Interactions with Louis.A.Del.Monte in response to his blog entitled “Dark Energy Explained — A New Theory“ On Huffingtonpost
THE BLOG IN FULL :
“Our scientific view of the universe is in a state of upheaval. Just look at the last 89 years:
- In 1924, Edwin Hubble, using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at the Mount Wilson Observatory, discovers the Andromeda galaxy, a sister galaxy similar to our own Milky Way galaxy. This shatters a long-held belief that the entire universe consists of only the Milky Way. Today, we know our universe contains billions of galaxies.
- In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovers the universe is expanding. This shatters another widely held belief that the universe is static, not changing. Einstein, in the wake of Hubble’s discovery, must discard his “cosmological constant.” Einstein arbitrarily introduced the cosmological constant into the equations of general relativity to force them to predict a static universe. Einstein terms the cosmological constant “his greatest blunder.”
- In 1998, three scientists — Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess — measure the rate of expansion, expecting to find that gravity is causing it to slow down. To the scientific world’s astonishment, they discover the universe’s expansion is accelerating. This shatters the “big crunch” theory, namely that gravity would eventually slow down the expanding universe, and pull everything back together in a big crunch. This discovery results in the three scientists receiving the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics.
The scientific community believes that a strong negative pressure (acting repulsively), “dark energy,” is causing the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, the fundamental nature of dark energy remains elusive. To compound the mystery, the galaxies furthest from us are accelerating away the fastest, some even faster than the speed of light.
In October 2012, I published my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, available online at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. In my book, I put forward a new theory that explains both the fundamental cause of time dilation and accelerating universe. I name the theory “The Existence Equation Conjecture.”
What is the Existence Equation Conjecture? It is a mathematical equation I derived using Einstein’s special theory of relativity and Minkowski space-time coordinates. It delineates the energy required for a mass to move in the fourth dimension of Minkowski space. Unfortunately, this sounds more like science fiction than science fact. In addition, all the scientific jargon tends to confuse the explanation. Rather than going through the derivation and experimental verification, which are in the appendices of my book, let me just get to the punch line. Here is the Existence Equation Conjecture:
KEX4 = -.3mc2
Where KEX4 is the kinetic energy associated with an object’s movement in the fourth dimension of Minkowski space, m is the rest mass of an object, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.
What does all this mean? The interpretation is speculative. With this caveat, I interpret the equation to imply that a mass requires energy to move in the fourth dimension of Minkowski space. Although, Einstein never called the fourth dimension time, it includes a time component, and I interpret the mass’ movement in the fourth dimension to equate to its existence. The equation is dimensionally correct (expressible in units of energy), but highly unusual from two standpoints. First, the kinetic energy is negative, which suggests a mass requires energy to move in the fourth dimension. Second, the amount of negative kinetic energy suggested by the equation is enormous. Although, the equation’s roots extend to special relativity, and it correlates well with experimental time dilation data, I termed it a conjecture. It requires further peer review and additional experimental verification.
If the Existence Equation Conjecture actually models the energy a mass needs to exist, how does this explain the accelerating universe? If correct, the amount of energy required for existence is enormous, and it has to come from somewhere. I looked at a number of potential candidates. In the end, I concluded the most likely candidate is the vacuum of space. We know from our experiments with vacuums in the laboratory that vacuums contain energy. An example of this is virtual particle production, which gives rise to the Casimir effect, where two closely spaced electrically neutral plates are pushed together in a vacuum. Although counter intuitive, a laundry list of effects demonstrates vacuums contain energy.
If we think of galaxies as masses, we can postulate to exist they are removing energy from the vacuums that surround them. We know from Einstein’s famous mass energy equivalence (E = mc2), that removing energy is equivalent to removing mass. This suggests that as the mass/energy density decreases, the gravitational attraction within the vacuum decreases, which in turn causes the vacuum to expand.
This still leaves two questions:
- Why are the galaxies furthest from us moving away the fastest? My thoughts: Those galaxies are the oldest. Therefore, they have removed more energy from the vacuums that surround them, causing the vacuums to expand faster than the speed of light. There is no physical law that prohibits space expanding faster than the speed of light.
