1,500 supernovas offer most precise survey of dark energy and dark matter to

[Admin]

Two decades' worth of observations of supernova explosions and a powerful new analysis tool has provided the most accurate accounting of dark energy and dark matter to .

1,500 supernovas offer most precise survey of dark energy and dark matter to : Read more

 

[Helio]

This gives even greater strength to BBT and the standard Lambda -CDM model.

But the Hubble Tension is no illusion.

Here is a nice presentation of the expansion and DE.

It seems more likely than not that DE behavior is not monolithic. Even apple pie isn’t pure apple.

 

[rod]

Some points I note here. The article states. "The results obtained by the astrophysicists behind the Pantheon+ analysis provide further statistical evidence that the modern cosmological theories that make up the Standard Model provide the best explanation for dark energy and dark matter. This means that the Pantheon+ analysis could help close the door on alternative frameworks that attempt to explain these mysterious aspects of the cosmos and could help scientists hone their understanding of the dark universe. "With these Pantheon+ results, we are able to put the most precise constraints on the dynamics and history of the universe to date," Dillon Brout, an astrophysicist at the Center for Astrophysics at Harvard & Smithsonian, said in a statement(opens in new tab). "We've combed over the data and can now say with more confidence than ever before how the universe has evolved over the eons and that the current best theories for dark energy and dark matter hold strong."

If BBT explains dark matter and dark energy, it apparently does not explain their origin any more than explaining the origin of various physical laws or constants found in nature today. When did dark matter and dark energy evolve in BBT? For example, when the CMBR forms about 370-380,000 after BB, when did dark matter and dark energy pop out? Are we talking pre-inflation, GUT, inflaton field period when magnetic monopoles appear?

In the reference cited, The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints, The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints - IOPscience

I found 6x references to *dark energy*. The abstract discussed H0 = 73.5 km/s/Mpc and 73.3 km/s/Mpc. As Helio states in post #2, "But the Hubble Tension is no illusion."

I agree, H0 is a big problem with BBT and has been, apparently since its origin (originally 500 km/s/Mpc). The age for the Universe shrinks, down to near 13 Gyr, see the cosmology calculators.

Cosmology calculator | kempner.net, this calculator shows the Universe age is 12.6488 Gyr using H0 = 73.3 km/s/Mpc and z =0.

Is BBT that secure? My answer, follow the bouncing ball reports and watch the tweaks

 

[Helio]

If BBT explains dark matter and dark energy, it apparently does not explain their origin any more than explaining the origin of various physical laws or constants found in nature today.

The point of "explanation" is an important one to consider...

No theory is required to give a full explanation to be a very powerful model of what is observed. Newton's bullet-proof laws (ignoring extremes) of gravity never explained gravity. He stated he had no explanation for the nature of gravity.

Darwin's powerful theory, on the other hand, was greatly diminished because he had no explanation for how traits are passed-on. [It took genetics to do this.]

So, why does BBT get so much more slack than Darwin? Because, IMO, Darwin's key feature required the passing of traits, so it was too much of a stretch to imagine that something would pass traits reliably, rather than blend with other traits. Darwin, in a subsequent edition, dreamed-up a solution but it was clearly and ad-hoc invention, so it worsened his theory. His first edition is regarded as the best, which is when he offered no explanation, similar to Newton.

BBT is far less ad-hoc. It does require DM and DE to make any real sense, but we have strong evidence for the existence of DM and some for DE. Tweaking either one or both is not only plausible but likely given we currently know so little about either. Yet the evidence keeps pouring in that they are not some ad-hoc whims of scientists.

When did dark matter and dark energy evolve in BBT? For example, when the CMBR forms about 370-380,000 after BB, when did dark matter and dark energy pop out?

Although LeMaitre presented acceleration for the expanding universe, this more serious question arose when BBT became more prominent and tougher questions were posed to it, IMO. Particle physicists were never part of the original story, but in those earliest nanoseconds, quantum issues had to be considered. This meant perfect homogeneity would not be possible.

The big event for BBT was the discovery of the CMBR. The search was underway by Dicke/Peebles to find it when it was discovered by Penzias and Wilson (serendipity). It would be the smoking gun for BBT, and indeed it is.

