Dark Energy Is Real, New Evidence Indicates

[DalTheJigsaw123]

[Mal]

Wow, thanks. I enjoy reading scientific theories.

[Marblehead]

Hi Leon,

 

Yes, that is my understanding at the moment.

 

It is dark energy that is causing the universe to expand but it is dark matter that is keeping the galaxies from falling apart.

[joeblast]

heh...aka "our 4-brane being immersed in a higher dimensional space"

[Marblehead]

heh...aka "our 4-brane being immersed in a higher dimensional space"

 

I'm not too sure about that. Hehehe.

[unmike]

And just to keep the conversation lively and controversial...

 

Some new research suggests that the strong nuclear force is really just gravitational interaction, as a product of the inverse square law. Since it gets exponentially stronger as distance decreases, at the extremely tiny scale of the inside of a nucleus, gravity manages to greatly overpower the electric repulsion. They didn't just unify forces, they show (perfectly matching both predicted values) they do away with the supposed "strong nuclear force" entirely.

[Marblehead]

And just to keep the conversation lively and controversial...

 

Some new research suggests that the strong nuclear force is really just gravitational interaction, as a product of the inverse square law. Since it gets exponentially stronger as distance decreases, at the extremely tiny scale of the inside of a nucleus, gravity manages to greatly overpower the electric repulsion. They didn't just unify forces, they show (perfectly matching both predicted values) they do away with the supposed "strong nuclear force" entirely.

 

Strange (for me) you mention this because just recently I have seen a couple programs on TV that have caused me to think about this. Specifically, talking about the creation and destruction of stars.

 

I have always had my doubts about the statement that 'gravity is a very weak force' in the universe. I think there might be a lot more to gravity than is currently understood. Afterall, if gravity can warp time/space I would think that it is a pretty darn strong force.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Marblehead

[joeblast]

I dont know how much faith I'd put in the notion that quark binding force is merely gravitational, the binding energy increases as they're pulled apart from their stable resonance, and keeps increasing until the mass energy gets high enough that a new quark will pop right out.

 

 

This significant paper marks a new paradigm in the world of quantum theory, as it describes the nuclei of an atoms as a mini black hole, where protons are attracted to each other by gravitation rather than some mysterious undefined "strong force." This radical new view of the quantum world produces a unification of the forces and appropriately predicts measured values for the nucleon of an atom

I'll have to read this more - it doesnt appear to "produce" but "declare" a "unification of the forces."

 

 

Gravity only gets "stronger" because it can amass to large conglomerates.

 

The word strong is used since the strong interaction is the "strongest" of the four fundamental forces; its strength is 100 times that of the electromagnetic force, some 10^13 times as great as that of the weak force, and about 10^39 times that of gravitation.

another reason I'm suspect of that theory is that no approximations of gravity really describe this theory, and that I've read, no formulations of string theory are finding this either - and that goes right at addressing significant amounts of gravitation and very small distances.

 

I'm sure somebody like lubos would chuckle and say something about the author's fundamental misunderstandings that's what strikes me at first glance.

Edited May 21, 2011 by joeblast

[Otis]

I have always had my doubts about the statement that 'gravity is a very weak force' in the universe. I think there might be a lot more to gravity than is currently understood. Afterall, if gravity can warp time/space I would think that it is a pretty darn strong force.

I think it could also be said that it is not gravity, but mass, which warps space. Gravity is just the by-product, another way of defining "curved space".

[Otis]

Pure speculation, but what if dark energy is the very thing that was responsible for the big bang, in the first place? Maybe it's the force that spreads out, just as the other forces gather together.

[Marblehead]

I think it could also be said that it is not gravity, but mass, which warps space. Gravity is just the by-product, another way of defining "curved space".

 

Yeah. You understood what I was saying. Hehehe. (Is there gravity without mass?)

 

 

Pure speculation, but what if dark energy is the very thing that was responsible for the big bang, in the first place? Maybe it's the force that spreads out, just as the other forces gather together.

 

Sounds reasonable to me. Maybe it wasn't a Big Bang afterall but just a Gentle Sigh.

 

So the next question would be, Is there an equality of Mass and Dark Energy in the universe so that eventually the two will attain balance and the universe stops expanding? But what then? A static universe? Or does the universe eventually run out of dark energy and begin to contract. A complete cycle of creation and destruction?

[unmike]

I dont know how much faith I'd put in the notion that quark binding force is merely gravitational, the binding energy increases as they're pulled apart from their stable resonance, and keeps increasing until the mass energy gets high enough that a new quark will pop right out.

 

The paper deals not with the quark binding force, which seems to work in the opposite fashion as gravity, getting stronger the farther the "elastic is stretched apart", but the force overriding electric repulsion between the positively charged protons.

 

This paper, while not widely supported yet in the academic community, perfectly mirrors things experienced in the thrall of the deepest meditation I've been party to. Based on the inverse square dynamic of its strength, it functions much like this diagram, but in reverse:

 

 

What this shows is how, as distance between the attractors is reduced, the area force is spread through decreases exponentially, dramatically enhancing the strength of the effect. An atom is roughly a single angstrom in diameter. Of that, the nucleus is but a tiny speck in the center. If the nucleus is enlarged to the size of a basketball, the electrons would be 20 miles from it! The scale we are dealing with is insanely small, which is what leads this force to assert itself in such a manner.

 

Mainstream adoption yet? No.

 

Does the math check out? Yes!

[joeblast]

That does seem plausible - I always understood the quark binding force to be "the strong force" since it appears to behave a little differently than the "inter-nucleon binding force"...although it does appear to be described well by QCD equations, both inter-nucleon and intra-nucleon. I suppose a curiosity would be - are these effects described any differently by this newer formulation and does it require any tinkering with gravitational equations - because really, depending on the phenomena in question, at certain energies certain processes for forces will be all but indistinguishable.

