New Theory.

One equation E=mc^2

References: I haven't googled any


But seriously, if dark energy is going to rip apart all mattter, can the universe expand at light speed?

Well it made me laugh. At least it made a prediction...

Are you thinking of this BM?

In Einstein’s theory, gravity is as an attractive force so, in general relativity, the expansion should slow down depending on the density of matter and energy in spacetime. As it doesn't seem to do so, we will have to look at the possibility of other forms of energy producing a repulsive gravity.

Jack Sarfatti see that 'energy' as being 'dark energy', this apparently is allowed by General relativity, even though belonging to 'special cases'. To explain the effects of dark energy he then look at vacuum energy, as it seems mathematically equivalent to the 'cosmological constant' (Einstein 1917). The idea behind this is a so called “vacuum coherence” which then would be a inflation field in 'disguise'. And the idea behind that :) is then based on Dirac’s theory of the electron, and would then be a similar effect to how a normal metal becomes a superconductor.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022 (2006) and http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0032 (2009)

Or is it those space bubbles of 'false vacuum' you are considering?
Those seems to hinge on if the Higgs field exists?

http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/falsvacu.html
Oh, I'm so lucky that I don't believe in it yet :)

But for the rest of you...
Beware of bubbles.

----------

Awh Sh*
E = mc2

Mean, very mean my man :)
Sorry, I mean mean^2 ::))

-------
Kind of like that one.
I mean, it works...

I will present it to the Nobel comity.
Enjoy ::))


This post has been edited by yor_on on Mar 13 2009, 06:19 PM

You didn't answer my question: If all the matter in the universe is destroyed by the push of dark energy, will the universe then expand at light speed?

Why do you say it will be destroyed, pushed apart I can see, but gravity still seems to be able to hold the galaxies together? if dark energy would be shown to be something similar to 'virtual particles' perhaps it could act on spacetime without being 'here', as it then might be outside the hold of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle (HUP) time wise?

I'm not sure why you expect it to destroy all matter though?

------
sorry, saw that i wrote BM up there, meant BW:)

This post has been edited by yor_on on Mar 13 2009, 10:52 PM

I you deliberately trying to make of my theory?

Yes.

The light speed restriction is that of the relative speed of two objects 'through space'. Two objects may have a relative separation speed of say, 1/2c, and be so far apart that the two points of space they occupy are moving apart at a speed greater than 1/2c, so that their apparent separation speed is greater than c.

In fact, I believe you can have two objects which are stationary relative to each other but still be apparently separating faster than c due to the expansion.

The 'c' limit is a limit 'through space'. The expansion can make objects appear to break this 'limit'.

Now, fingers crossed that I didn't make any silly errors and that made sense!!!

(I struck through the silly bit. In fact, Dark Energy is easily overcome by gravity at relatively small distances and has no effect on structures even as big as galaxies. Only the large spaces between them.)

This post has been edited by bm1957 on Mar 14 2009, 10:17 AM

Yep, totally so BM :)
But there is one thing I wonder over there (Well many in fact:)

That is where the 'force' or 'energy' to be able to push Galaxies apart comes from?
We have a lot of mass invested in every galaxy, think of the energy it would take just to push the milky way a meter or two. I wouldn't want to try it. Either this mysterious expansion is a consequence of what we too call 'energy' and then I have to wonder just how much energy there is inside that vacuum, or 'energy' is the wrong concept here.

As far as I see it, as soon as some point in space have 'materialized' due to expansion it will be a part of it, but this 'pushing' of mass may happen before it is a defined point?? It's a very strange concept to me having something moving galaxies without needing to expend anything.

First, that is a very good question which would earn at least a Nobel with an answer, I would think!

*After writing the paragraph below I re-read it and realised that it is pure speculation on my part, I guess an assumption that I have held for no particular reason. It would be good to get it confirmed/shot down...* PROCEED WITH SCEPTICISM! lol

Secondly, and perhaps slightly pedantically, I would be careful about thinking of it as 'pushing' galaxies apart. Any pushing through space would be doing work (work done = force x distance). I don't think that the energy which is causing space to expand is actually doing work on the galaxies, I think it is working at a more fundamental level, acting only on space itself, not on the galaxies.

So which one is it?
to Work or not to Work as Hamlet said:)

Can there be anything existing for a measurable time inside spacetime that won't follow work done = force x distance while creating a distance?

Ok, I'll try to be more precise, but I thin I'm pushing my boundaries again now.

work done = force applied in direction of motion x distance moved by applied force

My point is, if Dark Energy somehow moves 'points' of space further apart without imparting a force on the objects occupying that space (which I believe is the case), then no energy is being transferred to those objects. This is why I think that 'pushing galaxies' is a bad way to describe how Dark Energy works.

Unfortunately though, so little is known about Dark Energy (I even think that assuming it is is 'energy' in the sense that we use the word would be a mistake) that I think any conversation about this is pure speculation and metaphysics. If I'm wrong though I would love to learn more!

The exploration of dark energy was one reason alone to keep the Hubble space telescope in operation. WMAP, however, may do a better job of discerning dark energy. So NASA can feel free to crash the telescope on Farsight's head.

Dark energy is an enigma. A refreshing one for me from the constant idea of the Big Crunch theory. I can't say for certain if dark enrgy is really an 'energy.' To imagine an enrgy that powerful is... well scary.


I actually forget why I'm commenting...



What is wrong with my theory? It could happen you know!

Ok :)

My point of view then. A vacuum is defined as consisting of 'nothing'. If you imagine a box wherein you create a vacuum, how would you do to add some more? Yep, you would try to 'pump out' what 'density' there might be left. Would that add a 'distance' to the inside of your box?
It wouldn't.

Here we are discussing just that phenomena, to somehow add a 'distance' to a existing vacuum that we call space. So how can that be? We probably (?) agree on that there is a 'distance' to what we see in space, and that it's mostly consisting of vacuum. But then again, we also agree on that the definition for 'distance' more seems a description of a relation between density, velocity, motion and acceleration, than a 'goldstandard' of its own:) As for the 'push' that I like to see it as, that also seems a problem of definition. I call that 'space' that comes into being(?) somehow, as belonging to our spacetime as soon as it has 'materialized'. That to me means that it has to obey all the 'laws' of spacetime, same as everything else. To be able to create that 'distance' vacuum must have some sort of 'force' it seems, as it can 'expand' a vacuum? As for the question of 'virtual particles' and the 'inherent energy' vacuum seems to hide, that goes hand in hand with this question it seems.

Yeah BW, in Einstein’s theory gravity is as an attractive force so in general relativity the expansion should slow down depending on the density of matter and energy in spacetime. As it doesn't seem to do that, we look at the possibility of other forms of energy producing a repulsive gravity. Jack Sarfatti, for example, sees that 'energy' as being 'dark energy', this apparently is allowed by General relativity, even though belonging to 'special cases'. To explain the effects of dark energy he then look at vacuum energy, as it seems mathematically equivalent to the 'cosmological constant' (Einstein 1917). The idea behind this is a so called “vacuum coherence” which then would be a inflation field in 'disguise'. And the idea behind that :) is then based on Dirac’s theory of the electron, and would then be a similar effect to how a normal metal becomes a superconductor.

Two pdf:s (2006) and (2009) ...
Here and here.

This post has been edited by yor_on on Mar 16 2009, 01:04 PM

I didn't read those PDF's but could you tell me how they relate to my theory?

Added to my theory.

Since E=mc^2 and dark energy is going to rip apart all matter, it follows that it blows up entire galaxies. And blows up black holes at their centers like a huge atomic bomb.

How screwed up is that1