We Didn't Find 90% of the Universe's Mass... Maybe Because It's Kinetic Energy?

reply to post by ImaFungi

what does it mean for a particle to travel through space in/as a wave? why is it so prevalent that "things" travel as waves? what is the real difference between a particle and wave? and how can one infinitesimal piece of quanta be a wave ( something that assumedly takes up the space of an area larger then a single point of infinitesimal quanta)? does wave signify an attached tail trailing behind an oscillating particle? or does the imagination of a trail just help depict a particles guaranteed travel pattern ( frequency) through space-time?

If you can figure all of that out you will be way ahead of the current batch of physicists. Much about the wave/particle duality is still not understood. For instance, why is it that when a photon strikes the retina it does so as a particle but it is the wave function that lets us see it as a color.

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Where do you see dark energy mentioned in the paper?

Er... Right here, mate:

The discovery cements dark matter's status as the biggest building block in the universe, while also putting to rest the nagging worries of many astronomers that they gambled wrong.

Dark matter's murky nature has always sat a bit uneasily with astronomers.

A leading explanation for this is that the gas and stars are held together by the gravity of dark matter. Belief in dark matter is widespread across the scientific community, but astronomers don't know what it's made of.

I'll post the paper link once again:
www.nasa.gov...

Where specifically is the part where NASA is "confusing" things?

You really don't know the difference between dark matter/dark nebulas and dark energy/quantum jitter?

Dark matter:
www.astropix.com...

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Where do you see dark energy mentioned in the paper?

Er... Right here, mate:

The discovery cements dark matter's status as the biggest building block in the universe, while also putting to rest the nagging worries of many astronomers that they gambled wrong.

Dark matter's murky nature has always sat a bit uneasily with astronomers.

A leading explanation for this is that the gas and stars are held together by the gravity of dark matter. Belief in dark matter is widespread across the scientific community, but astronomers don't know what it's made of.

I'll post the paper link once again:
www.nasa.gov...

So, you're asked where it mentions dark energy, and you provide four references to dark matter? What?

Where specifically is the part where NASA is "confusing" things?

You really don't know the difference between dark matter/dark nebulas and dark energy/quantum jitter?

Hmmm funny you should question if others know the difference between dark matter and dark energy when it seems like you are the one having difficulty with it. The only thing that's borderline perhaps is the "biggest building block" reference. If that said "biggest component" then dark energy might fit, but "building block" infers matter rather than energy, so I don't think NASA is confused, but it seems like you are.

Just to be sure I searched the link for "dark energy": zero results.

reply to post by swan001


Dude, see Arb's post above. And work on your reading comprehension skills.

Originally posted by KhufuKeplerTriangle
If observation determines importance, I hope no one reads your post above

I see, so you don't think that the thing we call "reality" is important. I understand now why you are convinced that the Universe is a combination of Osiris (sic), gravity and dill pickles (with black holes on the side).

I do hope that people read your post above and have their daily dose of comic relief.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So, you're asked where it mentions dark energy, and you provide four references to dark matter?



Just to be sure I searched the link for "dark energy": zero results.

Mate, that was my point exactly: in the paper, there is no mention of "dark energy", just "dark matter". I am saying this paper is obviously unaware that the thing is supposed to be called "dark energy", not "dark matter". Dark matter is stellar matter which doesn't emits light, as in dark nebulas. Dark energy is what we are talking about: energy which can't be detected and may come from quantum jitter. I am actually agreeing with you, mate!

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So, you're asked where it mentions dark energy, and you provide four references to dark matter?



Just to be sure I searched the link for "dark energy": zero results.

Mate, that was my point exactly: in the paper, there is no mention of "dark energy", just "dark matter". I am saying this paper is obviously unaware that the thing is supposed to be called "dark energy", not "dark matter". Dark matter is stellar matter which doesn't emits light, as in dark nebulas. Dark energy is what we are talking about: energy which can't be detected and may come from quantum jitter. I am actually agreeing with you, mate!

No, you are actually making a mistake as far as the logic goes. You see, if I'm writing a paper which focuses on the properties of the proton, and the proton only, it does not mean in any shape or form that I'm unaware of the existence of the electron.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by swan001

 

Dude, see Arb's post above. And work on your reading comprehension skills.

And read mine, above, and try to see if you can do some comprehension work your side, too. Maybe if people would stop skimming my text, and read, someone will stop wasting the OP's limited time.

So far I saw no big contribution from you. Well, you did keep insulting AfterInfinity, perhaps, and that's not what this thread is about. Shall I direct you to a off-site link of video games, where you could express your anger much more easily, instead of trolling in my thread?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
No, you are actually making a mistake as far as the logic goes. You see, if I'm writing a paper which focuses on the properties of the proton, and the proton only, it does not mean in any shape or form that I'm unaware of the existence of the electron.

