"An interesting math idea "
Yes, but anything more than an intellectual foible?
Cat
Regarding the cosmological constant problem there is emerging evidence that the source of the problem is likely the initial assumptions used to reach it namely that there is a scale at which when zooming out the distribution of matter in the universe regains isotropy allowing one to greatly simplify the Einstein Field Equations. This assumption known as the cosmological principal is a starting assumption for modern cosmology as it enables the Einstein Field Equations to be simplified into a form where the equation can be easily enough solved.KC Strom, ref post #15. From what I know, the cosmological constant is *super sensitive* and wrong value here using General Relativity, space expands so fast nothing is here The Cosmological Constant Is Physics’ Most Embarrassing Problem, https://www.scientificamerican.com/...onstant-is-physics-most-embarrassing-problem/
forums had discussion on this too, https://forums.space.com/threads/cosmological-constant.37076/
QM and vacuum energy density just makes things worse for expanding space, some say 10^120 or more magnitude error between assuming cc value allowing space expansion (but not too fast) and what happens with vacuum energy using QM (blows the universe out, we are not here). My chief concern is post #1. How can this be shown to be science, thus verifiable like Galileo observations at Jupiter? So far it seems, the infinite number of universes all around me are not observable thus fail to meet science standards in my opinion.
Very interesting question. My first thought was that since the universe is expanding energy is spread out in a larger volume, it becomes more dilute, but the total amount of energy in the increased volume is still the same, so conserved.
That doesn't explain what happened to individual photons that you refer to. So, I found this article that says the photons are doing work in contributing to the expansion of the universe.
It's a bit long winded so here's the key paragraph;Is Energy Conserved When Photons Redshift In Our Expanding Universe?
When the Universe expands, photons redshift to longer wavelengths and lower energies. So where does that energy go?www.forbes.com
"So yes, it's actually true: as the Universe expands, photons lose energy. But that doesn't mean energy isn't conserved; it means that the energy goes into the Universe's expansion itself, in the form of work. And if the Universe ever reverses the expansion and contracts again, that work will be done in reverse, and will go right back into the photons inside."
The motions of objects in space are a result of all the forces acting on them. For instance, the anisotropy from, say, the Recombination period demonstrates that gravity was at work in producing the first regions where gas clouds would accumulate and help form the first stars. The hydrogen and helium would be overpowered by gravity vs. the expansion of space. Whatever extra space they had to trouble through in their motions due to gravity weren't enough to prevent their travel to one another.Cat, the BB cosmology presently has 3D space expanding at 2.24 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm using H0 = 69 km/s/Mpc. This suggest that everything in 3D space could be expanding. Consider inflation epoch. 3D space expands > 3 x 10^30 cm/s/cm then slows down to our 2.24 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm. Planck time, Planck length, very tiny dimensions Somehow, the universe allowed structure to form and 3D space not to expand too fast, i.e. the cosmological constant problem.
GR is limited in its scope. It doesn't address issues like the conservation, or not, of energy. It incorporates gravity into SR. Einstein worked thereafter for the bigger theory that never came to fruition... so far.The only cosmological crisis is the unwillingness to admit that they need to solve the true Einstein field equations. It does mean that there is no longer a closed form solution and that one must now use a fully computational regime but there never was any reason to expect the universe to behave nicely.
Yes, but Yogi Berra said that you can see a lot just by looking.As Richard Feynman said "if your theory doesn't agree with observations, its wrong."
There has been evidence against the cosmological principal as far back as the 1970's it has just fallen on deaf ears.
The conservation of energy does not matter to this discussion indeed the work of Emmy Noether shows that conservation laws are a consequence of specific symmetries of nature, energy conservation in particular arises from time symmetries i.e. when you do an experiment doesn't matter for the results this is true for special relativity but in the case of general relativity time varies along with space changing the metric of the universe with time thus the symmetry breaks down and energy is no longer a conserved quantity.GR is limited in its scope. It doesn't address issues like the conservation, or not, of energy. It incorporates gravity into SR. Einstein worked thereafter for the bigger theory that never came to fruition... so far.
Yes, but Yogi Berra said that you can see a lot just by looking.
