Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

[quantum_wave]

I'll throw in some crank controversy:
There is a number of things about this energy thingo that come to mind:

1. There is no consistent definition of energy that can be applied uhm ...consistently.. [vat dis tis ting called energy? ]
2. There has been no accounting for the energetic value of photons invisible or visible spectrum propagating universally. [ which I find utterly amazing to be honest]
3. There so no solid hypothesis that I am aware of that explains the "great attractor" phenomena.

How is it possible to do solid Astrophysics [re cosmic expansion] if the above issues are unresolved?

I don't think consistency is a word that we will be applying to the energy thingo definition anytime soon .

 

[quantum_wave]

You have to forget about gravity. But not about general relativity. Take a look at the stress-energy momentum-tensor:

Public domain image by Maschen

See the energy-pressure diagonal, and the shear stress? Does that remind you of anything? Here's a clue courtesy of Kip Thorne.

Not easily I'm afraid. But note this:

Maybe so, though in this thread my speculation is that there are two opposing forces at work to give us dark energy. One is gravity, as in the force of gravity.

 

[quantum_wave]

Qunatum_wave: I've started a thread sketching it out. See Dark Energy. Some posters may be antagonistic, but the references are good and I'll be surprised if anybody can point out any errors. There's a bit of a problem at the moment in cosmology in that some cosmologists are saying the universe is infinite and always has been, and then using this to promote multiverse psuedoscience. It's a problem because an infinite universe can't expand. The pressure is counterbalanced at all locations. It contradicts big-bang cosmology.

I agree with the universe being infinite and has always existed. This thread discusses my speculation about dark energy, and addresses only one Big Bang event and the surrounding space. I take that to be a finite patch of space that includes everything that is causally connected to the Big Bang, and a sufficient amount of low energy density space surrounding it so that the two opposing forces of energy density equalization, and gravity, can play out in the scenario. I would also speculate that if ours was not the only big bang, then each would occur within preexisting space and each would evolve the characteristic we call dark energy.

I will follow your thread.

 

[quantum_wave]

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

The above links to an article from NASA that sums up dark energy (and dark matter). It is not a done deal. There is room for discussion and room for better ideas.

Concerning Dark Matter:

Thank you, Wellwisher, I should have posted a good link to Dark Energy myself.

 

[quantum_wave]

One reasonable explanation for dark energy are these are photons that lie beyond radio waves. Radio waves have frequencies from 300 GHz to as low as 3 kHz, and corresponding wavelengths ranging from 1 millimeter (0.039 in) to 100 kilometers (62 mi). If we go below this, we would not observe anything, since this energy would not interact with the equipment and the source would be unclear.

Radio waves; Collective oscillation of charge carriers in bulk material (plasma oscillation). An example would be the oscillatory travels of the electrons in an antenna.

Plasma oscillations, also known as "Langmuir waves", are rapid oscillations of the electron density in conducting media such as plasmas or metals. The oscillations can be described as an instability in the dielectric function of a free electron gas.

The dielectric function of a material describes the electrical and optical properties versus frequency, wavelength, or energy. It describes the polarization (electric polarizability) and absorption properties of the material.

Langmuir waves were discovered by American physicists Irving Langmuir and Lewi Tonks in the 1920s. They are parallel in form to Jeans instability waves, which are caused by gravitational instabilities in a static medium.

That is an interesting concept but it is not consistent with my scenario.

 

[quantum_wave]

See the NASA article wellwisher: "One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing... "empty space" can possess its own energy". There's no photons in this empty space, real or virtual. But it still has energy because energy is a property of space. Think about a steel coil spring. Compress it. Where is the energy stored? In the irons atoms? No. In the carbon atoms? No. It's in the bonds. In the field. In the spaces between the atoms. It's in the space.

Another interesting concept not consistent with the speculation I am asking members to comment on here.

 

[quantum_wave]

Until you have a working model that can correctly and precisely predict these phenomena, I'd argue that they constitute evidence against whatever you're proposing rather than evidence for it, when GR with a few tweaks already works almost perfectly.