The many features of the CMBR requires both DM and DE to explain it. This is how they can calculate the smaller H-L constant than found by closer galactic redshift models.

But it was in 1998 when the two independent teams discovered an acceleration component to the expansion. Those were based on a few dozen Type 1a SN, so this 1500 SN study is superior. DE is primarily a label for the energy behind this acceleration, though little is known about it.

Is BBT that secure? My answer, follow the bouncing ball reports and watch the tweaks

Those bounces only look high since the ball is enormous.

 

[rod]

The point of "explanation" is an important one to consider...

No theory is required to give a full explanation to be a very powerful model of what is observed. Newton's bullet-proof laws (ignoring extremes) of gravity never explained gravity. He stated he had no explanation for the nature of gravity.

Darwin's powerful theory, on the other hand, was greatly diminished because he had no explanation for how traits are passed-on. [It took genetics to do this.]

So, why does BBT get so much more slack than Darwin? Because, IMO, Darwin's key feature required the passing of traits, so it was too much of a stretch to imagine that something would pass traits reliably, rather than blend with other traits. Darwin, in a subsequent edition, dreamed-up a solution but it was clearly and ad-hoc invention, so it worsened his theory. His first edition is regarded as the best, which is when he offered no explanation, similar to Newton.

BBT is far less ad-hoc. It does require DM and DE to make any real sense, but we have strong evidence for the existence of DM and some for DE. Tweaking either one or both is not only plausible but likely given we currently know so little about either. Yet the evidence keeps pouring in that they are not some ad-hoc whims of scientists.

Although LeMaitre presented acceleration for the expanding universe, this more serious question arose when BBT became more prominent and tougher questions were posed to it, IMO. Particle physicists were never part of the original story, but in those earliest nanoseconds, quantum issues had to be considered. This meant perfect homogeneity would not be possible.

The big event for BBT was the discovery of the CMBR. The search was underway by Dicke/Peebles to find it when it was discovered by Penzias and Wilson (serendipity). It would be the smoking gun for BBT, and indeed it is.

The many features of the CMBR requires both DM and DE to explain it. This is how they can calculate the smaller H-L constant than found by closer galactic redshift models.

But it was in 1998 when the two independent teams discovered an acceleration component to the expansion. Those were based on a few dozen Type 1a SN, so this 1500 SN study is superior. DE is primarily a label for the energy behind this acceleration, though little is known about it.

Those bounces only look high since the ball is enormous.

Beside hand waving here, there is no answer as to how or when DM or DE appears but the *features of the CMBR requires both DM and DE to explain it*.

I guess without DM and DE, the CMBR has no answer as to how it formed (this looks like magic) or perhaps we must assume DM and DE are eternal, both just appear when BBT needs them. The bounces can be seen in the different Universe ages found now too using the cosmology calculators. Besides the 1500 Type Ia SN study, we have 56,000 galaxy study showing an even higher value for H0, 75 km/s/Mpc. Indeed, the bounces are taking place.

 

[Helio]

Beside hand waving here, there is no answer as to how or when DM or DE appears but the *features of the CMBR requires both DM and DE to explain it*.

The CMBR was predicted without DE, I think. Lambda was assumed to be 0 once Lemaitre solved GR with expansion. DE and DM tweak the CMBR results, but as long as you have hot hydrogen and helium cooling from expansion then a sudden burst of freed light will take place (ie Recombination). It’s Planck temperature, wavelengths, redshift, power spectrum, etc. will, of corse, be affected by DM and, likely, DE.

I guess without DM and DE, the CMBR has no answer as to how it formed (this looks like magic) or perhaps we must assume DM and DE are eternal, both just appear when BBT needs them.

Nonsense. DM was discovered by Zwicky many decades ago. Vera Rubin produced even greater evidence for it. Physics has every reason to take hard evidence for DM into consideration for every aspect of cosmology. Early star and galaxy formation are a result of its gravitational assistance, which we are beginning to see from the JWST.

The bounces can be seen in the different Universe ages found now too using the cosmology calculators. Besides the 1500 Type Ia SN study, we have 56,000 galaxy study showing an even higher value for H0, 75 km/s/Mpc. Indeed, the bounces are taking place.