The time delay in SN light profiles is strong evidence for the expansion, which supports redshift claims for the same expansion. Has that changed?
A quiet word of advice. Check the meanings of principle and principal.The conservation of energy does not matter to this discussion indeed the work of Emmy Noether shows that conservation laws are a consequence of specific symmetries of nature, energy conservation in particular arises from time symmetries i.e. when you do an experiment doesn't matter for the results this is true for special relativity but in the case of general relativity time varies along with space changing the metric of the universe with time thus the symmetry breaks down and energy is no longer a conserved quantity.
The case with measurements like the SN profiles is several fold.
The first is we now know that type Ia supernovae are not all identical as had been previously assumed as the explosions depend on the type of White dwarf its interaction partner(s) and nonlinear effects within the stars interior as the star starts to fail in a non uniform manner. Perhaps the most striking example of this is IRAS 00500+6713 a combination object of a type Iax supernovae remnant and a massive Super Chandrasekhar remnant at the supernovae remnant's center that managed to reestablish an equilibrium between fusion rates and gravity. The star is extremely luminous with its spectrum indicating a very high proportion of runaway fusion reaction products with a spectrum devoid of hydrogen or helium with Neon as the most abundant element. This is a resolvable issue if you get a detailed enough spectrum as there are fine detail differences which can reveal what scenario occurred but it does mean that if you only catch a glimpse or afterglow that it will be hard to reliably use that observation.
But the more important issue has to do with the cosmological principal which was assumed to allow researchers to extrapolate distance measures from across the sky. These supernovae are rare and thus there isn't a statistically significant number of such events detected which is made worse that they aren't distributed evenly over the sky but in the directions where we have good observational survey telescopes trained to pick up on and report such events.
Studies which bin sectors of the sky before performing distance ladder estimates alarmingly do not get the same answer that the all sky survey obtained instead each sector gives a different answer some slower other faster with the some sampled region cutting through the area that produces the highest apparent constant. Compiling the full all sky average reproduces the reported supernovae results but depending on where you draw the lines you can get very different expansion rates which is frankly bizarre. The catch is that these bins are far to small in statistical significance for supernovae results since the supernovae results even over the whole sky were already severely under sampling the sky individual sectors of the sky are even less statistically significant.
That is where other independent distance ladder measurements come into play and they have experienced similar problems. eBOSS's survey results are particularly noteworthy as they showed that their Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey data set is sensitive to the redshift sample used for estimation. If you use everything binning the surveys total results you recover the same sort of value as the Supernovae results but if you restrict the sample to higher redshifts it changes dramatically going back to approximately the last 6 billion years. Before that the rate of expansion was much less variable with results reproducing the same range of Hubble expansion rate that studies of the cosmic microwave background recover.
Additionally if you allow the nonuniform variability of expansion you likewise recover the Plank value for the "Hubble constant".
This is consistent with what the earlier paper I linked published in 2017 as well as with the many successes of the cosmological principal in studying the early universe.
This really is exactly what you would expect if an approximation used in your analysis breaks down. Right now the only thing we can say with any degree of confidence is that if dark energy is real it is bizarrely non uniform. There are other possible explanations for these observed variations the most terrifying being quintessence as it ultimately predicts the big rip but at the same time this also could mean that there is no dark energy at all just that the metric of spacetime is much more dynamic.
It could also potentially be something in-between we don't know yet only more data will enable that determination a lot more data as our sample size of observations isn't high enough without the ability to average large swaths of the sky.
whoops ulg homophones and spelling flops by mortal nemeses.... ThanksA quiet word of advice. Check the meanings of principle and principal.
Cat
The conservation of energy does not matter to this discussion indeed the work of Emmy Noether shows that conservation laws are a consequence of specific symmetries of nature, energy conservation in particular arises from time symmetries i.e. when you do an experiment doesn't matter for the results this is true for special relativity but in the case of general relativity time varies along with space changing the metric of the universe with time thus the symmetry breaks down and energy is no longer a conserved quantity.
The case with measurements like the SN profiles is several fold.
