galaxies there could be quite a show. Plenty of time though. I guess.

Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 26, 2017
cont
That is assuming expanding spacetime just doesn't blow away the blue shifted galaxies along with the ones we already see. However it should be noted as spacetime expands the difference between its density and antimatter gets greater so the force of gravity for antimatter gets stronger.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 26, 2017
cont
Could also be true for the force of gravity for ordinary matter. Have to think about that. But by that time we'll probably all be collected into black holes anyway.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2017
Symmetry is the diametrical fields. Creating anti-fields is nonsensical. OK, delete this post because it does not acknowledge anti- as science. LOL
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 27, 2017
Also, how would we even determine if a nearby galaxy was comprised of matter or antimatter? Except for a merge, galaxies don't interact much with each other other than radiation which should be identical
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 27, 2017
Also, how would we even determine if a nearby galaxy was comprised of matter or antimatter? Except for a merge, galaxies don't interact much with each other other than radiation which should be identical
You're probably right. Crazy idea. Point being we should know what happened to all the antimatter during baryogenesis.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2017
Also, how would we even determine if a nearby galaxy was comprised of matter or antimatter? Except for a merge, galaxies don't interact much with each other other than radiation which should be identical
You're probably right. Crazy idea. Point being we should know what happened to all the antimatter during baryogenesis.

There is no antimatter. Everything in the standard model is made up. The only things are the diametrical spherical fields, and no GR. Symmetry is right before your eyes. It's one thing to study, it's another thing to THINK!
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 27, 2017
Also, how would we even determine if a nearby galaxy was comprised of matter or antimatter? Except for a merge, galaxies don't interact much with each other other than radiation which should be identical
You're probably right. Crazy idea. Point being we should know what happened to all the antimatter during baryogenesis.

Why not consider direction of spin...?
snoosebaum
not rated yet Jan 27, 2017
what size are your diametrical spherical fields, ?
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
Why not consider direction of spin...?
Ok. What if the particle pairs are formed with concentric spins. Then the one with the outer spin would occupy greater volume and to have the same energy would require less energy density. Or so it would seem.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2017
"Contribution" in this context can be positive or negative.
Negative contributions don't sound very probable when you're 120 orders of magnitudes too great. Maybe I'm just oversimplifying things again but doesn't seem likely.
As it turns out renormalization has a lot to do with making this background-independent. And given the length scale at which quantum gravity is expected to come into play, many orders of magnitude is a strong probability. To top it all off it's not even really clear that it's 120 orders of magnitude; it might be as low as 40.

Speculation in advance of the facts is just that: speculation. You should identify it as such.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2017
Also, how would we even determine if a nearby galaxy was comprised of matter or antimatter? Except for a merge, galaxies don't interact much with each other other than radiation which should be identical
The simple answer is the intergalactic medium and non-detection of annihilation events which are quite high-energy and easily detected. And aren't.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
what size are your diametrical spherical fields, ?
Spherical fields would have no polarity. Or so it would seem.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
what size are your diametrical spherical fields, ?
Spherical fields would have no polarity. Or so it would seem.

Unless - they were generated by and centered around a chunk of spinning matter....
In the case of a solar system, they would vary in size and amplitudes, hence diametricity...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2017
what size are your diametrical spherical fields, ?
Spherical fields would have no polarity. Or so it would seem.
Errr, so the spherical EM field around a proton has no polarity?

Better think about that one again.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
Speculation in advance of the facts is just that: speculation. You should identify it as such.
Well actually it might just be an alternate fact. Who knows?
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
Errr, so the spherical EM field around a proton has no polarity?

Better think about that one again.
So polarity would come from the direction that you spin the field. Good point.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
Errr, so the spherical EM field around a proton has no polarity?

Better think about that one again.
So polarity would come from the direction that you spin the field. Good point.

(Which is dependent on the polarity of the LARGER field is resides within... or the cumulative SMALLER fields that make it up...:-) )
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
(Which is dependent on the polarity of the LARGER field is resides within... or the cumulative SMALLER fields that make it up...:-) )
Whatever. Anyway the spins or polarity must cancel until they get enough energy to separate and become real particles. Spins initially being around the same axis but opposite directions.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
(Which is dependent on the polarity of the LARGER field is resides within... or the cumulative SMALLER fields that make it up...:-) )
Whatever. Anyway the spins or polarity must cancel until they get enough energy to separate and become real particles. Spins initially being around the same axis but opposite directions.

