Dark Energy, Schmark Energy

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof 

DARK ENERGY, SCHMARK ENERGY 

There is no excuse for the current mad rush to a messy consensus and the cockeyed conclusion that some weird stuff some call dark energy makes up the bulk of the universe. Dark energy is truly miraculous and qualifies as a supernatural explanation of deep space observations! 

Since there is no experiment that could confirm or deny the existence of dark energy, it cannot be considered as a contender. Extraordinary proof is out of the question but, it is among the most extraordinary claims ever made. Its disqualification as a viable hypothesis under the rubric of the Scientific Method means that we must start from scratch.  

Those with the ability must recalculate the main assumption that underlies the dark energy hypothesis. Let the theoretical chips tumble where they may and the intellectual trees drop where they will. 

This dark energy hypothesis is designed to explain just one observation that is currently looked upon from the so called "weird science" perspective. This particular peek at reality is from a point of view that is based on just one interpretation of the real distances to type 1a supernovae. They are now interpreted to be farther away than their redshifts would indicate. But, an estimate of the most serious interference to this interpretation, that there may be much more or much less "grey" dust in the early universe than was initially thought, must be in error. 

This currently calculated observational result and theoretic premise is that there was not enough extra dust to cause the redshift effect.  But, the effect itself is a result of an interpretation that may itself also be wrong. 

This apparent "phenomenon" is that since these exceedingly distant supernovae are farther away than the distances indicated by their redshifts, then the universe "must" have begun expanding at an accelerating rate in recent epochs. The only thing that we seem able to think of that might explain this strange interpretation is this unscientific postulate of dark energy.

 

For various reasons, all subsequent observational interpretations may well have been biased to favor the assumption of dark energy to begin with, so it may not be too surprising that they do indeed tend to prove it. 

There has been no effort to go back and reinterpret "grey dust" observations nor to recalculate the relative theoretic prevalence of "metals" in the earliest phases of the universe's development. If mathematical assumptions are changed sufficiently, the concentration of heavier nuclei could easily rise to the point that more dust formed than is now thought. Presto! There was much more dust present to dim the images and the supernovae in question are as nearby as their redshifts indicate. The manner in which the assumptions must be jiggered may well lead to a bigger paradigm shift, a more profound revolution, than dark energy itself. If weird science is for what governments will pay, a bonanza is waiting to be won. 

Furthermore, gravitational redshifts have been totally neglected. Relativistic redshift is distinct and is applied to the data. But, the young universe was very much more dense and its much more intense gravitational field would have influenced any light traveling on a trajectory that would tend to have it escape - that would have it end up in our eyes. 

Why there is not much more skepticism about the contradiction between luminosity distances and redshift distances in the first place completely escapes me! 

Still, some critics of dark energy do not seem to have a clue. For instance, some confuse Doppler redshifts with relativistic redshifts. It makes a difference! 

Regarding those extremely distant type 1a supernova results, there is indeed much more to Relativity than relativistic redshifts. The gravitational field in the early universe must have been VERY much greater than it is now. So an additional Einsteinian gravitational redshift should be added to all light traveling on an "outward" or escape trajectory, that is, toward our eyes in space and time. But this is not done. If this correction was carefully applied, then the redshift data would be translated to the same coordinates as the dim supernova results and the discrepancy would disappear. 

Regardless, dark energy is not necessary. How then do we account for a very nearly flat universe if dark energy does not add to the total mass/energy inventory? 

Easy. 

The observable universe would be situated within a polydimensional surface or "brane" of an extraordinarily large black hole or something much like a black hole that may be in motion. Its total dimensionality could well be significantly higher than superstring/M-theory implies. There may be evidence of 11 dimensions in our universe because our very existence means that this, our cosmos, resamples the superdimensional volume of the interior of this theoretically invisible "Dark Pit" or "Dim Seed". 

Clearly, it would not be not black. Still, no matter falls out of its event horizon, the surface where events occur, where things happen. No matter disappears into it, so, it does not generate a whole spectrum of radiation on the way in. The Dark Pit would be completely beneath visibility. But, we may deduce its presence and, perhaps, devise tests for the hypothesis of its existence.  

If we cannot do this, then it is a nonstarter and the idea must be rejected, in strictest accordance with the scientific method. 