The first is we now know that type Ia supernovae are not all identical as had been previously assumed as the explosions depend on the type of White dwarf its interaction partner(s) and nonlinear effects within the stars interior as the star starts to fail in a non uniform manner. Perhaps the most striking example of this is IRAS 00500+6713 a combination object of a type Iax supernovae remnant and a massive Super Chandrasekhar remnant at the supernovae remnant's center that managed to reestablish an equilibrium between fusion rates and gravity. The star is extremely luminous with its spectrum indicating a very high proportion of runaway fusion reaction products with a spectrum devoid of hydrogen or helium with Neon as the most abundant element. This is a resolvable issue if you get a detailed enough spectrum as there are fine detail differences which can reveal what scenario occurred but it does mean that if you only catch a glimpse or afterglow that it will be hard to reliably use that observation.
But the more important issue has to do with the cosmological principle which was assumed to allow researchers to extrapolate distance measures from across the sky. These supernovae are rare and thus there isn't a statistically significant number of such events detected which is made worse that they aren't distributed evenly over the sky but in the directions where we have good observational survey telescopes trained to pick up on and report such events.
Studies which bin sectors of the sky before performing distance ladder estimates alarmingly do not get the same answer that the all sky survey obtained instead each sector gives a different answer some slower other faster with the some sampled region cutting through the area that produces the highest apparent constant. Compiling the full all sky average reproduces the reported supernovae results but depending on where you draw the lines you can get very different expansion rates which is frankly bizarre. The catch is that these bins are far to small in statistical significance for supernovae results since the supernovae results even over the whole sky were already severely under sampling the sky individual sectors of the sky are even less statistically significant.
That is where other independent distance ladder measurements come into play and they have experienced similar problems. eBOSS's survey results are particularly noteworthy as they showed that their Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey data set is sensitive to the redshift sample used for estimation. If you use everything binning the surveys total results you recover the same sort of value as the Supernovae results but if you restrict the sample to higher redshifts it changes dramatically going back to approximately the last 6 billion years. Before that the rate of expansion was much less variable with results reproducing the same range of Hubble expansion rate that studies of the cosmic microwave background recover.
Additionally if you allow the nonuniform variability of expansion you likewise recover the Plank value for the "Hubble constant".
This is consistent with what the earlier paper I linked published in 2017 as well as with the many successes of the cosmological principal in studying the early universe.
This really is exactly what you would expect if an approximation used in your analysis breaks down. Right now the only thing we can say with any degree of confidence is that if dark energy is real it is bizarrely non uniform. There are other possible explanations for these observed variations the most terrifying being quintessence as it ultimately predicts the big rip but at the same time this also could mean that there is no dark energy at all just that the metric of spacetime is much more dynamic.
It could also potentially be something in-between we don't know yet only more data will enable that determination a lot more data as our sample size of observations isn't high enough without the ability to average large swaths of the sky.
Edited because homophones exist
What happens to that energy? Is there any evidence to support this?but in the case of general relativity time varies along with space changing the metric of the universe with time thus the symmetry breaks down and energy is no longer a conserved quantity.
The conservation of energy does not matter to this discussion indeed the work of Emmy Noether shows that conservation laws are a consequence of specific symmetries of nature, energy conservation in particular arises from time symmetries i.e. when you do an experiment doesn't matter for the results this is true for special relativity but in the case of general relativity time varies along with space changing the metric of the universe with time thus the symmetry breaks down and energy is no longer a conserved quantity.
The case with measurements like the SN profiles is several fold.
The first is we now know that type Ia supernovae are not all identical as had been previously assumed as the explosions depend on the type of White dwarf its interaction partner(s) and nonlinear effects within the stars interior as the star starts to fail in a non uniform manner. Perhaps the most striking example of this is IRAS 00500+6713 a combination object of a type Iax supernovae remnant and a massive Super Chandrasekhar remnant at the supernovae remnant's center that managed to reestablish an equilibrium between fusion rates and gravity. The star is extremely luminous with its spectrum indicating a very high proportion of runaway fusion reaction products with a spectrum devoid of hydrogen or helium with Neon as the most abundant element. This is a resolvable issue if you get a detailed enough spectrum as there are fine detail differences which can reveal what scenario occurred but it does mean that if you only catch a glimpse or afterglow that it will be hard to reliably use that observation.