I don't fully understand what you're trying to refer to with this concept of "energy equalization", because you haven't hashed it out in any significant detail. At face value it doesn't sound at all like any feature emergent from the GR picture, and you can't just toss whatever features you want into a mathematical model and expect it to remain self-consistent. So by my understanding of what you're proposing, adding this concept of "energy equalization" to the picture means all the GR equations would have to be tweaked or completely replaced in some fashion to allow for it.


All the same, if the galaxies are clustering up at the local level, why would energy density shift over towards a uniform distribution on global scales? A priori there's no reason to contemplate such a picture, it doesn't emerge from General Relativity as it's presently understood, and in terms of physical evidence, the universe is already statistically homogeneous and isotropic, which means there's no varying energy densities to shift around anyhow, on global smeared out scales it's already uniform as is.


Well, the best I could personally do with the time and knowledge available to me was to picture a finite bubble universe operating under Newtonian gravity (which is still legitimate as a weak-field approximation to GR) with energy densities varying at different radii from the center, and there are several reasons why it doesn't appear to have any chance of working as far as yielding the features you're looking for, let alone predicting redshift, CMB and all the rest. To apply General Relativity in its full form directly to this picture would be exceedingly difficult and well beyond my present capabilities; it's a nightmare to work with even in the simplest possible cases of uniform energy density or eternal universes containing nothing but a single spherically symmetric black hole, and to go beyond that you basically have to resort to computer modelling and numerically approximating solutions which frequently don't differ much from the Newtonian prediction.

My current understanding of topology isn't sufficient to tell you what would happen in a closed spacetime where there's a limit to how far space itself extends, but in all honesty it doesn't seem to me like any of your ideas are particularly revolutionary things that no theoretician would have already tried to play with, and if placing some kind of boundary on spacetime to make it loop back on itself with varying energy densities and all the rest looked like a promising approach, I'm pretty convinced it would have already been attempted and published. Well, I did what I could with the tools at my disposal, and if you think there's something important I missed, I'm happy to take another look. I think exercises like this one right here are valuable for showing why scientists don't put much time or stock into certain concepts, but beyond direct modelling attempts I don't think there's any scientific legitimacy to qualitative verbal speculation any more than you could announce the sum of a series before you've made any attempt to calculate it.

Edit: So let's please stick to what we can mathematically model to one degree or another and compare directly with real evidence, and leave the "maybe this, maybe that" preaching to Philosophy, Alternative Theories etc. where it belongs.

I can't make this thread science. I'm not "doing" science. I'm asking the members to consider a scenario concocted by a layman science enthusiast. The scenario has preconditions to the Big Bang. It includes everything that now exists that is causally connected to the Big Bang, and sufficient space surrounding it for the scenario to play out, and I'm then asking members to comment on if the scenario could explain the mysterious dark energy.

Before I go to the effort to respond in more detail, you may want to request that this thread be moved, and as I said earlier, I don't care where it is. I normally conduct my threads in AltTheory, and if you want to ask it to be moved there, I'm fine with it.

It is here in this forum as a tiny, unworthy effort to show how civility, and honest questions about a personal speculation can be conducted here at SciForums, and doing it in the proper forum is my objective.

 

[OnlyMe]

I can't make this thread science. I'm not "doing" science. I'm asking the members to consider a scenario concocted by a layman science enthusiast. The scenario has preconditions to the Big Bang. It includes everything that now exists that is causally connected to the Big Bang, and sufficient space surrounding it for the scenario to play out, and I'm then asking members to comment on if the scenario could explain the mysterious dark energy.

Before I go to the effort to respond in more detail, you may want to request that this thread be moved, and as I said earlier, I don't care where it is. I normally conduct my threads in AltTheory, and if you want to ask it to be moved there, I'm fine with it.

It is here in this forum as a tiny, unworthy effort to show how civility, and honest questions about a personal speculation can be conducted here at SciForums, and doing it in the proper forum is my objective.

