So I solved dark energy...

Post Reply New Topic

These are all good questions. First, let me say that while I hold a minor degree in physics, I'm not a cosmologist, nor am I what I consider to be an excellent mathematician. When particles are created in a vacuum, they are not "real" particles, but "virtual particles", and are created in particle/anti particle pairs. These serve as the basis for Hawking Radiation and the idea that black holes evaporate. Together, the particles negate each other, but when isolated from one another, as in when one in the pair becomes captured by a black hole, while the other escapes, act as real particles...or at least the one that escapes does.

At least that is my understanding. In physics, there are various different ways to think about things. For example, with electron current flow, it can be modeled as the flow of electrons or the flow of the hole left by the electron. We can think about gravity in terms of mass and also in terms of gravitational field energy.

But those are tangents.

Time does indeed advance at different rates from different reference frames, however this is within the constraint of two conditions.

1.The sequence of things must not change between the two reference frames. Einstein used this principal in his thought experiments.

2. The laws of physics must be the same in both references frames.

As to why isn't there more focus on a unifying theory of physics. Well, consider this. This problem was worked on by Albert Einstein, David Hilbert (who was considered to be the last person to understand all of mathematics),Emmy Noether who was considered to be the only person who could solve problems when Einstein and Hilbert couldn't, and was the only person who was able to explain the seemingly paradoxical nature of Einstein's theory, not to mention a number of other prominent mathemticians and physicists at the time.

Together, they got a far as they got. To get farther, it's either going to take a very special person or a very lucky person. It's going to be someone who can see something the others have missed, who has a nice view where they can see the whole layout of the land, or someone who was wondering around exploring the gardens and happened to find another entrance to the building. In either case, this will be a person who see's something new and realizes it's the same old thing from a different angle.

Perspective Sculpture

Working on "unifying physics" has been in fact been the holy grail for a century.

Physics is ruled by Relativity, and by quantum mechanics. The problem is that relativity and quantum mechanics contradict each other. They cant both be true. Quantum rules physics on the small scale, and Relativity works on the large galactic scale.

String theory is an attempt to unify the two.

I've actually looked into string theory a fair bit, it's a pretty beautiful model that explains a lot and is probably as close to a grand unifying theory as we have ever come. The problem though is that at the moment it is entirely mathematical and there is no observational evidence for or against it, not yet at least.

It's not uncommon for the theory to precede the ability to test it by many decades, if not, over a century. Mathematicians and cosmologists put their work out there and rely on engineers and applied physicists to think up ways to experimentally test it, and engineers and physicists rely on governments to fund the testing.

This is wonderful to read. Finally, I understand! Please don't stop. I had forgotten about String Theory. Could you explain it for me?

I could probably talk about it for hours if I wanted to, I read a book on the subject and even that just scratched the surface. The general idea is that there are a total of 11 dimensions of space-time. Three of them are extended spacial dimensions, one is a time dimension, and the other 7 are curled up dimensions that can be thought of as physics dimensions. These curled up dimensions are weird. Imagine you are an ant on a garden hose, you can go along the length of the hose all day but if you try to go around the hose you will quickly end up where you started. From a distance it may look like you can only move along the length of the hose but that second dimension is still there. It's kind of like that old game called Asteroids where if you go off one edge of the screen you will appear on the other. Anyway, these tiny dimensions are so small that they are practically undetectable and they can even be in some pretty weird shapes like crazy 7 dimensional donuts.

Anyway, the "string" part of string theory is there because it postulates that particles are tiny vibrating strings of energy. There are only certain possible patterns that these particles can vibrate in and they are determined by the shape of the extra dimensional space around them. In our universe there are 17 known fundamental particles and each one corresponds with a possible vibration pattern within our spacial geometry. The mass of each particle is determined by the amount of energy in that vibration pattern and it's various force charges are determined by the virtual force carrier particles it is able to create (which is a topic worthy of it's own few paragraphs). One exciting possibility that string theory suggests is that theoretically other universes could exist with different fundamental particles (and this topic is worthy of it's own book).

String theory also answers the question of what the center of a black hole is like (assuming it's right of course), they are pretty much giant particles with all their mass compressed into a single quantum string that would be incredibly unstable if it weren't held together by it's own insane gravitational pull.

If you have any more questions don't hesitate to ask. Seriously, this is one of my biggest special interests so I generally have to consciously restrain myself from talking about it too much.

sometimes, there can be "red herrings" of logic that seem justified and cause a whole field of thinkers to waste their time on pondering it.

one thing that is curious, is that energy is considered to be both a particle and a wave.
take light for example.
the particle is the photon, and the wave is it's expression.
photons are thought to have mass because they have momentum.
is momentum confined to being dependent on mass?

one wonders if energy has momentum.

momentum is plural for moment.
a moment is the state of a system that is resistant to change.

it may be the case in my mind, that particles really do not have mass at all, and that is why they do not obey the laws of relativistic physics.

particles may simply be thought to have mass because their moment is greater than zero.

i believe that there are 3 phases of dimensional reality (broken each into 3 subsets) with an adjoining portal between them, and since phase 1 can only have a forward link and phase 3 can only have a backward link, then there are 11 dimensions.