- Why doesn’t the space inside a galaxy expand? My thoughts: A galaxy contains dark matter, which acts as glue, and allows a galaxy to act like a single mass.
I recognize it is a speculative theory, but it has roots grounded in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, Minkowski space-time coordinates, and experimental time dilation data. It fits all the observed data, and it does not violate any physical laws. Please feel free to visit my blog to share your thoughts with me. “
In short …you have used the Minkowski`s space to take out the `Relativity` from Einstein`s special theory of relativity and given us an absolute picture with an `equation`.
And in this equation you have used a constant and given it a precise value …viz `0.3`…Is this in order?..Or should you have used a constant `a` and indicated `perhaps its value is 0.3`.
The concept of `vacuum energy` acting as `dark energy` that drives the expansion of the universe is interesting.
Roger Penrose has discussed this subject in great elaboration in his latest book `Cycles of time (What came before the big bang)` .. I am currently reading this book…Its complex and I will need some time before I get some sort of grip on his concepts.
You have accepted that you are `Speculating` and that your conjectures require a Peer review. I doubt if there exists a `Peer` who has a thorough (or even a reasonably good) understanding of the subject.
If at all there are a few such people in this category….then I think Roger Penrose is one of them. I suggest you should read his book … and may be write another article /blog …and then we (including some very learned commenters on this thread ) can have a discussion on the subject .
Meanwhile I have a few questions….
You have indicated that Dark Matter is within the galaxy and forms a sort of glue making the galaxy as one mass.. and that dark energy (or vacuum energy) is surrounding the galaxy …is expanding and carrying/driving the galaxy away.
Is there a dividing (imaginary and invisible of course ) surface that seperates the galaxy from its `outsides` ?…Is there a friction between the two ? … Is there no dark energy (vacuum energy) within the galaxy ?
Dark matter is concentrated within and around galaxies. There is no dark matter between galaxies. There is no sharp dividing line that seperates the dark matter within and around a galaxy from the rest of space. I hope this addresses your questions.
Yes of course…..But there are contradictions…..And this is what we call `Maya`
PART 2 :
In Continuation of earlier comment:
“There is no physical law that `prohibits` space expanding faster than the speed of light“
And there is none that `permits` space expanding faster than light.
Lets talk `inflation`…the cosmological one..
Was it the `vacuum energy` that caused a rapid increase in the size of a certain scale factor ?
“The inflation of the scale factor meant that a small, smooth spatial region of the universe expanded exponentially to encompasse a volume that would grow to become larger `TODAY` then the size of the observable universe. In the process of expansion, the spatial geometry became flat“….Ref `New Physics`..edited by Gorden Fraser.
Now I have these books… about twenty of them… in front of me…including the one referred above + `The cycles of time` …by Roger Penrose… + your blog + my views in response to several blogs on the important role of consciousness + the concept that the universe is a designed ( even simulated ) one …and let us discuss `threadbare` as well as with wide open minds.
At First let me put all the cards on the table….ie all the complications and the complexities that need to be addressed with each one of the various concepts proposed by the various Scientists (or Engineers ..whatever) :
1) INFLATION : Consider the word `TODAY` in Gorden Fraser`s Para(actually the para is by W.L.Freedman and E.W.Kolb)…
For us on the Planet Earth `TODAY` corresponds to about 13.7 billion years since the big bang and we say with our highly advanced — and at the same time highly limited – understanding of the subject…that sometime during the first second (between 10^ – 36 secs and 10^- 32 secs to be precise), after time zero of the big bang, the universe inflated to a size (Radius) of 10^`z` metres…where `z` is about 28.
Now imagine someone living on a certain planet orbiting a certain star in a certain galaxy which is about 12.3 billion light years away…consider that I am looking at him now…its obvious that his universe is only about 1.4 billion years old….For that someone .. if he or she is writing a book on Cosmology…`TODAY` corresponds to only 1.4 billion years since the big bang..and in his description of `Inflation` `z` will not be 28 ..rather it will be closer to 27.
In the same way…for someone ahead of us in the deep future..`z` will be greater than 28.
