Layman's Guide To Understanding Modern Cosmology (dark energy, dark matter, higgs field etc)

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


As I said what I'm describing are not exactly dimensions in the normal sense. You read my other thread titled Before the Big Bang didn't you? They are not "light" and "dark" dimensions. They are inverse dimensions, one would hold negative energy and one would hold positive energy.




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Reguardless...if they held any form of energy...this would mean the existence of Quanta...and as such would need to exist in a minimum10 or 11 dimensional state.

What exactly is the dimensionality of these areas that have these energies?

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Can you please provide a source which explains why the existence of quanta require 10 or 11 dimensions in any other theory than string theory?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


There is String Theory and there is M Theory or Brane Theory.

The reason for the 10 or 11 Dimensions is it is needed for Quanta to be able to act as both Particle and Wave and there may be more if such Quanta is in a state of Multiversal Transfer or Connectivity.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


There is String Theory and there is M Theory or Brane Theory.

The reason for the 10 or 11 Dimensions is it is needed for Quanta to be able to act as both Particle and Wave and there may be more if such Quanta is in a state of Multiversal Transfer or Connectivity.

Split Infinity

Yes but those theories have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. If you are looking at the problem from the perspective of String Theory or M Theory then you're obviously going to require more dimensions. I'm not discussing the problem from those perspectives. I believe certain aspects of String Theory are correct but overall I'm not really a String Theory guy...
edit on 27/2/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Well...that is fine but if you could...please explain the Space/Time Geometry of these two...what you label as Dark and Light Dimensions please.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Hmmm that is a bit difficult... forgetting about time, the basic concept would be that we only have the 3 spacial dimensions but they extend into a type of "negative" realm which gives us another 3 inverse spacial dimensions. You really need to read Before the Big Bang to understand the concept I'm trying to get at here. It would not be like a "curled up dimension" so small we can't see it, this inverse "realm" would exist just on the other side of reality but completely unreachable and undetectable to us except for the forces (such as gravity) which can propagate across the inverse dimensions. So in this theory the big bang would not just be imagined as some sort of sphere of expanding energy... in "negative space" there would be a "negative big bang" releasing "negative energy" to cancel out the energy of our big bang, to have a net energy of 0. So under this theory the big bang could perhaps be imagined more like a 3D figure eight or an infinity symbol.
edit on 27/2/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


If you could answer this next question...it would help me out.

The Energy these two...whatever are generating or emmitting....what form of Energy is it? Is it Quanta in it's nature?

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


If you could answer this next question...it would help me out.

The Energy these two...whatever are generating or emmitting....what form of Energy is it? Is it Quanta in it's nature?

Split Infinity

That's probably an extremely difficult question to answer regardless of what theory/lense we use to look at this problem. Most theories of the big bang will tell you that at some early period of the big bang there was a point where particles hadn't yet formed and everything was "pure energy"... now whether that means simply a soup of electromagnetic energy / photons or it means something more subtle is something that I think gets to the heart of what "energy" really is. If you read Before the Big Bang you'll see I describe energy as space-time turbulence, fluctuating into the negative and positive dimensions like a wave. I describe it from the perspective of Loop Quantum Gravity, which describes all energy and particles as some type of space-time fluctuation... but admittedly I fail to understand how such a theory would explain the discrete quantized nature of matter, that is another big question where the answer seems to elude me (less I subscribe to a simulated reality theory).
edit on 27/2/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


The reason I asked is that if it was Quanta in it's nature then it will require at minimum 10 or 11 dimensional states.

I believe anyway you slice this in order for this Proto Energy to exist and interact within our Universal Reality...it is going to have to exist in a good number of Dimensional states just so the Energy can exist and interact.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Excellent thread!
But I have one question...

'Once there is enough space between us it will be moving away from us faster than the speed of light (this is consistent with the general theory of relativity), and the light from that galaxy will no longer be able to reach us. This represents the end of the "observable universe", it is like the event horizon of our universe (from our frame of reference)'

How do we know that the event horizon that we see now (15+ Billion light years), is the real 'edge of the universe'? If there is matter beyond the event horizon, as per the theory above, we will not be able to detect it anyway. How do we know that the Big Bang started 15 Bill years ago, based on the observable event horizon?