But the more important issue has to do with the cosmological principle which was assumed to allow researchers to extrapolate distance measures from across the sky. These supernovae are rare and thus there isn't a statistically significant number of such events detected which is made worse that they aren't distributed evenly over the sky but in the directions where we have good observational survey telescopes trained to pick up on and report such events.
Studies which bin sectors of the sky before performing distance ladder estimates alarmingly do not get the same answer that the all sky survey obtained instead each sector gives a different answer some slower other faster with the some sampled region cutting through the area that produces the highest apparent constant. Compiling the full all sky average reproduces the reported supernovae results but depending on where you draw the lines you can get very different expansion rates which is frankly bizarre. The catch is that these bins are far to small in statistical significance for supernovae results since the supernovae results even over the whole sky were already severely under sampling the sky individual sectors of the sky are even less statistically significant.
That is where other independent distance ladder measurements come into play and they have experienced similar problems. eBOSS's survey results are particularly noteworthy as they showed that their Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey data set is sensitive to the redshift sample used for estimation. If you use everything binning the surveys total results you recover the same sort of value as the Supernovae results but if you restrict the sample to higher redshifts it changes dramatically going back to approximately the last 6 billion years. Before that the rate of expansion was much less variable with results reproducing the same range of Hubble expansion rate that studies of the cosmic microwave background recover.
Additionally if you allow the nonuniform variability of expansion you likewise recover the Plank value for the "Hubble constant".
This is consistent with what the earlier paper I linked published in 2017 as well as with the many successes of the cosmological principal in studying the early universe.
This really is exactly what you would expect if an approximation used in your analysis breaks down. Right now the only thing we can say with any degree of confidence is that if dark energy is real it is bizarrely non uniform. There are other possible explanations for these observed variations the most terrifying being quintessence as it ultimately predicts the big rip but at the same time this also could mean that there is no dark energy at all just that the metric of spacetime is much more dynamic.
It could also potentially be something in-between we don't know yet only more data will enable that determination a lot more data as our sample size of observations isn't high enough without the ability to average large swaths of the sky.
Edited because homophones exist
I don't believe time exists. Do you know if there's a way to express what Emmy said without referring to time? Is it sufficient just to say that the same experiments will always give the same results when repeated, so no need to refer to time?the work of Emmy Noether shows that conservation laws are a consequence of specific symmetries of nature, energy conservation in particular arises from time symmetries i.e. when you do an experiment doesn't matter for the results this is true for special relativity but in the case of general relativity time varies along with space changing the metric of the universe with time thus the symmetry breaks down and energy is no longer a conserved quantity.
Sorry I missed your long ago response. The boundary horizon of any locality must go away from that local. That boundary locality is no copy of the original locality, though it, too, has its infinity of exact copies. Boundary localities proceed toward vastness of difference from the base locality you set as base, all of them then having their own infinity of exact copies infinite distances away and between them -- blocked away by the potential infinity of boundary frontiers' differences.Tough to give any real proof if we are it the one and only universe and nothing else exists.
Or we are just 1 universe in a sea of infinite BB universes.
Or endless fluctuation is the universe and our BB is just 1 of an infinite number of them in it.
Dark flow/great attracter is pointing to something for sure and IMO is the answer or beginning of an answer
Time/location/interference tough to imagine an exact copy of anything in an endless bag of marbles that interact in a unique way with every marble in the bag in a different way.
No worry, happens to me once in a while i miss a post and it's difficult to find it again.Sorry I missed your long ago response. The boundary horizon of any locality must go away from that local. That boundary locality is no copy of the original locality, though it, too, has its infinity of exact copies. Boundary localities proceed toward vastness of difference from the base locality you set as base, all of them then having their own infinity of exact copies infinite distances away and between them -- blocked away by the potential infinity of boundary frontiers' differences.