1=space
2=energy
3=time

whatever. i am not going to elaborate on my ideas about that because i do not wish to type too much. i have to stick to my point.

so if one can successfully protract how energy goes from being infinitely potential to infinitely kinetic, and then infinitely bound, then one can understand the quantum process and possibly start to reconcile relativistic physics with quantum physics.

"strings" are absurd. they imply a structure, and structure implies physical definition, and physical definition implies prerequisite energy to construct.

so in the hindu religion they go on about "pure energy" which is unmanifest, and i believe that, and i therefore think "how does this pure energy become manifest?"
what is the trigger?
pure energy somehow becomes raveled up in a process that eventuates in matter.
i think particle formation precedes material formation, but most people attribute material properties to particles due to their momentum.

what triggers pure energy into the 1st dimension of kinetic expression which is the coalescence into "particles"
if particles have kinetic energy, then they also have momentum and emit gravity of a sort and magnetism.

the rules of this engagement are what ultimately gives rise to atoms, which in my opinion in the baseline for description as matter.


so dark matter in my opinion is matter that has zero net energy transmission due to it's loss of radiative power over time (calls into question the chronology of the so called big bang)

it's loss of radiative power is due to it's temperature falling to close to zero kelvin.
but it none the less still has a gravitational constant associated with it's moment.
that is dark energy.

we can not see the dark matter because it emits nothing.
it does not occlude our view of the heavens because it's concentration is millions of times less than perceivable matter, but it occupies millions of times greater the space.

there is no such thing as a true vacuum except for beyond the boundaries of all manifestation.
one must go farther out than the farthest light ray from the universe has ever traveled.
there must be not one particle or even a packet of potential energy within it.

in that environment there would be no spontaneous creation of anything.
but, to cap it off, without that environment there would be no spontaneous creation of anything.

what does that indicate (you got to think hard and lateral)?

Nonsense.

I think it would be in the better interest of human understanding of the subject for you to elaborate. It does not help anyone to merely say their perspectives on the universe are nonsense without explaining why they may be incorrect.

Firstly, Dark Energy has been postulated only to to explain the missing mass of the universe. Mathematical equations add a constant to explain the missing mass, bit like Newtonian equations adding a constant to explain deviations in movements of Celestial bodies. Sloppy science in my view. You can't observe dark energy in the universe. You can't measure the dark energy. Conclusion. Dark energy doesn't exist.

In the vacuum of space anti matter and positive matter annihilate each other. Ocassionally a positive particle is created and the corresponding negative particle is created in a parallel universe. Mathematical equations show that matter can be created in the vacuum of space. The background cosmic radiation that we measure from earth is a product of the particle annihilation going on in the vacuum of space and doesn't have anything to do with the so called Big Bang theory. Furthermore the missing mass in the universe can be explained by the spontaneous creation of matter in the vacuum of space.

Thirdly the universe is flat. If the universe was created in a Big Bang the explosion would have gone in all directions. Common sense deems that you can't have all the mass of the universe in a tiny space before it expands. Not even a black hole contains that much matter and let's assume for argument sake that at the moment of the creation of the universe, we have a giant black hole before it expands and blows out its matter. Time doesn't exist in a black hole. Matter is drawn into a black hole. Light doesn't even leave a black hole.

Fourthly, you can only measure universal time by star time, not by the revolutions of our earth around the sun from an observer on the earth (place a set of atomic clocks on the surface of the sun and time will change). Even then you have a problem because stars move at different speeds and have different masses, so standardising a universal time becomes a difficult thing to do.

That is very false. First of all you are mixing up dark matter and dark energy. Dark energy is the term coined from whatever is making the universe's expansion accelerate and dark matter describes matter that we can observe the gravitational effects of but that we cannot observe directly because it is invisible. Like, by seeing the gravitational lensing effects of dark matter it can and is being mapped out. Also, that is a completely different thing from the missing matter problem, and as for that there are are possible explanations based on things observed in particle accelerators.


That you are talking about is called vacuum plasma and it's not just a mathematical model, it has been observed. Alternate universes are not even proven to exist let alone somewhere that antiparticles have been observed to teleport to for no reason. By the way, vacuum plasma does not create light at all. All particles that come from nothing like that such as virtual force carrier particles and vacuum plasma exist on borrowed energy meaning that they must nesesarily disappear very quickly leaving no trace, not even light. If that kind of thing did produce light then magnets would glow because the electromagnetic force is transmitted by virtual photons, put a solar panel up to that and you would have just broken the law of conservation of energy. It takes energy to seperate particles and antiparticles from each other and that amount of energy is equal to the mass of the particles which turns them into "real" particles since they are no longer existing on borrowed energy.


The Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion of space. Black holes exist due to the inability of anything to travel faster then light, but space it's self is exempt from that rule which is how galaxies beyond the observable universe can be going away from us faster then light. Space can expand fast enough to tear apart even black holes and irregularities in the cosmic microwave background are consistent worh quantum fluctuations being blown up to the size of galaxies in an instant. I would love to know how you think a black hole would form in such conditions. Also, time does exist in a black hole, it's just slightly more weird. If you think that common sense works in physics you clearly have never tried to understand quantum mechanics.