- skido
edit on 27-2-2013 by skido because: removed quotes



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by skido
 


We can see to within 379,000 Light Years of the Big Bang at a distance of 13.4 Billion Light Years.

At that distance we run into the WMAP. This is a wall of Microwave Radiation which beyond it lies an ocean over superheated plasma which will not allow light to pass.

Thus added together we have a distance of 13.4379 Billion Light Years and also means we can see 13.4 Billion Years into the Past.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 



The reason I asked is that if it was Quanta in it's nature then it will require at minimum 10 or 11 dimensional states.

I'm not exactly sure you you're using the term quanta properly... quantum mechanics dictates that all energy should be divided up or "quantized" into discrete units, a quanta of energy is simply the smallest discrete amount of energy. Space is also quantized in this way within quantum mechanics, giving us the Planck Length. Anything that uses quantum mechanics is going to deal with "quanta's"... that doesn't mean quantum mechanics requires the use of multiple dimensions, it doesn't. As I mentioned we only need to bring 10 or 11 dimensions into the picture if you're looking at this from a perspective of String Theory or M Theory. I don't understand why you insist otherwise.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Hmmm that is a bit difficult... forgetting about time, the basic concept would be that we only have the 3 spacial dimensions but they extend into a type of "negative" realm which gives us another 3 inverse spacial dimensions. Y


But those negative dimensions should have the exact same construction , being as the big bang and the negative big bang should have been identical with identical forces working on both sides with identical physics just inverted ? So shouldn't all dark matter be in the same space s normal mater then ?

Sorry I am no expert on this subject , but this caught my eye while reading this thread ..

Also great thread, it helps



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I am usig the word QUANTA as a pluralised form to describe all Quantum Particle/Wave Forms that make up Matter as well as such Quanta such as Photons...which were at one time a part of that Matter...that being Electrons thus converted.

Quantum Mechanics ABSOLUTELY needs at a minimum 10 or 11 Dimensional States as Quantum Particle/Wave Forms are the very smallest...as yet known...units of Matter. Matter is completely comprised of Quanta...such as Quarks, Glueons, Leptons, Mesons, Higgs-Bosons...etc. Electrons are also included as a part of Matter as Matter cannot exist without the orbitting Electrons and their Fields.

Add to this the fact that certain Quanta...such as Quarks...exist at Numerical Will between a minimum and maximum quantity within Protons and Neutrons. Quarks will BLINK IN AND OUT OF UNIVERSAL EXISTENCE but will always be existing in a number between that minimum and maximum.

Because of this...as well as the very likely possibility that those Blinking in and out Quarks are transfering or interconnectng numerically between their duplicate Protons and Neutrons that would exist in all Divergent Universal Realities within a specific Universal group in a Multiversal System....10 or 11 Dimensional states would be at the VERY LEAST required for just the ability for the Quarks and other Quantum Particle/Wave Forms to act as Particle and Wave as well as the Quarks ability to Blink in and out of our Universal Existence.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by skido
 


One way to determine the age of the universe is to measure the rate of expansion according to the Hubble Constant, and then work backwards by calculating how long it would take to expand to the size it is. However we found some dependencies in this calculation because it tells us the universe is younger than the Earth. If I remember correctly the theory if rapid inflation near the start of the big bang can remedy this and give us a better estimation.

However again this assumes the universe started as some self contained capsule of space-time and not simply a condensed point of energy within infinite space time. If we want to say the universe is flat it can't have started off highly curved as any self-contained capsule of space-time would be... unless you want to say such a self-contained universe could some how contain flat space from day 1, which I have trouble accepting myself.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Thill
 



But those negative dimensions should have the exact same construction , being as the big bang and the negative big bang should have been identical with identical forces working on both sides with identical physics just inverted ?