The mass of the Dim Seed or Dark Pit would be many times the total estimated mass of the observable universe, whatever may be required to make up for the total energy/mass deficit. The curvature of its surface would be very nearly flat, as theory and observation require, but not exactly flat. The tiniest variations from flatness, though they may show up within the error tolerances of measurements, could be real, in other words.  

In order to make its surface flat enough without exceeding the mass limit implied by the matter/energy shortfall, it would be spinning very fast. Residual anisotropy that has in fact been discovered that is not accounted for by our laboratorys' proper motion through the cosmos could be due to this rotation. This means that our universe would be spinning too, of course, and not necessarily at the very same rate or direction. By analogy, the spin rates of the sun are nonuniform. Precise measurements of the residual cosmic anisotropy (RCA) could nail down the probable spin rates. This idea may also have implications pointing to the real nature of mass and of matter itself. 

There may not have been a Big Bang either, this may imply. If this Dark Seed's dimensionality could include several orthogonal dimensions of time, its shape might still be like a flattened sphere or nearly flat pancake, but what is regarded as expansion of our universe, even acceleration of expansion, may just be due to its turbulent rotation in time. With a correct more detailed model, the properties of the Cosmic Microwave Background might be accurately predicted. Then the cyclic model of cosmogony may still make more sense. 

The idea of multiple dimensions in time is not such an outlandish proposal. All spatial dimensions may just as well be described as time dimensions because of the limit on the speed of light. The word "spacetime" means equivalence between space and time just as surely as E=mc^2 means equivalence between matter and energy. In certain cases like this, it may be more enlightening to think of certain dimensions in terms of a time reference instead of a distance or length definition. 

The Wiz's Dark "Horse Matter" is another even deeper and weightier mass of a different kind (and of a different color, of course). We all seem to like Alan Guth's inflationary universe scenario but we also seem to be unwilling to carry the implication of his ideas to their logical end. He postulates that the universe began as a quantum virtual particle that sprang into existence in an extremely high energy state largely because the whole field of spacetime was excited. It was a "false vacuum".  This quantum spacetime just naturally existed in such a very high energy excited state because, statistically, this is the most probable initial condition.

We cannot ignore the statistical nature of quantum mechanics here either. Analytically, not only must there be an antiparticle "out there" somewhere, the particle/antiparticle pair must generate interference particles, +/- and -/+. Statistically, they must be just as real as terra firma itself. For, as we all know, repeated observation, even of the surface of the Earth, gives only a statistical result. I can interpret what I see only because I have seen images like it several times before. I can regard a blue streak in the image as a river only because I have seen rivers up close and have even swum in them. If I compare my preceptions with those reported by others, the picture gains another layer of statistical importance. We gain a consenus only statistically.  

Furthermore, since we imply by this line of thinking that there is a reality outside this universe, there must be particles naught- and naught+,  -naught and +naught, representing the zeroth, or "nonexistent" states. Such entities may be nonexistent only from the perspective of a certain aspect of the meta-cosmos of which ours may be merely a subuniverse.  

They would all have mass. They should still be "close" enough for their gravitational influence to be felt within our particular version of this ultraverse. If a count is made of the possible quantum states that this scenario implies, the inferred energy/mass inventory, as a percentage, comes out just right. 

All this can be easily expressed algebraically. I have a discourse on the quantum operator algebra of this concept that shows that it is rigorously logical. I will furnish a copy on request.

Or else - to say the same thing, actually - the Many Worlds "multiverse" hypothesis may be true. But the number of interference and mixed existence states may be much larger than what I may imply above. The gravitational influence of Many Worlds would be felt within galaxies that rotate faster than we think they should. Either of these two approaches lead to the conclusion that we observe only a small fraction of the matter that is really there. That is, unless we do careful rotation rate studies on as many galaxies as we can. 

I am sure this has all been thought of before, but it bears repeating, especially because it solves problems that we never anticipated that it would. For instance, it answers the question of why there is not any antimatter in our universe. Well, there is, except that all we can see of one is its contribution to gravitational effects on the rotation rates of most spiral galaxies. 

And, it gives us a solid mechanism to explain those amazing galactic rotation rate profiles explicit in observations. These fit the concise mathematical treatment of the MOND effect (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics). Moreover, this mechanism does the job while preserving relativity.  