What's that even supposed to mean?!

And I am writing a paper on 3 dimension movement related redshift of galaxies. It doesn't change the fact that the correct wording is "dark energy", not "dark matter"! If you really know your physics, you should know that Dark Matter is not Dark Energy!

Originally posted by swan001
It doesn't change the fact that the correct wording is "dark energy", not "dark matter"! If you really know your physics, you should know that Dark Matter is not Dark Energy!

Umm, I don't see why you think this is correct wording. As the wiki page says, dark energy "Not to be confused with Dark flow, Dark fluid, or Dark matter." And so the paper was about dark matter, not dark energy. And it's correct.

Originally posted by swan001
Dark matter is stellar matter which doesn't emits light, as in dark nebulas. Dark energy is what we are talking about: energy which can't be detected and may come from quantum jitter. I am actually agreeing with you, mate!

We are nowhere near agreement.

You need to look up dark matter and dark energy. Try wikipedia.

Dark matter is postulated because of observations of an "attractive" force, which has a behavior along the lines of gravity, as it pulls things together.

Dark energy is postulated because of observations of a "repulsive" force, in the opposite direction of gravity. It pushes things away from each other, it doesn't pull them together.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by swan001
Dark matter is stellar matter which doesn't emits light, as in dark nebulas. Dark energy is what we are talking about: energy which can't be detected and may come from quantum jitter. I am actually agreeing with you, mate!

We are nowhere near agreement.

You need to look up dark matter and dark energy. Try wikipedia.

Dark matter is postulated because of observations of an "attractive" force, which has a behavior along the lines of gravity, as it pulls things together.

Dark energy is postulated because of observations of a "repulsive" force, in the opposite direction of gravity. It pushes things away from each other, it doesn't pull them together.

edit on 15-11-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

is dark matter and dark energy thought to exist in intergalactic space? interstellar space? in our solar systems space?

what is thought to be the cause or creator of black matter and black energy? are there any other perceived or imagined properties besides the 2 you mentioned?

reply to post by ImaFungi


My statement:
"You need to look up dark matter and dark energy. Try wikipedia."

was not initially directed at you, but it still applies. If you read those wikipedia articles and have some questions about what they mean and seek clarification, I would make an effort to help if I'm able, but I think you need to start with reading the articles, and ask questions which demonstrate that you've read them.

They are quite informative regarding basic questions like yours.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Never mind. You're so defensive you don't even listen to what I just said. Way to go, Arb.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Please excuse Arb's crankiness, I'll reply to your question regarding dark energy existence.

Dark energy is believed to exist anywhere, including inside our solar system, because it is a product of quantum jitter. So it can be anywhere.

Dark matter IS NOT dark energy. One should not confuse both. The term dark matter is sometimes used as a term for invisible matter which would account for extra gravity pull, and sometimes (abusively) as a term for those gas which composes dark nebulas. In the latter case, these gas would look as dark patches onto the star background. But usually, the term dark matter is a reference to unobserved matter which could account for extra gravity pull.

Originally posted by swan001
Dark energy is believed to exist anywhere, including inside our solar system, because it is a product of quantum jitter. So it can be anywhere.

The cause is unknown so how you have determined "it is a product of quantum jitter." is a mystery. What's your source for that? The most popular hypothesis seems to be that it's the result of vacuum energy, aka the cosmological constant, which is not fully understood either. It's apparently uniformly distributed but the effect on a local scale like our solar system would be too small to observe. It's like dropping a paper clip. Theoretically the earth accelerates toward the paper clip as it falls and you can even calculate this acceleration. But you'll never measure this, just as you probably won't measure the effect of dark energy in our solar system for similar reasons.

But usually, the term dark matter is a reference to unobserved matter which could account for extra gravity pull.

It's not uniformly distributed, but some think that some small amount may be found locally, so there are underground detectors looking for it in the form of WIMPs. Of course they have been looking for decades without finding it, so you have to wonder what it will take to find it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The cause is unknown so how you have determined "it is a product of quantum jitter." is a mystery. What's your source for that? The most popular hypothesis seems to be that it's the result of vacuum energy, aka the cosmological constant, which is not fully understood either.

Quantum Jitter IS vacuum energy.

So your statement, that "The most popular hypothesis seems to be that (dark energy) it's the result of vacuum energy", is the same thing as me saying that dark energy is the result of quantum jitter. Vacuum energy and quantum jitter is the same thing: only quantum predicts energy in total vacuum.