Why does this surprise you? Newton didn’t resolve the value for the universal constant of gravity. It took many extreme methods to tweak it to today’s value. But these methods could be done in labs, but the expansion rate cannot.

 

[rod]

Well Helio, it seems we do not agree Here is another report on the Type Ia SN project and results.

The most precise accounting yet of dark energy and dark matter (phys.org)

I note some comments. "Pantheon+ convincingly finds that the cosmos is composed of about two-thirds dark energy and one-third matter—mostly in the form of dark matter—and is expanding at an accelerating pace over the last several billion years. However, Pantheon+ also cements a major disagreement over the pace of that expansion that has yet to be solved."

My thinking about DM and DE is how they relate to the CMBR and when it appears as light in the universe. DE appears in cosmology since 1998 and only about 3 Gyr after the CMBR forms apparently (at least DE detection in Type 1a SN). Simple questions like who, what, when, where, how, and why come to my mind. Is DE now a firth force operating in nature that only appears about 3 Gyr after CMBR light appears?

I note this in the phys.org report. "The breakthrough discovery in 1998 of the universe's accelerating growth was thanks to a study of Type Ia supernovae in this manner. Scientists attribute the expansion to an invisible energy, therefore monikered dark energy, inherent to the fabric of the universe itself. Subsequent decades of work have continued to compile ever-larger datasets, revealing supernovae across an even wider range of space and time, and Pantheon+ has now brought them together into the most statistically robust analysis to date."

In my thinking, this seems to be a fifth force now in nature (different than the four fundamental forces, gravity, weak, strong, and electromagnetic) that appears perhaps 3 Gyr after the CMBR appears as light. A mysterious fifth force appearing in nature seems it must arise in BB model somewhere, perhaps well before the CMBR light appears in the universe (380,000 years after BB or so).

I do like this brief statement in the phys.org reporting. "Taking the data as a whole, the new analysis holds that 66.2 percent of the universe manifests as dark energy, with the remaining 33.8 percent being a combination of dark matter and matter."

My observation. This gives me something to chew on, 66.2% of the observable universe today could be DE.

Here is another comment.

"Pantheon+ and SH0ES together find a Hubble constant of 73.4 kilometers per second per megaparsec with only 1.3% uncertainty. Stated another way, for every megaparsec, or 3.26 million light years, the analysis estimates that in the nearby universe, space itself is expanding at more than 160,000 miles per hour. However, observations from an entirely different epoch of the universe's history predict a different story. Measurements of the universe's earliest light, the cosmic microwave background, when combined with the current Standard Model of Cosmology, consistently peg the Hubble constant at a rate that is significantly less than observations taken via Type Ia supernovae and other astrophysical markers. This sizable discrepancy between the two methodologies has been termed the Hubble tension. The new Pantheon+ and SH0ES datasets heighten this Hubble tension. In fact, the tension has now passed the important 5-sigma threshold (about one-in-a-million odds of arising due to random chance) that physicists use to distinguish between possible statistical flukes and something that must accordingly be understood. Reaching this new statistical level highlights the challenge for both theorists and astrophysicists to try and explain the Hubble constant discrepancy."

I do agree that H0 is becoming a challenge and reviewing the different ages for the universe reported using different H0 values becomes interesting. Exactly when in the BB model DM and DE appears I think remains unanswered. We have GUT, inflaton field (inflation epoch) and all that follows until the CMBR appears as visible light in the universe, now deeply redshifted by a factor of perhaps 1100. This also opens up the door that DM and DE operating in the universe before the CMBR appears as light, could alter how the CMBR evolved. I do not know

Helio et al. I do think that the present BB model using LCDM cannot work to explain the origin of structure in the universe just using gravity alone. DM is now critical to the cosmology and how the postulated pristine, primordial gas clouds evolved into stars and galaxies we see today. Without DM, who knows?

 

[Helio]

My thinking about DM and DE is how they relate to the CMBR and when it appears as light in the universe. DE appears in cosmology since 1998 and only about 3 Gyr after the CMBR forms apparently (at least DE detection in Type 1a SN). Simple questions like who, what, when, where, how, and why come to my mind. Is DE now a firth force operating in nature that only appears about 3 Gyr after CMBR light appears?