If deep space observations constitute quantum statistical effects, such observations must include an aspect of Heisenberg uncertainty. The unseen Multi-Quantum or Many Worlds phantom galaxies would not all rotate on the same axis nor in exactly the same positions nor orientations. Surely, a simple, straightforward statistical distribution of directions, rates and orientations could be found that precisley duplicates the MOND phenomenon. A distribution of  such distributions would enable hypotheses that explain just exactly why some galaxies fail to show the effect. So, the exceptions would prove the rule, perhaps. 

Remember, this discussion refers to both dark energy and dark matter. Reference is made to an hypothetical Dark Pit and to a quantum multiverse.  They must be aspects of the same entity. But, I have finally run out of words to describe it! Surely, if these ideas have any merit, superstring theory will have something to say about it. Can superstring theory handle a mere brane with 11 dimensions? Is this theory scalable? Am I talking about the inneffable M-theory?  

Returning to reality, why neglect easy solutions like this in favor of complex and difficult ad hoc postulates that raise more questions than they solve? 

In future posts I will explore this and present my most favored model for the inflationary expansion of the universe. It shows how the data should properly be interpreted. 

The main thing, though, is that dark energy is unnecessary. 

 

Black Hole Singularities and the Possibility of Two Dimensional Gravity

According to general relativity, in a 3-D universe with time, the gravitational field of all compact objects behaves as if the objects are point masses and the field strength must decline as 1/r². In a 3-D universe, therefore it is said, it is impossible to support a hyperbolic 1/r gravitational field. But, black holes are different.

 
Why bother with the whole concept of black holes if they are not different? Collapse of matter into a black hole must not only create a singularity (within the limits imposed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) but, the spin rate or orbital frequency of in-falling matter of the black hole must also increase without bound as radius r decreases to values near zero below the event horizon. Attempts to explain away these singularities on the basis of a non-existent quantum gravity scheme are vacuous extrapolations of tentative hypotheses that amount to pure conjecture.

 
Black hole singularities exist. Einstein through Schwarzchild and others say so. Who claims to be more brilliant than these fellows? I appeal to authority here only because it seems to be the only thing that impresses some. If you want to claim that BH singularities are mere artifacts of an inadequate theory, show me the Math.

 
Black holes are different. When matter and energy collapse under an infinitely strong gravitational field to a point mass that is as tiny as may be necessary to explain its properties (not necessarily to zero, the true meaning of infinity), the result is a phase change. Spacetime phase changes are S.O.P. in the repertoire of theoretical cosmologists, like Alan Guth. Let us adhere to the hydrodynamics metaphor used by Einstein in his development of GR. Flat spacetime is a massless superfluid. Helium IV is a superfluid but, it is not massless.

 
To extend the metaphor, it is not hard to imagine that spacetime could undergo a phase change, just as helium IV may. In a black hole this change involves a reduction in dimensionality. This is about the only change available to it. Analysis of the equations of GR shows that gravitational strength, F_g is proportional to 1/r^(n-1) where n = number of spatial dimensions. In a 3-D universe, F_g declines as 1/r². In a 2-D universe, F_g declines as 1/r.

 
So, a black hole must use the gravitational energy of in-falling matter to raise its gravitational potential, the gravitational energy level, to the 2-D “state”. We are starting to talk quantum language now.

 
The shape of this singular BH gravitational field strength diagram, as it is a 2-D entity embedded in a 3-D space, is a nominally flat disk or platter with a potentially infinite radius. Unlike Kerr, I call this topology of the event horizon a “spin disk” because it arises from the infinite rotational and orbital spin rate of matter that has in-fallen toward the singularity. As a spacetime entity, this new phase ignores the event horizon and propagates outward to beyond the edge of the galaxy. It emanates from the central core of the galaxy wherein resides any central supermassive black hole.



Here is one of the non-intuitive consequences of GR. It is known that matter in-falling toward the event horizon must experience time dilation. From our external perspective, we would perceive time for this matter as having slowed and even stopped at the event horizon. Viewed from any point outside the event horizon, time really does stop there. But from its own perspective time does not stop and such matter does indeed drop through the event horizon where it may take part in whatever processes it might (time reversed or not).