Frontier difference must crest at some point in the vastness of difference like a mountain incline of difference that at some point will crest from incline up to incline down, proceeding in lessening differences toward some universe that will be an exact copy of your original base. (smiling) Is it an exact copy (which, with infinity you know it is) or have you gone around the world, so to speak, and returned to your base of origin (which you sense is a good possibility and no different at all from probability, there being no difference whatsoever between the exact copy and the original base of origin? You sense an infinity of exact copies of you did exactly what you did -- no difference at all. In Chaos Theory I suppose it would be called "self-similarity".... or the overlaying of all [into] one.
Yet in your life you are at every point of your life engaged in decision point branching (being at crossroads of life) whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Like the particle in quantum mechanics that will take every path possible to it -- at all times, in an infinity you too will have taken, and will take, every path possible to you (at all times!) some where, some time, in an infinity of wheres and whens and branchings. In some universe (u), you died at birth. In some other you lived to be as old as Methuselah, and maybe a lot older. In some, you never existed at all. In some you've traveled everywhere, well just about everywhere, even traveling universes. In some you never left home, maybe never left the cave. Multiverse; multi-dimensionality; potential infinity of dimensions, included. Each local and relative finite universe (u) of an infinity gains and loses, but the supreme of infinite Big Crunch / Big Bang -- Big Beginning -- Universe (U) gains nothing and loses nothing. It, being non-local and non-relative, then never gains nor loses you either, no matter the crossroads in the infinity of local, relative, finite, universes.
The problem, and the beauty, is the distant collapsed horizon is the constant of horizon to all of the infinity of local universes, as I see it. Sort of 'super-positioned' to them all, because the BC / BB that the horizon fronts is super-positioned universally (to them all). It is nothing more nor less than an alternate and correlative dimension of the infinity of them all. As a traveler you could travel universe to universe, to universe, and all the [scenery], all of substance of each succeeding [relative] universe, would be observed by you the traveler to come to you out of that horizon that maintains its distance from you like lands coming out from the horizon of Earth to a ship sailing the seas of Earth. It would be observed by you to be brand new at / in the horizon and evolve, changing (including left / right, up / down, positioning), as it came toward you as you traveled forward. Meanwhile, your point of origin, all the way to galaxy and whole universe behind would [observably] disappear behinds into that same horizon maintaining its distance from you behind you. But it is more than a simple disappearance, it is a disappearance into relative, observable, time, a disappearance into youth and a disappearance into movement left / right, up / down, and, again observed as such, a reversing of history. Just as the universe to your fore would be observed by you to come up eons in time to currency with you, the universe to your rear would be observed to do the exact opposite. An analogy: The Mars we observe in our own solar system is minutes from being the actuality of Mars. The traveler to Mars crosses not only space to Mars, but time to Mars (observes himself / herself to travel up through a history as well as travel time to a Mars existing concurrently in space and time with Earth). The Earth left behind and now observed in the distance from Mars is minutes from being the actuality of Earth (there are now two Earths for the traveler, the relative time Earth he observes in the distance and the real time (dark) concurrently existing Earth he does not and cannot observe). Imagine Earth, and the Milky Way, apparently reversing course in their billions of years of traveling and disappearing into their youth and pre-existence, finally to merge into the horizon of the BC / BB behind you as the traveler. If you reversed course, and were a fantastic navigator, you might bring the Milky Way, and thus the Earth, [observably] back out of the horizon evolving toward the Milky Way and Earth of your present. Of course neither really left concurrency with you the traveler, they, the reality of them, just disappeared into darkness from your ability to observe them. The universe behind you in your travel, for you, effectively split in two, the relative space-time universe you would be observing, and the real space-time universe you can never observe. The difference will expand in an accelerating expansion behind you the traveler, and close up before you as relative (here a speeding up history in time) and real (the unobservable dark -- concurrent -- real space-time) merge to one and the same for you at every arriving 0-point of your travel. That bears repeating; the universe [closes] to you, relative and real, keeps on [closing] to you (from its split), before you as the traveler. But no matter what direction you look out as the traveler, though, the distant collapsed horizon has kept, and keeps, its exact distance from you (receding before and following behind, no different from the Planck Horizon distantly down, down, and in from every atom of your makeup (the two being one and the same constant of distantly collapsed horizon whether up and out or down and in)).No worry, happens to me once in a while i miss a post and it's difficult to find it again.