What then was the true extent of the inflation with regard to the volume encompassed?….Was Einstein`s special relativity actually violated by the `entities` that travelled with the `inflation`?…
PART 4 :
Or can we say that `special relativity – in respect of giving an upper limit to speed of light – ` is not violated, in the same way as in Quantum entanglement when we said that entanglement takes place instantaneously but no information can be sent faster than at speed of light ?…
Or is this value of `z` a measure of the consciousness of an observer as well as a measure of his coordinates in time and space at the time of his observation ?….
Or is the concept of `Inflation` itself is misconceived?… and should we now look at some other explanation for the homogeneity of the universe ?
Or can we say that `There is indeed a physical law that `prohibits` space expanding faster than the speed of light`?
(to be continued after a time gap)
You have raised many excellent questions. It will be difficult to answer all of them, but here is my view.
First, two points:
1) Most of the scientific community agrees that there was an early inflation of the universe, consistent with its enormous size (observable part is about 93 billion light years in diameter) versus its age (about 13.7 billion years).
2) The scientific community agrees a mass (or energy) cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum.
Based on the above, we have only two alternatives.
1)The laws of special relativity did not apply in the early universe, or
2)It was space that inflated faster than the speed of light.
No one really knows the answer. My judgment is that space expanded faster than the speed of light. This judgment is consistent with the accelerating universe we observe today, which my blog post addresses.
Louis A. Del Monte
Clubbing this part …with a reply to your above response :
2) THE BIG BANG :
For all practical purposes the big bang with all the activities associated with it – including inflation – is still in a state of superposition.
Its wave function has not been collapsed as yet. Will it be collapsed any time in the future…I should think so… If it really was such a stupendous show – as it is made out to be by all and sundry – it could not remain a performance to empty stalls. The designers must have made sure that in course of time it will be witnessed by the consciousness of the observers of the future.
But it has not been observed so far.
So when you say that the size of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years in diameter…what exactly is implied? …Does it mean we can observe regions which are say 20 billion light years away…which means we can look back 20 billion years into the past…and enroute somewhere we can pierce thru the big bang itself.
…Surely the capacity of telescopes could not have been a constraint…we have observed Supernovas that happened billions of years back in much detail ..why not a few percentage point extra capacity and the big bang should have been observed clearly considering the enormity of its magnitude.
But the truth is.. it is not observed so far.
What then is the explanation?..
What then can be the explanation ?….Perhaps:
a) The size of the observable universe is limited to the age of the universe in terms of light years which works out as about 10^28 metres radius.
b) Beyond this we cannot see no matter how great may be the capacity of our telescopes…as that would mean going back into time beyond `Time zero` into a different universe altogether or may be to a previous aeon of our own universe ….or maybe the main show of the big bang took place in a black hole from which light could not escape at all.
c) Or maybe the big bang was caused by some sort of a phase transition in the last stages of the previous aeon of our universe. This required a huge violation of the second law of thermodynamics in bringing about a comprehensive change in entropy from an infinitely high level to a near zero level. Perhaps the Superconsciuosness of the previous aeon played a part in this transformation.
d) Perhaps the massless photons of the last stages of the previous aeon were not getting bored at all …they were always upto something …getting together and forming a `Superconsciousness`..designing the new universe with brand new and refined constants and then switching on the big bang.
To answer your question regarding the observable universe: “In Big Bang cosmology, the observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can, in principle, be observed from Earth in the present day—because light (or other signals) from those objects has had time to reach the Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion.”(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe)
The Big Bang is the most accepted theory of the evolution of our universe. It has some problems, which I discuss in my book. However, it is not in a state of “superposition.” It is widely accepted by the scientific community.
Louis A. Del Monte
PART 7 :
Continued from Part 6 …and the responses.
@ Louis A Del Monte….appreciate your prompt responses to the commenters.
You are abs right ..the big bang and inflation cosmology is very well understood and accepted by the Scientific community …but it has not been physically observed – through a telescope that can look at a region 13.7 billion light years away – nor adequately explained so far…As for inflation, it cannot be tested as the energies involved are too high and well beyond the experimental reach of our accelerators.
When I say `The big bang` has not been adequately explained…it is implied that an appropriate ` PHYSICAL CAUSE` has not been determined ( which is by and large acceptable to the scientific community) so far, of which the `EFFECT` is precisely what happened at all the various stages of the big bang …not just the first second of it.