There is simultaneously an inverse square gravitational field set up by this time-frozen matter at the event horizon and an inverse gravitational field set up by this same matter that has already in-fallen to the singularity. There is no violation of conservation laws here because no object can feel these separate effects simultaneously. If an object orbits the galactic center in the plane of the galactic disk, it feels the inverse 1/r field. If it orbits on a trajectory not aligned with the galactic plane, if it orbits chaotically, it feels the inverse square 1/r² field.


This has consequences for the analysis of the orbital motion of close-in Milky Way bulge stars like S2 for the determination of the MW’s supermassive black hole mass according to Kepler’s laws. Kepler is valid for the 2-D case as well as for the 3-D case. But, it has to be adjusted for the 1/r gravitational field as does Newton’s law. No deep relativistic calculations are needed. One can determine what changes must be made in Newton’s law and Kepler’s laws by inspection.


Above, I explained how a 2-D gravitational field can exist in our 3-D universe. It must be associated with a black hole having an infinite spin rate as well as infinite density and infinite gravitational field strength. Within the bounds of Heisenberg uncertainty, these singularities must exist. There is no point in trying to explain them away using some kind of unfalsifiable overly advanced unintelligible gravitational quantum sophistry.

 
I show that the hyperbolic 1/r inverse gravitational field can exist as a spin disk surrounding any black hole with said disk extending far beyond the event horizon toward infinite radius. This explains MOND and the anomalous velocity dispersion because hyperbolic 1/r gravity means that orbital velocity, v, around a galactic center containing a black hole, v = (GM_bh)^1/2. That is, v becomes constant dependent only on M_bh and G. This v is not only constant for a given galaxy, it is constant from galaxy to galaxy. This means that GM_bh must itself be a constant, a new fundamental physical constant.


But, G may not be the same G that applies in 3 dimensions. So, I call it G*. Besides by an extension of GR, one might get G* from the M‑sigma relation as well as by the anomalous velocity dispersion. But, the mass of the central galactic supermassive black holes must first be refigured on the basis of the hyperbolic field if very many of the orbits of the bulge stars that were used to get M_bh were coincident with the galactic plane. If all or most of these orbits were chaotic and not aligned with the galactic plane, the BH mass determinations may be okay.


The new fundamental physical constant should actually be written G*M_bh such that G* and M_bh are not independently variable but together form this constant that I call Ḡ. Ḡ is constant only under the influence of the gravitational field of a given black hole.

 
The meaning of the hyperbolic gravitational field of black holes is that MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics, suggested by Mordehai Milgrom) is explained without recourse to Dark Matter or to modifications of Newtonian dynamics. Newton and Kepler must be understood in two dimensions, that is all.

 
All of the observations that are said to support Dark Matter as being, say, a huge halo of WIMPs engulfing galaxies and galactic clusters also support the hyperbolic (1/r) gravitational field postulate, even the Bullet Cluster effect.  Dark Matter 3-D maps obtained by analysis of gravitational lensing also follow logically from the Postulate.

The hyperbolic (1/r) supermassive black hole gravitational field is indeed a postulate. This means that there can be no argument against it. It must be taken at face value and carried to its logical extreme whereupon it will be either reduced to absurdity or else found to be correct.

 
When extrapolated to the entire universe, the hyperbolic field mimics Dark Energy too. If Alan Guth’s inflaton particle originated in 2-D space and began to roll down its own hyper-gravitational super-potential slope toward a lower energy 3-D state, the higher energy 2-D potential energy would be progressively transformed in a time dependent quantum-like transition to the new 3-D “ground state”. This potential energy would show up as apparently increasing kinematic momentum of all stars and galaxies in the universe. That is, the universe would appear to be expanding at an accelerating rate.

 
This is an exciting idea because the whole universe is thus to be regarded as a quantum object. It may provide a route to a falsifiable certifiable theory of quantum gravity because 2-D gravity does not lead to a gravitational catastrophe as r tends to 0, and it is renormalizable, a prerequisite for any quantum theory of gravity. This Postulate may point to a means to prove the existence of the multiverse. If Guth is right, Hugh Everett could be right.