All speculation about infinity so it gets in to best guess territory.
I guess if we can have 1 BB universe the logic is why not 2.
A few signs of proof exist in out BB universe that others exist but going to take a while before we can dot the dots and say it's real or not.
Maybe just a rethink of reality is in order and giving up on the idea that our BB is all that exists.
Nice to be around when we might get an answer to the (final frontier) or a final frontier that only exists in our BB and not the endless universe behind the scenes.
Well if we break down the quantum world into it's real and (nothing) parts when we travel to Mars do we really go the distance to Mars or just traverse the empty space from Quanta orbit to Quanta orbit.The problem, and the beauty, is the distant collapsed horizon is the constant of horizon to all of the infinity of local universes, as I see it. Sort of 'super-positioned' to them all, because the BC / BB that the horizon fronts is super-positioned universally (to them all). It is nothing more nor less than an alternate and correlative dimension of the infinity of them all. As a traveler you could travel universe to universe, to universe, and all the [scenery], all of substance of each succeeding [relative] universe, would be observed by you the traveler to come to you out of that horizon that maintains its distance from you like lands coming out from the horizon of Earth to a ship sailing the seas of Earth. It would be observed by you to be brand new at / in the horizon and evolve, changing (including left / right, up / down, positioning), as it came toward you as you traveled forward. Meanwhile, your point of origin, all the way to galaxy and whole universe behind would [observably] disappear behinds into that same horizon maintaining its distance from you behind you. But it is more than a simple disappearance, it is a disappearance into relative, observable, time, a disappearance into youth and a disappearance into movement left / right, up / down, and, again observed as such, a reversing of history. Just as the universe to your fore would be observed by you to come up eons in time to currency with you, the universe to your rear would be observed to do the exact opposite. An analogy: The Mars we observe in our own solar system is minutes from being the actuality of Mars. The traveler to Mars crosses not only space to Mars, but time to Mars (observes himself / herself to travel up through a history as well as travel time to a Mars existing concurrently in space and time with Earth). The Earth left behind and now observed in the distance from Mars is minutes from being the actuality of Earth (there are now two Earths for the traveler, the relative time Earth he observes in the distance and the real time (dark) concurrently existing Earth he does not and cannot observe). Imagine Earth, and the Milky Way, apparently reversing course in their billions of years of traveling and disappearing into their youth and pre-existence, finally to merge into the horizon of the BC / BB behind you as the traveler. If you reversed course, and were a fantastic navigator, you might bring the Milky Way, and thus the Earth, [observably] back out of the horizon evolving toward the Milky Way and Earth of your present. Of course neither really left concurrency with you the traveler, they, the reality of them, just disappeared into darkness from your ability to observe them. The universe behind you in your travel, for you, effectively split in two, the relative space-time universe you would be observing, and the real space-time universe you can never observe. The difference will expand in an accelerating expansion behind you the traveler, and close up before you as relative (here a speeding up history in time) and real (the unobservable dark -- concurrent -- real space-time) merge to one and the same for you at every arriving 0-point of your travel. That bears repeating; the universe [closes] to you, relative and real, keeps on [closing] to you (from its split), before you as the traveler. But no matter what direction you look out as the traveler, though, the distant collapsed horizon has kept, and keeps, its exact distance from you (receding before and following behind, no different from the Planck Horizon distantly down, down, and in from every atom of your makeup (the two being one and the same constant of distantly collapsed horizon whether up and out or down and in)).
This universe relative / real closing up to merge to one before you (well, almost one), and opening in expanding split into the two of relative and real behind you, happens when you walk or drive down the street. It's just so close to you (so indistinguishable) it isn't big enough for you to notice... usually! It's big enough for a precisionist satellite in space above the Earth to have trouble with, to have to be compensated for, though. Not only around us [out here], but regarding quantum mechanics that inevitable split between relative space-time and real space-time, even at that tiny of a separation between, can drive scientists crazy (not only having to do with the difference between real and relative but because the relative itself, being what it is, can split itself many apparent and varying space-times over).