It seems to me that CptBork did a pretty good job of starting with your what if and ending up by saying it doesn't seem to work out!

I am not convinced that the Big Bang is an accurate depiction of the origin of the universe.., even if it does superficially explain some of our observations. So personally, introducing bubbles of energy density doesn't add anything, to what does not appear, to me, to be a convincing model. Thus this will be my only post on the issue.

It is ok to start with an idea, but unless you just want to hear yourself talk, you have to be willing to listen to where it takes anyone else willing to engage the concept....., even when that diverges from your original intent.

If you think about it when Einstein published both the special and general theories of relativity, it generated questions he did not initially address..., and within the resulting discussions his initial theoretical models evolved.., GR perhaps a bit more than SR.

 

[Trippy]

Moderator note:

you may want to request that this thread be moved

As requested...

 

[quantum_wave]

It seems to me that CptBork did a pretty good job of starting with your what if and ending up by saying it doesn't seem to work out!

I am not convinced that the Big Bang is an accurate depiction of the origin of the universe.., even if it does superficially explain some of our observations. So personally, introducing bubbles of energy density doesn't add anything, to what does not appear, to me, to be a convincing model. Thus this will be my only post on the issue.

It is ok to start with an idea, but unless you just want to hear yourself talk, you have to be willing to listen to where it takes anyone else willing to engage the concept....., even when that diverges from your original intent.

If you think about it when Einstein published both the special and general theories of relativity, it generated questions he did not initially address..., and within the resulting discussions his initial theoretical models evolved.., GR perhaps a bit more than SR.

Thanks for that one comment. This is not a model about bubbles of energy density. I present my hobby-model out here in AltTheory. This is a tiny offshoot of a model that presents a scenario about space surrounding our Big Bang event and asking for comments from members about if such a scenario might explain dark energy.

I will expand the scenario, if appropriate, with my description of energy density equalization. The idea is that energy density equalization takes place when two energy density differentials are allowed to interact. That is a force in this scenario. The opposing force is gravity.

The operative layman level speculation is that gravity is stronger than equalization in close quarters, and energy density equalization is stronger when there is unlimited low energy density space surrounding a Big Bang ball of high density energy. The hobby-model addresses much more of the speculations and hypotheses, and they reside in my thread hobby-model thread here the Fringe, where that magnitude of speculation upon speculation belongs .

 

[Farsight]

Maybe so, though in this thread my speculation is that there are two opposing forces at work to give us dark energy. One is gravity, as in the force of gravity.

I think you're speculating too much with that, and that you should stay as close as you can to general relativity and established cosmology and known physics. Yes, some might accuse me of not doing that, but I like to think I'm pretty close. Negative pressure really is tension and conservation of energy applies. That kind of thing.

I agree with the universe being infinite...

I don't know if you know, but the infinite universe is a non-sequitur that comes from the presumption that space was curved and the universe was closed, followed by the WMAP finding that space is (apparently) flat. You can even find that on this NASA web page.

and has always existed.

I don't dispute that, because I don't know how you can get something from nothing.

This thread discusses my speculation about dark energy, and addresses only one Big Bang event and the surrounding space. I take that to be a finite patch of space that includes everything that is causally connected to the Big Bang, and a sufficient amount of low energy density space surrounding it so that the two opposing forces of energy density equalization, and gravity, can play out in the scenario. I would also speculate that if ours was not the only big bang, then each would occur within preexisting space and each would evolve the characteristic we call dark energy. I will follow your thread.

OK noted. But I would remind you that gravity doesn't "suck space in". We do not live in a Chicken-Little world.

 

[quantum_wave]

I think you're speculating too much with that, and that you should stay as close as you can to general relativity and established cosmology and known physics. Yes, some might accuse me of not doing that, but I like to think I'm pretty close. Negative pressure really is tension and conservation of energy applies. That kind of thing.

I don't know if you know, but the infinite universe is a non-sequitur that comes from the presumption that space was curved and the universe was closed, followed by the WMAP finding that space is (apparently) flat. You can even find that on this NASA web page.