You are right in that time dilation causes differences like that but if you exclude extreme conditions like neutron stars and black holes then in the entire history of the universe time dilation would have only altered it by a few thousand years depending on where you are and that is compared to 14.6 billion years. That is less then a 0.00001% difference, and that is well within the uncertainty we already have due to measurement error. Also, those numbers are based on how far light has traveled since the Big Bang and that spends most of it's time in intergalactic space far away from anything.

i have deduced today that nothing that ever came into manifestation can achieve a temperature of zero kelvin.

if there is a temperature in an atom of zero kelvin, then all activity stops including the structural dynamics of atoms and they then pop out of existence.

or in a better described way, they become part of dark energy.

but the problem is that activity can only be protracted in a negative logarithmic way, and so it can only ever approach zero, but never actually equal zero.

so once something has come into manifestation, it is not possible for it to leave manifestation. (without entering a black hole)

but there is certainly an energy level which would evade even the most intelligent scrutiny.
it is above zero.
highly charged energy systems tend to coalesce into bound and localized structures, and emit extreme amounts of excess energy.
lowly charged energy systems tend to disperse due to having insufficient entity to be affected by gravity.

thus their density is reduced, and their occlusion to observation of highly charged systems is diluted.

ahh whatever...the blasted phone is ringing.....

Comfortable with your definition of "The Big Bang" as the expansion of space rather the prevailing texts I have read which describe it as an explosion of the matter formed in the fraction of a second when the Big Bang occurred in the creation of the universe. Wouldn't it be appropriate therefore to dispense with the term, "Big Bang" and describe it for what it is which is the expansion of space. Sorry, meant to say that dark energy was postulated to account for the expansion of the universe. Nevertheless there is no evidence for its existence.

Yes, I am comfortable with it because it is not my definition, it has been the scientific concensus for decades. It is often described as an explosion to make it easier to visualize for people who don't understand the math behind it but saying that it's an explosion is misleading because instead of being powered by a chemical or nuclear reaction it was forced outward by space expanding. Look up inflation theory and you will see what I mean.

As for dark energy, the first variant of it was postulated by Einstein. Within the math of general relativity there was this one value controlled by an unknown constant that Einstein called the cosmological constant, and he assumed that it was just powerful enough to make the universe be static and unchanging as he believed it was but when it was learned that the universe is expanding he then assumed that it's value is zero making it not effect anything. Decades later it was discovered that the universe's expansion is accelerating and so the term "dark energy" was coined and defined as being whatever is causing that to happen. Since the accelerating expansion of the universe is something that has been experimentally proven that means that dark energy must nesesarily exist according to it's definition of being the name of whatever causes that. This has lead to the possibility that the cosmological constant isn't zero and that it is dark energy, and your old favorite explanation for everything called vacuum plasma is also a worthy candidate for being dark energy as it causes a universal outward push, albeit one predicted to be much stronger then what we observe. It might even be both vacuum plasma and the cosmological constant fighting against each other to produce the net expansion we observe. If either or both of these turn out to be the explanation then by definition they are dark energy.

You are right that nothing can ever reach zero Kelvin, but you are wrong about why. It has more to do with Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, the more you know about a particle's velocity the less you can know about it's position and visa versa. For something to be absolute zero the particles must stop completely and then uncertainty in velocity will be zero, but that would require uncertainty in position to be infinity. This is before we even get into thermodynamics, even if we just use Newton's law of cooling it would theoretically take infinite time to reach absolute zero even with a perfect freezer.

there is no such thing as velocity or position except in a relativistic sense.
velocity is relative to a frame of reference, and since frames of reference are varied, so is relative velocity.

if there truly was a big bang, where the whole substance of the universe was compressed into a singularity, then that would be the ultimate frame of reference, but it can not be determined exactly where it was.
so velocity in a non relativistic way would have to be derived from a singular point somewhere in space.

the microwave background radiation seems constant in every direction (3 degrees kelvin), and so there is no direction of concentration which could show the coordinates of the original big bang.

if every distant object we can see is traveling away from us (red shifted), then it certainly would be variable given the locations of those galaxies.

if everything traveled away from the big bang in all directions at the same speed, then on the other side of the big bang, galaxies must be receding at least twice as fast as on our side of the big bang relative to our perspective.

we can not see that far, so no true "still point" can ever be defined (by inference) from which to assess velocity, or even location. think hard about it.



no doubt something you have read rather than something you have reasoned.

infinite uncertainty can be more easily described as zero certainty.

if position can not be established, then no protraction of velocity is possible.





yes it is negatively exponential (approaches but never touches zero).

but even the fact that pure energy has been bundled up into a mass means that there is a potential energy that is dormant, but there is also kinetic energy that keeps the whole system from blowing up. these are balanced at approaching zero kelvin.

temperature is just a measure of energy on a lower frequency.