Yes that would be the general idea... matter on the other side of reality would have inverse gravity, pushing everything apart instead of bringing it together. The negative gravity would also cause space to expand (expansion on one side will happen on the other side) and thus causing the dark energy effect. Because some forces are able to propagate between these dimensions the positive and negative particles on each side will not align. So in between all the galaxies on our side we have expansion because on the other side of reality negative matter is causing space to expand. The only place we don't see this expansion is within galaxies because the positive gravity of matter in the galaxies counter acts the expansion, and presumably because the negative matter doesn't like to align with the positive matter in the galaxies.

So I imagine that in the inverse dimension the negative matter leaves a sort of void around the galaxy (in our dimension), which happens to be the way dark matter is distributed throughout galaxies, it's like the galaxy is surrounded by a bubble of dark matter which is distributed very evenly... but I'm not exactly sure how a lack of negative matter around the galaxy would cause such a gravitational effect. As I said I want to spend time working on the exact details and fitting it together properly. But the main thing to keep in mind is that dark matter and dark energy would simply be the result of interactions between these dimensions. I also want to give a thanks to CLPrime (if you're reading this) for helping me to understand and develop these concepts in the first place.

EDIT: this is how CLPrime first explained it to me:

Originally posted by CLPrime
Positive energy/mass has positive gravity, "pulling" space in. Negative energy/mass has what we could call negative gravity, "pushing" space out (expansion). On one side, you would have negative gravity promoting expansion. On the other, you have regular gravity, counteracting it. The thing is, the negative particles won't align with the positive particles on the other side. While the positive particles will be locally exerting an inward gravitational pull, there are likely to be negative particles on the other side of space-time at location corresponding to regions between the positive particles. Since the negative particles on the negative side are causing the space-time "fabric" to expand, that means the space between the positive particles on the positive side will also expand. The only areas this won't happen is where no negative particles exist on the other side or where there are positive particles to counteract the expansion (the same is true today,even...regions of mass, such as galaxies, locally counteract the expansion of the universe, so that space doesn't expand inside them).

But now that I really think about this hypothesis, if it were the negative matter/energy on the other side causing the expansion of space between galaxies in our dimension, the negative matter should be diluted as space expands and the expansion should slow down... I'm not entirely sure how that could be reconciled, although perhaps it could be explained by the way the negative matter spreads out and doesn't clump up like our galaxies do.
edit on 27/2/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 



Quantum Mechanics ABSOLUTELY needs at a minimum 10 or 11 Dimensional States as Quantum Particle/Wave Forms are the very smallest...as yet known...units of Matter.

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that your perspective of QM would require all these dimensions? I mean I may be wrong here, but I haven't read anything which would suggest the most popular QM interpretations require all these dimensions... I know some do but they tend to be less popular if I'm not mistaken.


Add to this the fact that certain Quanta...such as Quarks...exist at Numerical Will between a minimum and maximum quantity within Protons and Neutrons. Quarks will BLINK IN AND OUT OF UNIVERSAL EXISTENCE but will always be existing in a number between that minimum and maximum.

Just because they blink in and out of existence doesn't mean we require all these dimensions... why couldn't they just be fluctuating like a wave between the positive and negative dimensions like I suggest?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Well...If I could determine the true Space/Time Geometry required for Quantum Mechanics...I would be beaming my Ass all over the Planet just like on Star Trek...LOL! The best way to look at this issue is what are the Quanta capable of....where are they connecting and to what....where are they transfering to....is their ability to obtain more than one Function due to the existence of a Multiverse....is the behavior of the Blinking in and out Quarks due to Probability...is Probability determining the Numerical Quantity of Quarks in any given Proton or Neutron...is it the numerical quantity of Quarks within a Proton and Neutron being at Maximum the mechanism that creates a New Alternate Divergent Universal State of Reality....etc.

Dimensionally....Quantum Mechanics and thus the behavior of Quanta as I have described some above....would need at a MINIMUM...10 or 11 Dimensional States and even this might not be enough as there is probably more.

Plus...it may be that Quantum Mechanics can only work in a Multiversal System...and the evidence seems to point to this as a reality.

Split Infinity





 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join