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

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Jan 20, 2017.

  1. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213

    I can't work out if he hates being corrected, or... that he is absolutely dog-headed in his beliefs on the subjects we are discussing; perhaps a mixture of both.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,526

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Don't get me stated!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Let me ask you another question......
    Is the DE component related or the same as whatever impetus was behind the evolution of spacetime at the BB....I did touch on it in post thus......
    "In that regard I see the impetus of the BB itself, tied to the CC or DE and the acceleration phase we now find ourselves in.
    As spacetime expanded after the BB, the gravity from a far denser universe, overcame the DE component making it expand and so a deceleration in the expansion rate was present.
    While the DE/CC component of spacetime itself, remains constant over expansion phase, the density of the universe was lessening with the expansion, and continued until today when we see the CC/DE component starting to accelerate the expansion.
    The thing is, the Universe wasn't always accelerating in its expansion rate!"
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    My comments you quote there in #120 are correct and related to the actual thread. Your frequent tactic of improperly dragging in extraneous issues from other threads is simply wrong in every sense - factually and morally. You have backed a loser but cannot bear to admit it. Tough.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213

    Very good question.. mmmm....

    ''Is the DE component related or the same as whatever impetus was behind the evolution of spacetime at the BB''

    My initial guess would be no. I would look at either dark energy or even a rotational property to a universe to explain the impetus of expansion. However, you seem to be aware of this because you say

    ''"In that regard I see the impetus of the BB itself, tied to the CC or DE and the acceleration phase we now find ourselves in.''

    ''As spacetime expanded after the BB, the gravity from a far denser universe, overcame the DE component making it expand and so a deceleration in the expansion rate was present.''

    Yes maybe. It makes some sense.

    ''While the DE/CC component of spacetime itself, remains constant over expansion phase''

    (maybe remains constant) and in fact, we get some nice physics from a changing cosmological parameter. Let me iterate an example: calculations show that observable vacuum energy is too small by about \(10^{122}\) factors. One explanation of where the missing energy went to, is that the cosmological constant hasn't been constant at all - trying to find reasons to where the vacuum energy went, is part of my investigations and I have found that a rotating universe actually lowers the Friedmann energy levels of a universe, quite significantly with a high enough spin.

    The thing is, the Universe wasn't always accelerating in its expansion rate

    Perhaps. As you will be aware, these are very tricky questions

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,526
    Your comments are only related to you as usual "spitting the dummy" because I gave a like to your opponent, something you have commented on more than once before.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    But you carry on.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2017
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,526
    Agreed that it certainly is tricky, but I would suggest also reasonably logical.....
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology)#Dark-energy-dominated_era
    The relative expansion of the universe is parametrized by a dimensionless scale factor {\displaystyle a}

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Also known as the cosmic scale factor or sometimes the Robertson-Walker scale factor,[1] this is a key parameter of the Friedmann equations.

    In the early stages of the big bang, most of the energy was in the form of radiation, and that radiation was the dominant influence on the expansion of the universe. Later, with cooling from the expansion the roles of mass and radiation changed and the universe entered a mass-dominated era. Recently results suggest that we have already entered an era dominated by dark energy, but examination of the roles of mass and radiation are most important for understanding the early universe.

    Using the dimensionless scale factor to characterize the expansion of the universe, the effective energy densities of radiation and mass scale differently. This leads to a radiation-dominated era in the very early universe but a transition to a matter-dominated era at a later time and, since about 5 billion years ago, a subsequent dark energy-dominated era.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology)#Dark-energy-dominated_era
     
  10. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
    If you go back far enough, it is true, all there was, was radiation. The Planck Phase was a radiation dominated phase of the universe. It's the only time radiation in a universe significantly effected the gravity of an early universe; however, if dark matter is taken seriously, then it should have appeared a little later, during the electroweak symmetry breaking phase - dark matter will have attained its mass from the Higgs field so will have been (in my guess) a significant gravitational attractor around the same time scale.
     
  11. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
    amd of course, the cooling of the universe has led to todays universe, which appears to be dark energy dominated. But still, we say dominated, but really we are talking about a very small positive cosmological constant, if the two are related.
     
  12. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
    Some don't even consider the Planck Phase as a true radiation dominated era, it is sometimes referred to as the inflation era, but any constituents in this era would have been massless because again, spontaneous symmetry breaking was yet to occur. The most realistic versions of inflation have to include an energy density parameter related to radiation in the warm inflation picture.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm_inflation
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,477
    But not all energy is heat, obviously.

    As I said earlier, I would argue that the fact that zero point motion cannot be passed to another object precludes it contributing to heat, as it does not behave in the way that heat behaves. It is merely a form of locked-in, unavailable energy.

    For example, although a diatomic molecule continues to vibrate in its ground state, this motion cannot excite any motion in neighbouring molecules, as to do so the first molecule would have to drop in vibrational energy to a level below its ground state - which is impossible. So the motion due to its ground state vibration plays no role in the kinetic theory of heat.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2017
  14. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
    That's not a good reason unless you can prove using thermodynamics that heat should pass from zero point ground states into other bodies. I don't expect the zero point thermal contribution to transfer at all to other bodies in the universe; heat does not spontaneously flow from a cold body to a warmer body.
     
  15. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
    And keep in mind, we are right next to the absolute freezing state of the vacuum. We are talking very cold in general.
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,477
    You seem to be missing my point, which is that this zero point energy is intrinsically incapable of passing to another body, under any conditions whatsoever, regardless of the relative temperatures. That is why I contend that zero point energy does not contribute to heat.
     
    Q-reeus likes this.
  17. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
    ''would argue that the fact that zero point motion cannot be passed to another object precludes it contributing to heat.''

    It's not that its ''intrinsically incapable'' - the zero point field actually does contribute a heat, that keeps a system from reaching absolute zero. The real reason why this heat cannot normally transfer to the surrounding objects of spacetime because the zero point energy is much cooler normally than its surroundings. A very popular science article recently stated that scientists managed to probe below the zero point field (which is paradoxically hotter) than zero point fields, but as I stated along with many other scientists who corrected their work, they never actually probed below zero point fields. It was a bad interpretation of the science.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,477
    No. Zero point energy is intrinsically incapable of passing to another body. That's the whole point about it.

    It is the residual energy in the ground state. The ground state is the lowest energy level a quantum object can possess, in the degree of freedom concerned. It cannot lose any more energy. Ergo it cannot pass any zero point energy to something else.
     
    Q-reeus likes this.
  19. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
    Intrinsically impossible, because the situation won't allow it. I already explained zero point field do actually contribute a temperature, in which systems do not freeze completely over at their very minimum.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2017
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,477
    Incoherent ballocks.

    OK I've given you long enough. You are not serious. You are a charlatan who doesn't know what he is talking about.
     
    Q-reeus likes this.
  21. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
    Just like my other post you called ''meaningless twaddle?''
     
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,477
    Yes, exactly.
     
  23. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213

    pfft
     

Share This Page