And that `physical cause` Even if it happened just Plank time before the Previous Aeon ended, must not violate any law of Science..and it is further assumed that all the laws of Science which are applicable in the present universe were also applicable in the previous Aeon.
Now what can be that possible `Physical cause` that explains it ?
What can be that `Hidden variable`?
Lets ask Eugene Wigner..
(to be continued)
PART 8 :
Lets ask Eugene Wigner..then John Wheeler…Then Rene Descartes…and then Erwin Schrodinger..and put all the cards on the table and see what Consciousness and finally Super consciousness can do to `switch off`one Aeon of the universe and simultaneously `switch on` another :
Eugene Wigner`s philosophy: It is the consciousness of the mind itself that acts as a hidden variable that explains the collapse of wave (phenomena).
In Wigner`s own words:
“…the result of an observation modifies the wave function of a system. The modified wave function is, furthermore, in general, unpredictable before the impression gained at the interaction has entered our consciousness: it is the entering of an impression into our consciousness which alters the wave function because it modifies our appraisal of the possibilities of different impressions which we expect to receive in the future. It is at this point that the consciousness enters the theory unavoidably and unalterably.“
John Wheeler goes one step further and feels the consciousnesses of the future can even collapse the wave functions of the past…vide his concept of the `Self excited circuit`…which in turn is deducted from his `Delayed choice thought experiment`
(Though I am an ardent fan of John Wheeler…I think this one is a bit too far fetched…and difficult to comprehend…But this is a queer universe and anything is possible )
(to be continued)
Thank you for your comments. Again, you raise extremely insightful questions, and make excellent points. I’d like to add three points to your post.
First, there is no accepted theory as to what caused the Big Bang. I have put forth a hypothesis in my book, “Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries,” and discuss it on my YouTube channel video “The Big Bang Duality Theory” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWublgzpxdk. There are several foundation videos prior to the one abovdiscuss the fine points.
Second, we do not know what scientific laws applied at the energy levels associated with the Big Bang. As you pointed out, we are unable to duplicate those energy levels with today’s science.
Third, I discuss the problems with the Big Bang theory in my book and on my YouTube channel. The major issues are the initial inflation of the early universe and the almost complete absence of antimatter in the universe. I also discuss these issues in my book, and on my YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/LouisDelMonte/videos.
As a note: Eugene Wigner was a chemical engineer, Nobel Prize recipient in Physics, and made numerous significant contributions to physics and mathematics.
Thank you Louis…I`ll come back for discussions after I am done with the remaining parts..Probably not more than 12…
Placing of the cards continued…
Rene Descartes` views :
“The mind is coupled to the body through the brain, which it uses (via the bodily senses) to acquire and store information about the world. It also uses the brain as a means to exercise its volitions, by interacting
on the world. An important feature of this picture is that the mind is a thing; perhaps even more specifically, a substance. Not a physical substance, but a tenuous, elusive, aetherial sort of substance, It is neither perceptible by the senses nor extended in space; it is intelligent and purposive and its essential characteristic is thought or rather CONSCIOUSNESS“
Erwin Schrodinger`s views ( including those of Charles Sherrington):
There is only one mind…But our consciousness is always in the singular…Now consider the billions of cells inside us…each one of which is a unit life in itself..and the awareness of each one of them is in the singular…But we the human beings are conscious of the sum total of those awarenesses….so there is a distinct possibility that there may `ultimately` be a cosmic consciousness which is in the plural and contains the sum total of all the consciousnesses of the universe.
This leads towards consideration of the equation of the Upanishads :
ATMAN = BRAHMAN
(to be continued)
@ Louis A Del Monte…
Agree with the points made.
Regarding Absence of antimatter…In my view this is a consequence of, one of the constants of nature provided at the time of programming by the Superconsciousness …viz ` That at the time of the big bang, One in about 30 million Quarks would not find its Anti quark, and thus escape annihilation…which means all the matter available in the universe is made up of this surplus number of quarks…and it also ensures absence of anti quarks.
If this ratio had been higher – than one in about thirty million – matter density would have been higher and may not have permitted expansion of the universe.