 

 

Part 2 Try Alan Guth's "inflaton" particle

But, as far as other unfalsifiable new hypothetical heavy bosons are concerned - try Alan Guth's "inflaton" particle: A hyper-massive excited particle in a humongously excited "inflaton field" that cannot be distinguished from gravity itself, except by its degree of excitation.

Suddenly, it decays. It decays into daughter particles and these then decay. Some of this decay debris has a long half-life. And enormous mass. The rest decays into matter and energy as we know it. But, the long half life particles remain as ultra-massive black holes. These decay, not via Hawking radiation, but by virtue of their intense infinitely deep singular gravitational fields that cause them to erupt into this same universe (somewhere "else").

They spew out smaller black holes and matter/energy detritus like a Roman candle, (The Big Barf). Because of dependence on random processes and/or temperature, the daughter black holes they generate this way should follow a "normal" or "Poisson" distribution, perhaps. Statistically, this might be verified. Yet, it would take time for these BHs to start gathering in more matter to form full fledged galaxies. Some additional BHs may then form by accretion in the expected way.

Perhaps this process would indeed result in very ancient super-massive BH masses following a Poisson distribution. If I was a mathematical physicist, I am sure I could derive it. But, I am just a modeler.

Note that this process will result in sufficient inhomogeneity without invoking acoustic anomalies, quantum instabilities or other forms of additional turbulence to give the energy/mass distribution we see today, especially in the CMB.

Now for Black-Hole existence: the singularity case of a mass with radius r = 0 is different, however. If one asks that the solution set to the simultaneous homogeneous nonlinear partial differential equations in GR be valid for all r, one runs into a true physical singularity, or gravitational singularity, at the origin. To see that this is a true singularity one must look at quantities that are independent of the choice of coordinates. One such important quantity is the Kretschmann invariant (which says) at r = 0 the curvature blows up (becomes infinite) indicating the presence of a singularity. At this point, the metric, and space-time itself, is no longer well-defined, but not undefined.

For a long time it was thought that such a solution was non-physical. However, a greater understanding of general relativity led to the realization that such singularities were a generic feature of the GR theory and not just an exotic special case. Such solutions are now believed to exist and are termed black-holes. Because they certainly are gravitational singularities, they must have a unique gravitational potential field profile. By simple geometry, they must be distinguished by a hyperbolic (1/r) fall off in the gravitational field strength. This fact is currently being ignored.

F = GMm/kr, k = 1m (S.I., for dimensional integrity) means black-hole gravity falls off hyperbolically, not parabolically as according to Newton. This F equation is fully Newtonian, however. It just focuses on black-holes as being unique, and, of course, they are. Note that k = 1m is an explicit reminder that we deal with a gravitational singularity here.

Part 3 ... Mordechai Milgrom is a reputable careful worker

Mordechai Milgrom is a reputable careful worker. His data are used to support the idea of Dark Matter, not MOND. Not by him, though, he still teaches MOND. Where do we get Dark Matter from GR or from the standard theory of particle physics? Where?

WIMPS are even more hypothetical and unfalsifiable. DM itself is just a patch used to fill in the blanks in Friedmann. If one can derive Newton from GR, then one can derive the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole galactic gravitational field using the right assumptions. These would be interesting in themselves...

Unfalsifiable hypotheses cannot be used to refute facts. TeVeS theory is such an hypothesis like such quantum/GR hybrids all are. They have never predicted one single unique item and no such prediction has ever been verified. A theory that does not predict competently is not a theory and does not deserve the attention of mathematicians nor scientists.

All math, all science, is metaphor. All language is ultimately just metaphor including, and especially, Scripture. It is impossible to fully capture reality with any kind of human language. Prodessionals' neglect of this principle is what many people mean when they claim that scientists are insufferably arrogant and grossly naive. These critics go too far, though. Then they claim science is Myth. They create this Myth. Let us endeavor NOT to do so ourselves.


Gak

No cynic is happy.

Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Quintessence, Cosmological Constant

Click on the title of this post and navigate to another forum or blog concerning origins of the universe.

George LeMaitre suggested that the universe should be expanding at a steady rate in the present time, and has been doing so for eons. Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is indeed expanding at a rate that he determined and this rate has been called "the Hubble Constant".

It is now well established that the universe is expanding, but not at a constant rate. I believe that the universe's expansion is slowing down, or decelerating. Other scientists think it is accelerating.