Ho! Good one...:-) (Spin and anti-spin).
Not quite sure what you're describing by saying cancel...
However, the REAL magic is what happens in the perpendicular of the axis...
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
However, the REAL magic is what happens in the perpendicular of the axis...

in actuality, what happens BETWEEN the axis and it's exact perpendicular...
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
Errr, so the spherical EM field around a proton has no polarity?

Better think about that one again.
Uhh...thinking. Being composed of quarks not sure about the spherical fields around protons.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
Errr, so the spherical EM field around a proton has no polarity?

Better think about that one again.
Uhh...thinking. Being composed of quarks not sure about the spherical fields around protons.

quasi-spherical?
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
quasi-spherical?
Maybe in quasi-physics. I'm more into speculative physics as long as it's plausible. Like the cutting-edge stuff.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2017
If you don't like protons try an electron.

This, by the way, is the basis of one of the most accurate measurements in the history of physics: the measurement of the magnetic moment of an electron, proving Schwinger, Feynman, and Tomonaga's renormalization technique for QED. Here is a description of it: http://gabrielse....ent.html

That would be real physics done in a real laboratory by real physicists. The accuracy is better than 3 parts in a hundred trillion. And it matches exactly what QED says it should be. Not a lot of places to hide here.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
As far as polarity and spin, no, the polarity doesn't emerge from the spin. It emerges from the charge. The polarity is "out" if you like Ben Franklin's arbitrary choice of polarity, or "in" if you prefer the opposite (you can justify either one, and we have EE textbooks that are written in two versions, one for "conventional current" and one for "electron flow" electronics engineering curricula to prove it). That's for the proton; it's exactly opposite for an electron, that is, "in" for conventional current or "out" for electron current.

That's polarity for an approximately point-source charge.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
what size are your diametrical spherical fields, ?

infinite
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
Errr, so the spherical EM field around a proton has no polarity?

Better think about that one again.
Uhh...thinking. Being composed of quarks not sure about the spherical fields around protons.

quasi-spherical?

It's just a spherical field, we name it. So, whatever you say. But Maxwell called the center of the field charge and E = 1/surface_area_of_the_sphere of the charge at the center and the sphere is defined where you measure E. And the radius of the sphere of course is from 0 to infinity, juz say'n
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
Compute the effects of the static field and the dynamic field. We only see the dynamic field and require a reference to measure the static field. In other words, always define what you are trying to measure using our instrumentation based upon these fields. You may define anything you may imagine; but, you will still use the same instrumentation. So what you see is only the wrinkles in the field, the static field, always 2, create gravity. Attraction - Repulsion and charges always comply, i.e. opposites attract, therefore nearer together, and like charges repel. So since charges always comply, there will only exist the centers for two charge flavors, + & -. Now show me what you think gravity really is, fundamentally speaking.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
Please explain why we are looking for something we cannot measure, or prove actually exist, or understand the impetus. In other words why are we looking for something impossible! Everything is composed of these fields, just because you only see the wrinkles, exactly how do you define the totals, since you say the totals are incorrect. Show your summation!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2017
Speculation in advance of the facts is just that: speculation. You should identify it as such.
Well actually it might just be an alternate fact. Who knows?
Real physicists doing real experiments in real laboratories know, that's who. There are no "alternate facts." There are facts, and non-facts. Facts are what you find in a laboratory, or by observing nature.

Speculations, conjectures, hypotheses, theories, and laws of nature are constructs of the mind, not facts, of varying degrees of reliability from lowest to highest in the order I've just listed them. The difference between these various constructs is how hard they've been tested. By facts.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
Speculation in advance of the facts is just that: speculation. You should identify it as such.
Well actually it might just be an alternate fact. Who knows?
Real physicists doing real experiments in real laboratories know, that's who. There are no "alternate facts." There are facts, and non-facts. Facts are what you find in a laboratory, or by observing nature.