I don't dispute that, because I don't know how you can get something from nothing.

OK noted. But I would remind you that gravity doesn't "suck space in". We do not live in a Chicken-Little world.

Thanks for your comments. Just so you'll know where to get an idea of gravity in my hobby-model, check http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...smology-2014&p=3188266&viewfull=1#post3188266

 

[Farsight]

IMHO it's too unlike general relativity, quantum_wave.

And that I like most other posters dislike discussing physics in a stigmatised sections of a forum. So that's all from me.

 

[quantum_wave]

IMHO it's too unlike general relativity, quantum_wave.

And that I like most other posters dislike discussing physics in a stigmatised sections of a forum. So that's all from me.

You are right about both points. I'm always happy to get comments from members, but in the absence of comments, I still hobby around. I'm not expecting much response, but making sure everything in the model is internally consistent, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data. That is not the same things as being consistent with existing theory, since there are rumors that they contain inconsistencies and incompatibilities.

 

[CptBork]

I'm always happy to get comments from members, but in the absence of comments, I still hobby around. I'm not expecting much response, but making sure everything in the model is internally consistent, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data. That is not the same things as being consistent with existing theory, since there are rumors that they contain inconsistencies and incompatibilities.

Just FYI, I actually did put a lot of time into considering your idea or at least my understanding of your idea, although I haven't posted any of the diagrams or calculations I worked through (don't see a real need to anyhow based on where the discussion is headed). I have to ask you though how you claim to check that anything is consistent or inconsistent with scientific observations and data, when you haven't made any detailed or exact predictions (or really any predictions at all other than the known fact that distant galaxies accelerate away from us). As far as I can tell at the moment, your theory hardly contradicts with any statement or claim whatsoever!

 

[quantum_wave]

Just FYI, I actually did put a lot of time into considering your idea or at least my understanding of your idea, although I haven't posted any of the diagrams or calculations I worked through (don't see a real need to anyhow based on where the discussion is headed).

Thank you for that. The likelihood that my approach would make sense, being outside the box so to speak, was not high percentage. That dark energy idea was one that I thought would give me a chance to bring an idea to P&M, in an unassuming way, and try to work on presenting a thread civily. I think that worked, but of course, it not being scientific, it didn't belong there on its merits. I made it clear that I was OK wherever it ended up.

I have to ask you though how you claim to check that anything is consistent or inconsistent with scientific observations and data, when you haven't made any detailed or exact predictions (or really any predictions at all other than the known fact that distant galaxies accelerate away from us). As far as I can tell at the moment, your theory hardly contradicts with any statement or claim whatsoever!

That is just a layman science enthusiasts standing claim, challenging anyone who wants to prove me wrong to read my thread. There is a catch, and that is that the whole thing starts from the bottom up, i.e. taking only scientific observations, and trying to answer my own questions, without automatically invoking current theory unless it fits, in my estimation. For example, what caused the Big Bang? There is no scientific consensus, so I laid out the alternatives that I might have read about, or come up with, and then investigated and made my personal decision. That decision would lead to more questions, and over the years, and over maybe a hundred threads, I made a layman level, step by step set of reasonable and responsible speculations, much based on popular media and Wiki , me being the arbiter of what is reasonable and responsible.

The result is my hobby-model. It would be poor entertainment to you, but a good hobby for a retired accountant interested in science and cosmology.

 

[CptBork]

The result is my hobby-model. It would be poor entertainment to you, but a good hobby for a retired accountant interested in science and cosmology.

Ok, you spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff and enjoy it, so I'm curious why you don't make some effort to learn some of the math and background material behind the things on which you want to speculate. I'm not telling you to do it for anyone else's sake, I'm wondering if you don't think it would be genuinely beneficial to have some sort of firm foundation in a subject that interests you. You can learn a hell of a lot of stuff in 10 years if you want to, and the help resources out there for struggling students are better than they've ever been in the past.