My equations or the MODEL that I have developed, suggests that deceleration is the only way to explain all the facts and that acceleration, the model favored by many cosmologists, is not such a good account of reality.

Acceleration is concluded from a particular interpretation of some observations. It is not necessary to choose this interpretation.

In order to explain this acceleration, ad hoc postulates have been offered. These kinds of off-the-cuff explanations do not explain anything. They complicate matters instead. One of the complications this causes is that there must be some sort of "Dark Energy". DE might stem from Einstein's cosmological constant which he slap-dashedly stuffed into his theory of relativity.

DE is supposed to pervade the universe and is forcing it to expand at an ever increasing rate. Then, if there is such a thing, the total mass & energy inventory of the universe must be so much larger than was thought that this surprise has to be explained too. The trail of ad hoc postulates gets longer and longer as more band-aids are applied to a wound in the logic of the acceleration model.

Very recently it was found that the evolutionary development of galaxy clusters and superclusters is slowing down. This would be expected if the develoment of the whole universe is slowing down (decelerating). But, in order to keep the acceleration idea alive in the face of this fact, more band-aids are needed. More ad hoc fixes are required to make sense of this galactic cluster develpment retardation effect.

It's crazy.

There is no Dark Energy, never was and never will be.

Dark Energy Debunked Some More

Re: Dark Energy Debunked

There is always some emotional component in our effort to think. Humans are never perfectly logical. When we unconsciously perceive that a concept may be beyond comprehension, we cough it up, like a snake that has swallowed an oversize egg. And we recoil from it.

The visceral reaction against it is like a reflex that protects our emotional hearts from choking.This business about dark energy and dark matter involves concepts of immense numbers, "curved" space and such long periods of time that we cannot fully comprehend them.

It is what the author meant when he complained of people's incurable "innumeracy". We do not and can not fully acknowledge how ignorant we are of the ultimate implications of the enormously large or incredibly small aspects of reality. It makes me uncomfortable too.

But, at the same time, I experience a fascinating addiction to it! This is why I bother with this blog in the first place.

It is said that even if all the dark matter in the universe is accounted for, there would still not be enough matter and/or energy in the universe to "close" it. I guess that astrophysicists can apply statistical analysis to the pattern found in the cosmic microwave background to extract a mathematical "power law" that describes the distribution of high and low intensity areas in the sky. That power law is consistent with the pattern's being projected onto the sky from a flat source, I think.

This means that space is flat to within a very small percentage. So, the universe is, in fact, closed or at least it is poised delicately on the borderline between open, or ever expanding, and completely closed, eventually to contract.

But very distant type 1a supernovae SEEM to be more distant, by luminosity measurements, than they SEEM to be by redshift measurements. So, the universe should be older by luminosity than it is by redshift.

If one extrapolates redshift versus distance or time back toward zero, one obtains an intersection with the ordinate axis that is short of the origin (as determined by luminosity). The only way that this could occur is if the radial velocity of expansion line is curved upward, is concave rather than convex. This is the same as saying the universe expansion rate is accelerating.

But, then it is not closed or poised on the borderline. If it is poised, it would show a leveling off, an asymptotic approach to a plateau. So CMB data show a picture that is at odds with the supernova data.

It is not all consistent, in other words. And the rush to a conclusion is surely premature.

There is much evidence in support of the inflationary model of the evolution of the universe. Alan Guth's inflation says that the universe should have a flat curvature to within an exceedingly small percentage. But, again, an accelerating universe is not flat.

Cosmologists seem to want to have it both ways and the alternatives are mutually contradictory. And, they insist on referring to a Hubble CONSTANT. If the universe is doing anything but expanding at a constant rate, if it is slowing down or speeding up, we have a Hubble parameter, not a constant. And then one cannot use linear regression analysis to determine H naught.

That the the latter point is missed may be due to sloppy journalism. The way these issues are discussed in the popular press is confusing. When journalists do not know that an overturned tanker of liquid nitrogen cannot explode like liquid hydrogen or promote an exposion like liquid oxygen, we cannot trust their scientific judgement.

Your visceral reaction against all of this is just a reaction to reality. It is all really very disgusting! Let us continue to watch the soap opera. Maybe there will be some kind of conclusion after all.

Gary Kent