DE seems to be treated as a constant pressure, not unlike Einstein's original view of it, but his was a small value needed to balance the Static Universe. He too was no fan of expansion, until the evidence came his way.

So, the effects DE has on expansion is increasing from a time where its component force became of significance.

Imagine a small booster rocket attached to a much larger rocket. Its small thrust will have little effect on the rocket getting into space, but as the big rocket boosters fall away, the effects become more prominent on accelerating the lighter rocket. As the density of the universe decreases, the DE force causes greater acceleration.

But where is this DE coming from? All that can be done at the moment is plot its effects. The more complete questions are almost too pointless to ask, but to ignore the observations would make less sense. There are dozens of theories, but testing them won't come easy. DM is far more hopeful, and the LHC is on the hunt.

I do agree that H0 is becoming a challenge and reviewing the different ages for the universe reported using different H0 values becomes interesting. Exactly when in the BB model DM and DE appears I think remains unanswered. We have GUT, inflaton field (inflation epoch) and all that follows until the CMBR appears as visible light in the universe, now deeply redshifted by a factor of perhaps 1100. This also opens up the door that DM and DE operating in the universe before the CMBR appears as light, could alter how the CMBR evolved. I do not know

Yes, and the JWST will likely be able to help determine more about DM since the formation times for stars and galaxies are very much influenced by its effects. The sooner galaxies formed, the more DM may have been around at that time. But it could get complicated because how will they know its degree of isotropy, for instance. The CMBR reveals some of the information (eg "acoustic" data that shows the anisotropy values).

Helio et al. I do think that the present BB model using LCDM cannot work to explain the origin of structure in the universe just using gravity alone. DM is now critical to the cosmology and how the postulated pristine, primordial gas clouds evolved into stars and galaxies we see today. Without DM, who knows?

LCDM (Lambda-Cold Dark Matter) model seems to be growing from a relatively strong theory to one even more robust, per the SN results. The H-L tension will, very likely, get resolved, possibly with the help of the JWST.

 

[rod]

Helio, your comments in post #8. I note you said about DE, "So, the effects DE has on expansion is increasing from a time where its component force became of significance."

This looks like expansion rate encounters another fine-tuning problem and does not really show when DE appears in BBT as you like to describe the model. Helio you also stated, "But where is this DE coming from? All that can be done at the moment is plot its effects. "

So, when I ask about DE arising in BBT, does it predate the origin of the CMBR? Apparently according to your answer, science does not know or if DE operated during the inflaton field epoch. When it comes to DM and how much is needed to form structure and not say collapse the universe, looks like another fine-tuning project emerging.

"The H-L tension will, very likely, get resolved, possibly with the help of the JWST." My observation, this is a hopeful response Currently the H-L tension results in some very different universe ages appearing when examining using the cosmology calculators. So, I will wait patiently to see what develops with what I consider the many tweaks now needed to prop up BBT.

Helio, I do like your statement here. "Yes, and the JWST will likely be able to help determine more about DM since the formation times for stars and galaxies are very much influenced by its effects. The sooner galaxies formed, the more DM may have been around at that time. But it could get complicated because how will they know its degree of isotropy, for instance. The CMBR reveals some of the information (eg "acoustic" data that shows the anisotropy values)."

This thinking does not show when DM arose in BBT but does suggest a fine-tuning issue is becoming apparent. I have read reports where DM stars form in some simulations, like magnetic monopole stars suggested from inflation if the magnetic monopoles did not get pushed out of our section of the bubble into another bubble emerging. There may be many fine-tuning problems in cosmology now to hold up BBT

Why did I do this some may think or ask? I feel tweaks like this in BBT should be fully disclosed to the public concerning cosmology and the answer to how the universe appeared and evolved into what we see today in astronomy. If many or a variety of fine-tuning problems appear, show it all and show the tweaks, including physics like the inflaton field in nature not seen today.

 

[Helio]

So, when I ask about DE arising in BBT, does it predate the origin of the CMBR?

Oddly enough, it's a yes and a no answer.