I've had a high math aptitude my whole life, but my personal start in physics came as a teenager because of my dissatisfaction with the idea of a cosmic speed limit confining us to our solar system and particles operating as probability waves. However, it didn't take me long to realize that I had a great deal to learn about the foundations underlying these concepts before I could say anything about their validity, and it was only in learning those foundations that I truly came to understand and appreciate both the elegance and the inevitability of the theories we deal with in modern physics.

Wouldn't it be more fun to be working on your own hobby model if you were actually able to attach a model to that model?

 

[quantum_wave]

Ok, you spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff and enjoy it, so I'm curious why you don't make some effort to learn some of the math and background material behind the things on which you want to speculate.

I suppose you have the image of me pouring through comic books and wiki, and pretending to solve the problems of physics and cosmology. Encouraging me to learn something sounds like you have that image, lol. Gosh, the truth hurts.

I'm not telling you to do it for anyone else's sake, I'm wondering if you don't think it would be genuinely beneficial to have some sort of firm foundation in a subject that interests you. You can learn a hell of a lot of stuff in 10 years if you want to, and the help resources out there for struggling students are better than they've ever been in the past.

Not making any claims as to what I know, but if I spend a thousand hours a year on my hobby, just by accident something might start rubbing off, maybe. I keep hoping.

I've had a high math aptitude my whole life, but my personal start in physics came as a teenager because of my dissatisfaction with the idea of a cosmic speed limit confining us to our solar system and particles operating as probability waves. However, it didn't take me long to realize that I had a great deal to learn about the foundations underlying these concepts before I could say anything about their validity, and it was only in learning those foundations that I truly came to understand and appreciate both the elegance and the inevitability of the theories we deal with in modern physics.

If I had your background, I would be working on the inconsistencies and incompatibilities, and continually brainstorming solutions to problems that there are no answer for.

Wouldn't it be more fun to be working on your own hobby model if you were actually able to attach a model to that model?

I couldn't be having more fun than I am, lol. It is a selfish hobby, and I do it to learn, and I learn what I want to learn. You have a high math aptitude, I have a high mechanical aptitude, and also can work my way through a lot of equations if I want to take the time; it takes me a lot longer than someone who works with it all the time though, and I don't enjoy it. I am good with numbers, having been an accountant and financial manager all my life, but my gimmick there is that I want you to tell me which theories correspond to reality, so I only have to struggle through the right math. To be practical, you may as well let me wallow in my ignorance, because you and I see things from two entirely different perspectives. Thanks for taking the time and interest though.

 

[paddoboy]

The result is my hobby-model. It would be poor entertainment to you, but a good hobby for a retired accountant interested in science and cosmology.

Join the club!
I also enjoy science particularly the cosmological sciences.....
To get myself up to scratch, I have read many books my many reputable authors, such as Thorne, Rees, Begalman, Davies, Hawking, Kaku, and a few others.....That along with learning what I can by checking out SR/GR on the net, and forums such as this.
But one of the first things I learnt, is that we have many many "would be's if they could be's" that demand that they have over-ridden 20th, 21st century cosmology, with claims of ToE's and such, with 100% certainty....
I then ask myself some logical questions....
why do they come here? why not get there own view of things peer reviewed? Do they also have access to Planck, Spitzer, Kepler, and the giant telescopes we have plus the HST? If not, how can they claim to disregard 100 years of research and giants from the past.

I speculate the BB as being a WH from another Universe, although I was once informed by a GR expert that that was Impossible.
I still reason in my own mind, why cannot it be like this? or why cannot it be like that?
Although also loving the cosmological sciences and the awe that discussing such stuff brings, I also realise that I have limitations in both mind, and knowledge, and the access to highly technical probes and Instruments.
But what the heck, I've said all that before.

 

[Trippy]

Although also loving the cosmological sciences and the awe that discussing such stuff brings, I also realise that I have limitations in both mind, and knowledge, and the access to highly technical probes and Instruments.

Wouldn't it be funny if Einstein was right all along and the big bang was actually just the manifestation of the white hole that the black hole in some other 'place' is linked to.