Regarding Inflation…this can be dispensed with …by assuming that the previous Aeon ended with a size that permits Homogeneity..and by considering that the big bang was a phase transition that converted `something` into `temperature, radiation, energy , etc, whatever it was that came with the big bang.
All that remains to be answered is… what was that `something` ?
What do you and I know ?…
But that Super consciousness knew…..perhaps it was `itself`…
Perhaps I am wrong.
I have completed all 12 parts followed by a concluding thought.
And I am posting them …separately….
We can discuss…. if you like…. But if it is late (out of sight of the readers)..its ok if we stop here…It has been a great experience interacting with you.
Appreciate your blog …above all your open mind..…Thanks and best wishes
PART 10 of 12 :
Is it not mind boggling that this equation was conceived by the philosophers of the ancient past by intuition alone with no knowledge of Quantum physics, Einstein`s Relativity, or even Newton`s laws…
And we (some of us at least) of the 20th/21st century are in a position to talk about this equation, with the current level of our knowledge ..and place it `very much`in the domain of possibility.
And surely the super minds of the future …say hundred thousand years hence …will have enough knowledge at their disposal to validate (with some modification if necessary ) the equation…even by experiment and observation.
Will come back to this equation….
But now, I must place the other category cards on the table… viz The many widely accepted Scientific theories that predict the dark energy to lead the universe towards perpetual nothingness…no energy…no light…. no life….no warmth.. nothing but perpetual and irrevocable stagnation with massless photons and gravitons doing nothing at all – except getting bored.
And this goes on forever and ever …from age (say) 10^15 years, to age (say) 10 ^ 100+ years, since big bang.
Imagine…in such a scenario…that life and consciousness existing only in one unit of time out of nearly 10^ 85 units of time .
Does this make any sense at all ?
Some Scientists might say …Is making sense a requirement that the Universe must consider ?
(to be continued)
Top of Form
PART 11 OF 12 :
And in such a scenario as described above…if `making sense` is not a requirement..Then life and consciousness was just an accident….There was never a designer…. No Anthropic Principle… Just the second law of thermodynamics…Entropy at its infinite maximum….there is no way ..and no one.. to change the direction… That’s it.
Do we accept that?…No we cannot…..even to be aware of it, we need consciousness… and all that consciousness is concentrated in the tiny first region of time ..upto 10^15 years stage…perhaps maxm upto 10^20 years stage.
And it is in the `Here` and the `Now` …while we are in this tiny region of time … while we are living in this Stelliferrous era …. ..where beautiful stars are shining and beautiful life (with all that consciousness) is flourishing….while we with our consciousnesses are contemplating about the gloomy future (ie from 10^20 to 10^100+ years)… That we must do something to avoid going into that region… And it should be a collective approach..a team work…but we need not panic.. …there is ample time …even in the Stelliferous era we are still in infancy.
What then are the possibilities?…
I should say…That there are many….But they all need:
THE EQUATION: “ATMAN = BRAHMAN“
` The personal self equals the omnipresent eternal self`….Schrodinger
And that’s a trump card I have placed on the table…
(to be concluded in part 12)
PART 12 OF 12 :
And there is no teleology in this…no metaphysics…. No law of established Science is violated….. some day science will deal with it …and explain it.
So it looks like, mind and consciousness (MAC) is the primary player and has complete control over matter and energy (MAE).
Three possibilities considered here:
1) MAC on reaching a state of Superconsciosness prepares a comprehensive programme with beautifully designed mathematical constants and then switches on the computer at the appropriate time and ushers in the next big bang…and after trillions of years…the next…and so on …a cyclic phenomena.
2) There is only one universe where lives are lived in different regions of time. The mind keeps travelling to different regions of time (within 10^ 20 years after big bang stage ) and space ..entangling with biochemistries… and getting consciousness…and remains mostly in the Stelliferrous era.
3) Sometime in the deep future the galaxies will get so far apart…they will have no influence on each other..each will be like a universe in itself..matter density will be enough for gravity to take control and they will start collapsing on themselves towards their black holes at the centres. But there will be time enough for Superconsciosness to feed the necessary constants and press the appropriate buttons and at least achieve a somewhat controlled explosion of the black hole.
Take your pick…
Their is `SOMETHING` that controls nature
We don`t have to call it `SOMEONE`