Einstein became convinced, to some degree, that there had to be some energy-force that was inverse to his GR view model of gravity. He had held the mainstream view of the cosmos, namely that it was static - no changes, perhaps infinite. But cosmology, I think, wasn't even a field of study since it was more than a decade later that the universe was found to have more than one galaxy in it, thanks to Hubble and the new giant (100") Hooker telescope. Einstein realized that the masses would cause a static universe to eventually collapse, hence the repulsive term (ie Cosmological Constant - Lambda) was included in his GR equation in 1917 (about a year or so after his 1915-1916 GR papers). [As mentioned earlier, this was a weaker net force since it was there to hold the universe, not accelerate the expansion of it.]

As you know, the beginning of BBT comes from Lemaitre, though Friedmann broke some ground with his math solution of GR several years earlier. It turns out, apparently, that the Lemaitre-Friedmann model includes Einstein's lambda term, but at 1/3 the value, surprisingly.
[see here]. But its strength, I assume, is too little in the early periods relative to the mass density (ie gravitational strength) to be much of a factor. As density decreases, hence less local gravitational strength, this inverse force (now labeled DE) becomes more important. [To be clear, I think the modern lambda term is more of a constant (perhaps because it's called a constant. ) so it becomes important only when its strength becomes significant relative to other forces.]

The math/physics is too deep for me to know whether or not something like lambda pops out of some solutions to GR, though I have read one account claiming it does, somehow.

As for DM by the early models of BBT, I can't imagine they would have included something that didn't become prominent until Vera Rubin's work culminating in her (et. al.) paper in 1978 [here]. Even Zwicky's early strong hint wasn't until several years after Lemaitre's paper. So, DM would have become important to any BBT version after this time, especially when more studies were done on clusters, which would greatly advance Zwicky's 1933 study on clusters.

Apparently according to your answer, science does not know or if DE operated during the inflaton field epoch.

But, again, the Inflation model was anti-gravity gone beyond wild, so the influence of DE was about like asking if an extra flea slows a running dog. This goes back to the above statement that DE was no stronger in force per unit volume than it the value it has today (ie constant).

When it comes to DM and how much is needed to form structure and not say collapse the universe, looks like another fine-tuning project emerging.

Good question. Add to that just what is the gravitational equation for it. If you find one, I'd like to see it. All indications, and observations (e.g. Bullet Cluster), seem to show it isn't the simple inverse square law we know for gravity, but it's behavior is more sluggish. My guess is that a decade from now, a great deal more will be known of DM. DE won't be so easy, I think.

"The H-L tension will, very likely, get resolved, possibly with the help of the JWST." My observation, this is a hopeful response Currently the H-L tension results in some very different universe ages appearing when examining using the cosmology calculators. So, I will wait patiently to see what develops with what I consider the many tweaks now needed to prop up BBT.

You're following this better than I am. These two values come from different time periods. The CMBR reveals the lower rate, and the study of galaxies today gives the higher value. But the Ho value is defined as the expansion rate today. So why does the lower value found from the CMBR study not make sense to actually be lower since, again, the greater mass density would find a slower expansion rate? Not to mention that with acceleration one must necessarily have a slower rate in the past. Does any article explain this issue? [Calling SPACE.COM! ]

Why did I do this some may think or ask? I feel tweaks like this in BBT should be fully disclosed to the public concerning cosmology and the answer to how the universe appeared and evolved into what we see today in astronomy. If many or a variety of fine-tuning problems appear, show it all and show the tweaks, including physics like the inflaton field in nature not seen today.

A very detailed account is given in Peeble's book, "Cosmology’s Century: An Inside History of Our Modern Understanding of the Universe" (June 2020).

IMO, all this is normal astronomy. Recall that the first efforts at distances, which soon led to the expansion rate, found that stars were younger than the universe! This was because Hubble was unaware that Cepheid's came in more than one flavor. [Odd that this isn't mentioned very often.]

 

[rod]

FYI. There is considerable effort now to integrate DM and DE into BBT, back before CMBR appears as light.

Here are some examples.