 

That's one reason why I've always been fascinated with Roger Penrose's take on things, very...original and descriptive of certain phenomena e.g. spinors that keep finding relevance in these areas, even in string theory.

 

At the bottom or it all, it is always a matter of "how accurately do these things describe reality" since every single last one of them are but approximations

[Creation]

What this shows is how, as distance between the attractors is reduced, the area force is spread through decreases exponentially, dramatically enhancing the strength of the effect. An atom is roughly a single angstrom in diameter. Of that, the nucleus is but a tiny speck in the center. If the nucleus is enlarged to the size of a basketball, the electrons would be 20 miles from it! The scale we are dealing with is insanely small, which is what leads this force to assert itself in such a manner.

 

Hi unmike.

 

I do not buy this reasoning. Electrostatic repulsion also obeys an inverse square law. In other words, if you bring 2 protons twice as close, both the gravitational attraction and the electrostatic repulsion will quadruple. From this you can see that if the gravitational attraction is weaker than electrostatic repulsion at a long distance, it will remain weaker no matter how close you bring the protons.

[Creation]

(Is there gravity without mass?)

Ah, this is exactly the right question to be asking!

 

So, according to general relativity, 2 things contribute to gravity: energy and pressure. Now, relativity tells us that mass is a form of energy, a very very concentrated form. So mass is the dominant contribution. But in a situation a ton of energy and no mass, there will be non-negligible gravity produced. Pressure contributes even less than pure energy to gravity, but curiously it has a negative contribution.

 

So in other words, besides mass, both pure energy and pressure have a small contribution to gravity. But generally they don't contribute very much.

 

But wait, there is a hidden contribution here. What is the energy content of empty space? As in no matter, no light, a total vacuum. It should be zero right? But technically the mathematics of general relativity allows you to plug in any number, positive, negative, or zero, as the energy of empty space. This number is called the "cosmological constant". If it is positive, the universe will tend to contract even if empty, if it is zero it will be static if empty, and if it is negative the universe will tend to expand faster and faster even if empty. There is no a priori reason to pick any value; it is something to be determined by experiment.

 

The moral of the story is that dark energy behaves like a negative cosmological constant: as though empty space has the gravitational properties of negative energy content.

 

The other model of dark energy is some actual new type of energy, but it would have to behave basically like an omnipresent "energy of empty space".

[Marblehead]

 

The moral of the story is that dark energy behaves like a negative cosmological constant: as though empty space has the gravitational properties of negative energy content.

 

That hurts my brain. Hehehe.

 

I so much like my Taoist concept of reversion - return - cycles.

 

So when is negative energy going to stop messing around so that the universe can begin to contract?

[unmike]

Hi unmike.

 

I do not buy this reasoning. Electrostatic repulsion also obeys an inverse square law. In other words, if you bring 2 protons twice as close, both the gravitational attraction and the electrostatic repulsion will quadruple. From this you can see that if the gravitational attraction is weaker than electrostatic repulsion at a long distance, it will remain weaker no matter how close you bring the protons.

 

But it would seem that for any atom with multiple protons, the gravitational attraction also takes into account neutrons, meaning more mass to yield attractive force and overcome that net positive repulsion.

[3deedit]

my Rock-crystal pendulum tells me that the study is not exact science and that Dark Matter shall remain a baffle Mistery....

Edited May 30, 2011 by 3deedit

[Marblehead]

my Rock-crystal pendulum tells me that the study is not exact science and that Dark Matter shall remain a baffle Mistery....

 

Oh Darn! But then everyone loves a mystery.

[Otis]

according to general relativity, 2 things contribute to gravity: energy and pressure.

What do you mean by "pressure", in this context?

[3deedit]

Oh Darn! But then everyone loves a mystery.

If you notice itMARBLEHEAD: i wrote M"i"stery:i=9=react with spirituality(3D TAROT)=live ecologic

48 Inaction 29=nexttaoVerse to read

 

12 ROOTS origin

 

In pursuit of knowledge,

every day something is added.

In the practice of the Tao,

every day something is dropped.

Less and less do you need to force things,

until finally you arrive at non-action.

When nothing is done,

nothing is left undone.

 

True mastery can be gained

by letting things go their own way.

It can't be gained by interfering.

 

the Inner tEACHING of Chung TZU:Chapter 9

 

In sleep,the soul communes;on waking,the body acts out.Mutual

contact creates a pull,day by dai strugglingwith the mind,slowly,deeply,insidiously....

Edited May 30, 2011 by 3deedit

[Marblehead]

 

If you notice itMARBLEHEAD: i wrote M"i"stery:

 

In pursuit of knowledge,

every day something is added.

In the practice of the Tao,

every day something is dropped.

Less and less do you need to force things,

until finally you arrive at non-action.

When nothing is done,

nothing is left undone.

 

 

Yes, I did notice what I assumed to be an intentional misspelling.

 

Here we are talking about the difference between knowledge and wisdom. And yes, there is a big difference.

 

You know, it's funny how dark energy is increasing the size of the universe (forcing galaxies apart) but dark matter is keeping the galaxies intact and preventing their breaking apart.

[stan herman]

"When nothing is done,

nothing is left undone."

 

Whew, it's like housework,

you can never catch up

[Marblehead]

 

 

Whew, it's like housework,

you can never catch up

 

Hehehe. That's one of those "round tuits" with me anymore.

[alect]

Sometimes I imagine dark energy in my body.

Feels good.