Speculations, conjectures, hypotheses, theories, and laws of nature are constructs of the mind, not facts, of varying degrees of reliability from lowest to highest in the order I've just listed them. The difference between these various constructs is how hard they've been tested. By facts.

Anyway, don't understand your totals or what this is all about.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
Just because our local universe is dominated by matter doesn't mean elsewhere isn't dominated by antimatter.
Elsewhere being like way out there. Theory being at the time of baryogenesis the energy density of antimatter was less than that of spacetime so antimatter was expelled to the outer reaches.
Well guess what. At http://www.livesc...ors.html we find there IS an asymmetry between matter and antimatter but it's a billion times too small to account for what we see today. But during baryogenesis the density of spacetime was at least that much greater than it is today. Or so it would seem. So if they're talking about a difference in energy density then during baryogenesis there would be plenty of reason to expel antimatter to the far reaches of spacetime, at least as I understand gravity as emerging from different densities in spacetime. Looks like one puzzle may be due to be cracked asap.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 28, 2017
If there are only diametrical fields, the best definition is out of anti- is abnormal orbiters. I guess it's more rewarding to simply name your findings from a cloud chamber than logically explain it. So then why aren't there more?

Our immediate world would be unstable with 2 types of orbiters!
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 30, 2017
If there are only diametrical fields, the best definition is out of anti- is abnormal orbiters.


Normally I wouldn't bother answering you, HF.
However, this one I couldn't help.
What if - there are NO "orbiters" at all...?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 30, 2017
If there are only diametrical fields, the best definition is out of anti- is abnormal orbiters.


Normally I wouldn't bother answering you, HF.
However, this one I couldn't help.
What if - there are NO "orbiters" at all...?

No, problem. In fact, I think it would easier to assemble an atom without orbiters as the first step. Then add orbiters.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 31, 2017
If there are only diametrical fields, the best definition is out of anti- is abnormal orbiters.


Normally I wouldn't bother answering you, HF.
However, this one I couldn't help.
What if - there are NO "orbiters" at all...?

No, problem. In fact, I think it would easier to assemble an atom without orbiters as the first step. Then add orbiters.

But - the orbiters are just collections of atoms...
What are they in YOUR definition?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 31, 2017
If there are only diametrical fields, the best definition is out of anti- is abnormal orbiters.


Normally I wouldn't bother answering you, HF.
However, this one I couldn't help.
What if - there are NO "orbiters" at all...?

No, problem. In fact, I think it would easier to assemble an atom without orbiters as the first step. Then add orbiters.

But - the orbiters are just collections of atoms...
What are they in YOUR definition?

Review Atomic Theory
Seeker2
not rated yet Mar 05, 2017
@Da Schneib
You seem to be referring to Verlinde's paper, "Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe," https://arxiv.org...2269.pdf where the additional gravity gradually kicks in due to the higher density of dark energy outside the galaxy.
Actually I don't think there is a higher density of dark energy anywhere. I think it's available everywhere. Spacetime feeds off it and so grows exponentially, at least after inflation. The additional gravity outside the galaxies is due to more compressed regions of spacetime between the galaxies due to vacuum fluctuations in the early U. Matter naturally began forming in the lower density regions of spacetime as the U expanded and cooled. Hence, galaxies. I would guess the temperature has now stabilized and exponential expansion will continue at the rate of the cosmological constant. Like until the visible U becomes only one galaxy.
Seeker2
not rated yet Mar 05, 2017
cont
and we can imagine there will always be someone around shouting SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE should one speculate about there being other galaxies out there. Sad but probably true.
Seeker2
not rated yet Mar 14, 2017
Also, how would we even determine if a nearby galaxy was comprised of matter or antimatter? Except for a merge, galaxies don't interact much with each other other than radiation which should be identical
You're probably right. Crazy idea. Point being we should know what happened to all the antimatter during baryogenesis.
Why not consider direction of spin...?
It seems like matter and antimatter would have to have opposite spin to maintain symmetry and conservation of energy.
Seeker2
not rated yet Mar 14, 2017
@FredJose
Basically, the attempt at finding a purely naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe and everything in it is doomed to failure, no less.
Could be but if we never tried we would never have found Bell's inequality which implies we can never rule out non-local hidden variables in determining the outcome of an experiment.

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.