Cosmological scalar fields and Big-Bang nucleosynthesis, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021chep.confE.589C/abstract

"The nature of dark matter and of dark energy which constitute more than 95% of the energy in the Universe remains a great and unresolved question in cosmology. Cold dark matter can be made of an ultralight scalar field dominated by its mass term which interacts only gravitationally. The cosmological constant introduced to explain the recent acceleration of the Universe expansion can be easily replaced by a scalar field dominated by its potential. More generally, scalar fields are ubiquitous in cosmology: inflaton, dilatons, moduli, quintessence, fuzzy dark matter, dark fluid, etc. are some examples. One can wonder whether all these scalar fields are independent. The dark fluid model aims at unifying quintessence and fuzzy dark matter models with a unique scalar field. One step futher is to unify the dark fluid model with inflation. In the very early Universe such scalar fields are not strongly constrained by direct observations, but Big-Bang nucleosynthesis set constraints on scalar field models which lead to a modification on the abundance of the elements. In this talk we will present a scalar field model unifying dark matter, dark energy and inflation, and study constraints from Big-Bang nucleosynthesis on primordial scalar fields."

Unifying dark matter, dark energy and inflation with a fuzzy dark fluid, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JCAP...01..033A/abstract

"Scalar fields appear in many cosmological models, in particular in order to provide explanations for dark energy and inflation, but also to emulate dark matter. In this paper, we show that it is possible for a scalar field to replace simultaneously dark matter, dark energy and inflation by assuming the existence of a non-minimal coupling to gravity, a Mexican hat potential, and a spontaneous symmetry breaking before inflation. After inflation, the scalar field behaves like a dark fluid, mimicking dark energy and dark matter, and has a dark matter behaviour similar to fuzzy dark matter."

A unified geometric description of the Universe: From inflation to late-time acceleration without an inflaton nor a cosmological constant, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhLB..82736939J/abstract

"We present a cosmological model arising from a gravitational theory with an infinite tower of higher-order curvature invariants that can reproduce the entire evolution of the Universe: from inflation to late-time acceleration, without invoking an inflaton nor a cosmological constant. The theory is Einsteinian-like. The field equations for a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric are of second-order and can reproduce a late-time evolution that is consistent with the acceleration provided by the cosmological constant at low redshift. Our results force us to reinterpret the nature of dark energy, becoming a mechanism that is inherited solely from the geometry of spacetime."

Constraints on the phase transition of Early Dark Energy with the CMB anisotropies, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221003348H/abstract

"Early dark energy models have attracted attention in the context of the recent problem of the Hubble tension. Here we extend these models by taking into account the new density fluctuations generated by the dark energy decays around the recombination phase. We solve the evolution of the density perturbations in dark energy fluid generated at the phase transition of early dark energy as isocurvature perturbations. Assuming that the isocurvature mode is characterized by a power-law power spectrum and is uncorrelated with the standard adiabatic mode, we calculate the CMB angular power spectra and compare them to the Planck data using the Markov-Chain Monte Carlo method. As a result, we obtained the zero-consistent values of the EDE parameters and H0=67.47+1.01−1.00 kms−1Mpc−1 at 68% CL. This H0 value is almost the same as the Planck+ Λ CDM value, H0=67.36±0.54 kms−1Mpc−1 , and there is still a ∼3σ tension between the CMB and Type Ia supernovae observation. Moreover, the amplitude of the spectra induced by the phase transition of the EDE is constrained to be less than one percent of that of the adiabatic mode. This is so small that such non-standard fluctuations cannot appear in the CMB angular spectra. In conclusion, the significant contributions of the EDE to the background and perturbation are excluded by the analysis using the Planck data only, although there is a need for further analysis including the data from the large scale structure of the universe."

This report shows H0 very different than the Type Ia SN 1500 report, H0 73.3 km/s/Mpc so the Hubble tension is a problem, especially for the age of the universe using the cosmology calculators.

Asking a when question concerning DM and DE appearance in the BB model and how DM and DE could alter the BB model answers presented, I think is good. Perhaps the cosmology department is running into fine-tuning problems. It does seem that various studies are looking at the origin of DM and DE before the CMBR light appears in the BB model, not just astronomical observations using lower redshift objects claiming to see DM and DE. How this plays out remains open in my view.

 

[Harry Costas]

We need to remember that the Big Bang theory is a theory.

When we talk about dark matter or energy.