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The cause is unknown so how you have determined "it is a product of quantum jitter." is a mystery. What's your source for that? The most popular hypothesis seems to be that it's the result of vacuum energy, aka the cosmological constant, which is not fully understood either.

Quantum Jitter IS vacuum energy.

So your statement, that "The most popular hypothesis seems to be that (dark energy) it's the result of vacuum energy", is the same thing as me saying that dark energy is the result of quantum jitter. Vacuum energy and quantum jitter is the same thing: only quantum predicts energy in total vacuum.

"only quantum predicts energy in total vacuum"

which is the same as saying... there is no such thing as vacuum or empty space....

the entire universe from one planck's length point to the next is attached to the next,,, and so one... the universe is one tapestry,,,, one ... verse..... of energy...... there is no "empty space" the energy resides in.... the seemingly empty space,,, is just an area of less energy/matter density?

reply to post by swan001


This is totally off the top of my head. What if the initial big bang blast (or whatever you want to call it) sent most of the material soaring beyond what we now call the known universe? Every time I see a rock dropped in water, the first ripple is always the biggest and most powerful. By the time the last tiny ripple began, the first ripple is so far away that if we were in that little ripple of the big bang, we wouldn't see all the matter in the first ripple, right?

Originally posted by swan001
Quantum Jitter IS vacuum energy.

So your statement, that "The most popular hypothesis seems to be that (dark energy) it's the result of vacuum energy", is the same thing as me saying that dark energy is the result of quantum jitter. Vacuum energy and quantum jitter is the same thing: only quantum predicts energy in total vacuum.

I asked for a source yet you provide none.

I'm not cranky Swan, I just like to clarify misconceptions and here is another one. The cosmological constant in relativity specifies the the effect of vacuum energy, and there is no quantum jitter in relativity. In fact relativity doesn't address of mesh with quantum mechanics at all, yet it is is Einstein who is credited with the "cosmological constant" which can mathematically describe the effect we see from dark energy. Since you didn't provide a source, I will:

What is dark energy

One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein's gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the Universe.

So that's one possibility from Einstein's work.

Now I'm not sure if this is what you are calling quantum jitter or not, but it's the alternate explanation offered by NASA, and they don't call it that (nobody does as far as I can tell, as quantum jitter refers to something else):

Another explanation for how space acquires energy comes from the quantum theory of matter. In this theory, "empty space" is actually full of temporary ("virtual") particles that continually form and then disappear. But when physicists tried to calculate how much energy this would give empty space, the answer came out wrong - wrong by a lot. The number came out 10^120 times too big. That's a 1 with 120 zeros after it. It's hard to get an answer that bad. So the mystery continues.

And NASA offers more possibilities:

Another explanation for dark energy is that it is a new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field, something that fills all of space but something whose effect on the expansion of the Universe is the opposite of that of matter and normal energy. Some theorists have named this "quintessence," after the fifth element of the Greek philosophers. But, if quintessence is the answer, we still don't know what it is like, what it interacts with, or why it exists. So the mystery continues.

A last possibility is that Einstein's theory of gravity is not correct. That would not only affect the expansion of the Universe, but it would also affect the way that normal matter in galaxies and clusters of galaxies behaved. This fact would provide a way to decide if the solution to the dark energy problem is a new gravity theory or not: we could observe how galaxies come together in clusters. But if it does turn out that a new theory of gravity is needed, what kind of theory would it be?...

The thing that is needed to decide between dark energy possibilities - a property of space, a new dynamic fluid, or a new theory of gravity - is more data, better data.

So it's a complex mystery and nowhere is quantum jitter mentioned.

So what is quantum jitter if not vacuum energy? I found one reputable source defining the term and even that source put the term in quotes:

www.math.vt.edu...

`quantum jitter': the value of quantities characterizing the system fluctuate

Fluctuating values of a quantum system can apply to quantum foam which is not the same concept as vacuum energy:

quantum foam can be used as a qualitative description of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances (on the order of the Planck length). At such small scales of time and space, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles and then annihilate without violating physical conservation laws. As the scale of time and space being discussed shrinks, the energy of the virtual particles increases. According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, energy curves spacetime. This suggests that—at sufficiently small scales—the energy of these fluctuations would be large enough to cause significant departures from the smooth spacetime seen at larger scales, giving spacetime a "foamy" character.

With an incomplete theory of quantum gravity, it is impossible to be certain what spacetime would look like at these small scales, because existing theories of gravity do not give accurate predictions in that regime.

so would you agree that quantum foam is a product of quantum jitter and that quantum foam is a different concept than vacuum energy?