Do we mean "the universe" or "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse"? (Hugh Everett) Presumably, when the universe formed from an ensemble of some sort of inflaton point particles (Alan Guth) as a statistically inevitable child of an extremely excited field, possibly the gravitational field itself, its hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) field began to collapse into a parabolic 1/r^2 one. That collapse continues to this day. But, the process is almost done. There cannot be an infinite amount of energy sequestered in the hyperbolic 1/r field that would be available to fuel acceleration of the expansion rate by such a transformation. Transition to a lower energy parabolic field must provide a distinctly limited supply of extra impetus. Surely, after 13.72 billion years, the mainspring has almost run down by now. The remaining potential energy is called Dark Energy. The hyper-excited gravitational field sprang into existence simply because it could. It came to be in a tremendously excited state because very high excited states are much more probable than lower ones, because of the zero point cut-off. This is just like virtual particles come to exist and be annihilated all the time on the quantum level (this is confirmed by experiment). None of them become universes, though, because there is already one here. It’s a sort of Pauli exclusion principle. The hyper-excited gravitational field sprang into existence simply because it could. It came to be in a tremendously excited state because very high excited states are much more probable than lower ones, because of the zero point cut-off. This is just like virtual particles come to exist and be annihilated all the time on the quantum level (this is confirmed by experiment). None of them become universes, though, because there is already one here. It’s a sort of Pauli exclusion principle. Let us switch definitions of r. In the following, r is the rate of acceleration of expansion of the universe (or rotational acceleration around black-hole). If the acceleration of the expansion rate is called a, and its present value is called P, then a = P at any given time, including the present. The simplest equation for the expansion rate’s effect on P would be an exponential decay expression, P = hoe^(-rt), where ho is an initial value for h, r is the rate of increase in this expansion and t is time. We can get an estimate of a value for h0 from Alan Guth’s formulation of the theory of simple inflation. The present values of both the expansion rate, P1, and acceleration rate, r, is observable. We can set t = 1, for the present value of t. So, we can summarize all relevant observations with this simple equation or the associated exponential expansion equation, R = Roe^(rt),where R is the putative instantaneous “radius” or scale factor of the universe. The current value of the expansion rate is Ho, the Hubble “constant”, so P1 = Ho. Back to our original definiton of r (not R) as a radius or scale factor: Exponential decay equations exhibit what is called a “dormancy” period or final plateau region. In this part of the discussion, here, r refers to distance from a center of rotation. Sorry. I missed the inconsistency in previous posts. I need a nicer symbol for the exponential period, another name for r. Maybe Cyrillic backward "R"? Lower case Cyrillic? The hyperbolic 1/r curve levels off near zero and continues to subside gently almost linearly for an indefinite time. The equation for orbital acceleration around a galaxy, say, levels off to a constant, even at infinity, for a hyperbolic 1/r black-hole galactic gravitational field potential diagram. The current state of the universe itself may be consistent with this dormant period. The conclusion here is that acceleration of expansion may continue for a long time while slowly decreasing nearer to zero. Does this imply that the universe may be rotating very very slowly right now? We cannot know. We would have to observe the universe from the outside, from the perspective of the meta-universe, to tell. Yet, in other words, even with acceleration of the expansion rate, there does not necessarily have to be a “Big Rip” wherein the fabric of the cosmos is irreparably torn apart as expansion proceeds beyond a certain point. By the way, "M Theory" doesn't exist. M Theory is just an "ideal". Brane Theory is not M Theory. Neither has ever predicted anything that can be experimentally verified and neither is falsifiable. Therefore, they cannot qualify as legitimate scientific propositiions. Not one single unique result has ever come from either. Furthermore, they are both unnecessary. Shrewd development of general relativity and quantum are slowly causing them to merge. What's the hurry? Let true "M Theory" and "Brane theory" grow organically out of quantum and GR. Each step will be independently validated, then. No worry. Origins, emergence and eschatology are fertile fields for philosophers. This is why we scientists are sometimes called "Doctors of Philosophy", Ph.D. Why sciforums.com does not provide for exponents, I cannot understand.