One needs to look at the quantum mechanics of Condensates, transients of matter/energy such as Neutron Matter, Quark Matter and it composites, Partonic matter and its variants, Axion Gluon matter etc.

Dark matter/energy dances together in an endless cycle.

We see this in Hour Glass supernovae, vortex formed from core galaxies eg M87.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Having not followed the posts too carefully, what I still want to convey is that DM spuriously and perhaps non uniformly decides to manifest itself from ground state of matter (energy) to observable state of matter-energy (ME).

Hence given a period (astronomically significant) the matter-density will also depend on bidirectional creation of ME and absorption of ME back to DM or falling to ground state.
Hence this interplay is responsible in part to value of density of ME.

Hence measure of density is influenced by DM and thus our conclusions about relation of density to DE should be viewed in the light of this dependence.

Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
Chair, Ontology Summit 2022
Senior Enterprise Architect
Particle and Space Physicist

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Dr Ravi
Dark Matter and Dark energy are part of the same.
If we look at Condensates, the various Transients.
Compactiion
Normal matter 10^5
add more matter
Neutron Matter 10^17
add more matter
Quark composites 10^18 plus
add more matter
Partonic matter over 10^25
add more matter
Axion matter 10^30 Plus

The common property of condensates is a dipolar vector vortices to explain expansion and a contraction field away from the dipolar

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Harry Costas
Greetings!
I am astonished and happy at these numbers, are these estimates for the total physically observed (through gravity and other forces namely Strong (nuclear) weak EM) and if so how is the gravitational component measured? How are Partonic (n p combinations) measured by in QCD?

My conjecture is that Bose Einstein Condensate still has a mass-energy notion and these are measured from matter-energy universe after Dark Matter has created structures where matter-energy are in the process of being manifested.

What is the current thought on relationship of Axion and Higgs?

What you indicate still measure the matter-energy. Quarks and Gluons are mostly energy but still have some mass(QCD).
Regards
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
Chair, Ontology Summit 2022
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Dr Ravi
We know that matter and energy are one of the same.
As atomic matter is broken down into quarks, partonic matter and son on, the mass is constant.
Classical Black hole has a singularity and that nothing can escape, not only that the core can approach infinity.
Classical Black Hole cannot form due to the Chiral Supersymmetry Dipolar Electromagnetic vector fields that ejects matter away from the core, preventing infinity.
Axion matter maybe the final compaction.
Higgs maybe the ultimate compaction.
Research in this field will take years to resolve

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Harry Costas - greetings
What you mentioned as numbers and types of particles, I assumed were for the Universe not only for Black Holes?
If compaction is only for Black Holes I do not have that expertise.

My conjecture is that areas of Physical Universe where we see or estimate BEC etc. are those where we have alternate mechanisms such as photons for estimating distance etc.
The fact that you can estimate these numbers for particles is amazing.

What I am saying is that DM spuriously (randomly) creates these and absorbs them and thus vast areas do not show any matter.
Regards
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
Chair, Ontology Summit 2022
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect

 

[Harry Costas]

Condensates and their Transients.
I can refer you to do more reading up on these.

[Submitted on 20 Dec 2022]
One flavour adjoint QCD with overlap fermions
G. Bergner, I. Soler Calero, J. C. Lopez, S. Piemonte

The infrared effective theory of adjoint QCD with one Dirac flavour is still under debate. The theory could be confining, conformal, or with a massless fermion in the infrared. The study of chiral symmetry seems to be important to answer this question. While previous investigations have considered Wilson fermions, we present here the first results for this theory based on overlap fermions to avoid explicit chiral symmetry breaking. These indicate spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking by the formation of a fermion condensate. We have also investigated the running coupling of the theory, which indicates no infrared conformality in the energy region we have explored.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Harry Costas
Greetings
The paper talks about chirality, fermions and condensation but not conclusive?

 

[Harry Costas]

Smile
Hello, Dr Rav you are 100% correct.
But! the answer lies in quantum chromodynamics.
The ins and outs of quantum chromodynamics is in the hands of the GODS so to speak.
What happens in extreme condensates lies the answer.

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Dr Rav
Sorry in previous posts you asked if I estimated the compaction of transient condensates.
Neutron matter is documented as 10^17
The compaction of Classical Black Holes is infinite, But! I have limited to over 10^30 estimated 10^35 as I have read elsewhere.
The other transients I have estimated.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Harry Costas
New Year greetings!
How can estimation of sparse matter-energy even if it is QCD matter-energy alone give you the astrophysical description and processes?
My Dark Matter paper describes how it grows to different types of particles and forms matter-energy that is stable and that forms the basis for larger objects.
Regards
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
Chair, Ontology Summit 2022
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect

 

[Harry Costas]

Dr Rav Happy New Year
Common behavior may allow us to predict.
Observations of dipolar electromagnetic fields as in Neutron Stars with Quark cores has been documented.
M87 having a dipolar field and knowing the estimated condensate core to be close to 10 billion solar masses.
These common and others allows us to predict.

Terms such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy can be misleading.
I'd rather use Condensates and their Transients.

We know that atomic matter can be compacted to 10^5
when matter is added
Atoms break down to Protons and Neutrons
Protons gain an electron and form Neutrons.
Neutron matter compaction 10^17 estimate.
add more matter compaction neutrons break down to quarks and form Neutron Star Quark Cores.

Add more matter compaction Quark Stars with possible partonic matter cores.

and so on.

It sounds simple and yet very complicated.

Knowing this information, we can use and harness the energy on Earth.


[Submitted on 22 Dec 2022]
Mirror symmetry for new physics beyond the Standard Model in 4D spacetime
Wanpeng Tan

The two discrete generators of the full Lorentz group O(1,3) in 4D spacetime are typically chosen to be parity inversion symmetry P and time reversal symmetry T, which are responsible for the four topologically separate components of O(1,3). Under general considerations of quantum field theory (QFT) with internal degrees of freedom, mirror symmetry is a natural extension of P, while CP symmetry resembles T in spacetime. In particular, mirror symmetry is critical as it doubles the full Dirac fermion representation in QFT and essentially introduces a new sector of mirror particles. Its close connection to T-duality and Calabi-Yau mirror symmetry in string theory is clarified. Extension beyond the Standard model can then be constructed using both left- and right-handed heterotic strings guided by mirror symmetry. Many important implications such as supersymmetry, chiral anomalies, topological transitions, Higgs, neutrinos, and dark energy, are discussed.

 

[Harry Costas]

Dipolar Electromagnetic Vector fields generated by the Condensate cores maybe the key to explaining lots of objects out there.



[Submitted on 21 Oct 2022]
Electromagnetic Force and Momentum in Classical Macroscopic Dipolar Media
Arthur D. Yaghjian

Using realistic classical models of microscopic electric-charge electric dipoles and Amperian (circulating-electric-current) magnetic dipoles, it is proven that the Einstein-Laub macroscopic electromagnetic force on a macroscopic-continuum volume of these classical dipoles approximating the actual dipole moments in that volume equals the sum of the microscopic electromagnetic forces on the discrete classical dipoles in that volume. Consequently, the Abraham/Einstein-Laub, rather than the Minkowski, macroscopic electromagnetic-field momentum density gives the total microscopic electromagnetic-field momentum in that volume. The kinetic momentum is found for the volume of the macroscopic continuum from Newton's relativistic equation of motion. It is shown that the difference between the kinetic momentum and the canonical momentum, which is merely another name for the Minkowski-force momentum, in a volume of the macroscopic continuum is equal to the sum of the "hidden electromagnetic momenta" within the circulating-electric-current magnetic dipoles and within hypothetical circulating-magnetic-current electric dipoles replacing the electric-charge electric dipoles in the classical macroscopic continuum. To obtain the correct unambiguous value of the force on a volume inside the continuum from the force-momentum expression, it is mandatory that the surface of the volume lies in a hypothetical thin free-space shell separating the volume from the rest of the continuum.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Add more matter compaction Quark Stars with possible partonic matter cores.

and so on.

It sounds simple and yet very complicated.

Knowing this information, we can use and harness the energy on Earth.

I like this approach to estimation of existing matter-energy, but how will you reconcile new astrophysical matter-energy observations? where are new ones coming from? if not DM?