REPOSTED ON EEMU HYPOTHESIS THREAD Doing some surfing re: dark energy . . . looked at this link: http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/ It is really interesting to note NASA's speculation (see figure narrative) that sometime in the universe history, 'dark energy' began "pulling-apart" the universe. Of course it's only my OOB speculation . . . . but instead of a BB (Standard Model) . . .could not a 'pre-existing' universe condition - comprised only of dark energy (and perhaps also dark matter) . . . have "pulled" the material universe into existence? In other words, the 'dark energy' is not expanding the universe via 'pushing' everything apart (aka AE's cosmolgical constant). . . but simply continuing to 'pull' (at a continually increasing rate of acceleration) the universe into a continuing evolution? Might be an argument here for 'no eventual end' to the material universe? . . . Just wondering . . . after some further thought (and speculation), I may try incorporating this (dark matter pulling) option into my own "hypothesis" (another thread on Sciforum) Regards, wlminex
Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! You mean like a very thin film of oil spreading rapidly on a surface of water will sometimes break somewhere, allowing a water surface to appear in the middle, the film pulling itself open? The water surface that appears would be like our universe and its emergence would be very very rapid at first, just like "inflation". There could be all kinds of submerged hidden influences like currents, up-welling and so on. General relativity equations are very similar to hydrodynamics theory and the tensor matrix techniques are closely related. I have even seen a reference to the "Einstein Aether". The Friedmann model of the universe that relies on the FLRW metric is patterned after the ideal gas equation, a fluid equation that implies an equation of state and a work function w, just like the Friedmann model. Sometimes the universe is compared to the surface of a hyper-dimensional sphere. We would be residents of a very "thin" 3-D shell that comprises this surface. Then, inflation and Dark energy might be due to an increase in the "temperature" of this hyper-spherical volume, causing it to expand. Or else, maybe the hyper-volume is like a bubble and inflation/Dark Energy is the consequence of the bubble's bursting at a very localized point and propagating outward at the speed of light, which is due to limits on the speed of propagation of the collapse of such a surface. You know, due to a sort of "surface tension". Then are you supposing that the fundamental "stuff" of the universe is Dark Energy? Well, why not? Let's explore the idea.
I need a collaborator ! ! ! I need a collaborator ! ! ! See more details at www.NeoCosmology.blogspot.com . See the latest replies by Gary A on this forum under the titles: Looking for a cosmology collaborator No Trouble with Tribbles
Galactic M-Sigma Relation and the Anomalous Stellar Velocity Dispersion Galactic M-Sigma Relation and the Anomalous Stellar Velocity Dispersion Hypothesis: Supermassive black holes must develop incredibly high spin rates, as would be measured by an observer under the event horizon. They condense initially out of massive supernovae and then from stellar components that orbit in concert within the innermost stratum of the central bulge of spiral galaxies. Due to this ultra high spin rate, nearing infinite rate below the event horizon, matter in such black holes never has a chance to compactify to a singular point with virtually infinite density. Instead, it flattens not to a mere point mass or to a simple ring singularity, but to subtend a "planar" subset of spacetime that is only 2 dimensional. It becomes a huge flat spacetime disk. But, this spacetime parcel still has mass. Oddly enough, this explains the strange correlation of the velocity distribution of stars in spiral galaxies wherein rotational v of outer stars correlates with the mass of the central supermassive black hole, the M-sigma relation. There should be no such correlation if gravitational force for black holes is an inverse square central force. This notion shows that no exotic dark matter is needed to explain this phenomenon. But, Dark Matter is still implied by this hypothesis. Because by extreme contraction under rapid spin of matter to “almost” a point singularity with “almost” infinite density (“almost” means “to below a Planck distance”), the gravitational force therein is so intense that it is asymptotic in behavior: it is hyperbolic (1/r) in nature and it changes the nature of spacetime. So, it emanates from an extensive centripetally induced 2-D “disk” singularity. A peculiar result is that for stars nearer the galactic periphery, stellar velocity v' = (GM/r*)[sup]½[/sup] , that is, it is a constant that is totally independent of r. (r* = the unit vector of r, for dimensional integrity.) Therefore, it is actually observed (the M-Sigma relation and the anomalous velocity distribution in galaxies and clusters) that this hyperbolic 1/r gravitational field of the supermassive black hole disk singularity can reach to the galactic periphery and far far beyond. And, because it is so much more extensive than an inverse square force, it has an effect on other nearby galaxies which also may have supermassive black holes with similar gravitational forces in play. This possibility explains all the phenomena associated with Dark Matter. It does not deny Dark Matter. It clarifies it. This massive flat relativistically plausible spacetime ultra-spin disk is a hyperboloid of one sheet. It has a saddle shape, its being embedded in a 3-D + time universe. The curvature of the hyperboloid does not become apparent until r becomes very large, far beyond a galaxy. So, to engage other galaxies with their own SBH hyperbolic fields, the "plane" or surface of this curved sheet will align with them more readily because it is not really planar or “flat”. This alignment is a way to account for the observed large scale network or spiderweb distribution of galaxies within clusters and superclusters. It also helps account for the primordial structure of the universe, as supermassive black holes may have been very common in the beginning. Newton’s law will accommodate a 1/r gravitational field only if spacetime is limited to 2 dimensions plus time, by general relativity. Kepler’s laws can be modified to accommodate a 1/r field because these laws assume Newton, and Newton’s law needs only to be rewritten for gravitational 1/r 2-D spacetime. This 2-D spacetime parcel possesses mass, like the highly excited inflaton field postulated by Alan Guth. Also, since it is spacetime in nature, it is immune to the event horizon of a black hole. Therefore, it can extend as far outward as is necessary to account for its effects - the real meaning of infinity. The potential energy profile of the hyperbolic 1/r supermassive black hole galactic gravitational field is generally higher than the profile of the equivalent inverse square profile. So, the difference between the P.E. of the hyperbolic field and the P.E. of the inverse square field is a real energy difference. Because M = E/c[sup]2[/sup], this difference represents mass – matter that is unseen and unseeable. That is, this is Dark Matter. I have written a paper along these lines. But, I need a reviewer to help check my mathematics. kentgen1@aol.com
