Cosmology Constant - The Biggest Mistake Of The Modern Science.

[exchemist]

Yea but we can't glibly guess that it's non-locality as opposed to superluminal trans-planckian scattering & reemergence (from superluminal trans-planckian gravitational interactions) from the observed phenomenons, you haven't told us why it's one but not the other.

Sorry but this is just word salad. If you don't know that, you are in some trouble. 

 

The fact is that QM predicted the outcome of the double slit experiment. So QM works, right? People wrestle with how to interpret QM, sure. But it works, which means it is a good model. 

Edited May 23, 2017 by exchemist

[mrg]

Then how come superstring theory, m theory, & all the other QM theories can't account for dark matter & dark energy?

 

Let me think about that, and I'll get back to you.  Maybe I'll think about it.  Maybe I'll get back to you.  If I remember ...

 

... Who did you say you were again?   Never mind, not important.

[exchemist]

Not at all.  SP can pull stuff out of the tailpipe all day.  If it required any effort, it wouldn't be easy, right?

Haha, true enough, but that would not be what I would call "showing" anything.  

[mrg]

... that would not be what I would call "showing" anything.  

 

Oh, it's no problem showing the stuff one gets out the tailpipe.  The difficulty is in being showed it:  "Put it back, please."

Edited May 23, 2017 by mrg

[Super Polymath]

Oh, it's no problem showing the stuff one gets out the tailpipe.  The difficulty is in being showed it:  "Put it back, please."

You haven't given incentive, you can't give incentive. This is a one way street, reality is the input, I'm the output. I control the horizontal, I control the vertical. 

[sanctus]

The only reason you're getting so annoyed is because you don't a reasonable argument. You claimed that red--shift occurring on route would require additional hypotheses, implying that the recession of distant galaxies is the more likely explanation which is ridiculous considering that it requires that all matter and energy in the universe came into existence at a single point which exploded, then inflated, and now is being accelerated by dark energy that makes up over 95% of the universe.

 

A-wal you surprise me, you made the common layman misconception about the BigBang, which I did not expect from you. The BBT never says the universe came into existence at a single point (otherwise there would indded be a center of the universe), BBT says it happened everywhere...

[sanctus]

Could light be losing energy as it passes through as-yet-undiscovered "dark matter". Couldn't "dark energy" cause weak cancellation waves that sap energy out of the wave as heat, and could this be the source of the cosmic background radiation?

If dark matter would interat with light then it would interact "electromagnetically", then we would have deduced the existence of dark matter via more direct observation as opposed to gravitational lensing and such.

 

Light does not interact weakly, so your idea about dark-energy interacting weakly does not hold.

 

The source of the CMB is well understood and not contradicted by observations and it is far from what you postulate it could be.

[exchemist]

If dark matter would interat with light then it would interact "electromagnetically", then we would have deduced the existence of dark matter via more direct observation as opposed to gravitational lensing and such.

 

Light does not interact weakly, so your idea about dark-energy interacting weakly does not hold.

 

The source of the CMB is well understood and not contradicted by observations and it is far from what you postulate it could be.

This "losing energy" idea sounds rather like the "tired light hypothesis", which I gather was briefly considered for a while, until it was realised that there would be far more scattering than we in fact observe to be the case. 

 

(Of course, one could postulate light to be losing energy by hitherto unknown process, altering the whole of electromagnetic physics - but that would an additional hypothesis of enormous magnitude, which would therefore require exceptionally rigorous investigation.)

[exchemist]

A-wal you surprise me, you made the common layman misconception about the BigBang, which I did not expect from you. The BBT never says the universe came into existence at a single point (otherwise there would indded be a center of the universe), BBT says it happened everywhere...

Quite: it is spacetime itself that appears to expand. 

[mrg]

The BBT never says the universe came into existence at a single point (otherwise there would indded be a center of the universe), BBT says it happened everywhere...

 

Yeah.  The trick is that the Universe we OBSERVE -- we peer back in time as we see deeper into the cosmos, so our observations hit a dead end at the distance corresponding to time-zero -- emerged from the quantum limit in the Big Bang.  However, the Universe may be unbounded, and possibly was so at time-zero.

Edited May 24, 2017 by mrg

[A-wal]

A-wal you surprise me, you made the common layman misconception about the BigBang, which I did not expect from you. The BBT never says the universe came into existence at a single point (otherwise there would indded be a center of the universe), BBT says it happened everywhere...

Yes it does.

 

I know that according to the model there's no point in the current space of the universe that can be thought of as the origin point because the universe "...came into existence at a single point which exploded, then inflated, and now is being accelerated by dark energy that makes up over 95% of the universe", so the big bang happened everywhere.

 

By the way, that only works with a curved universe, not a spacially flat one. A flat one would have to have a centre.

 

Quite: it is spacetime itself that appears to expand. 

What does that even mean? Space and time are measurements of distance. Spacetime is defined by the structure of the universe, not the other way round.

 

Yeah.  The trick is that the Universe we OBSERVE -- we peer back in time as we see deeper into the cosmos, so our observations hit a dead end at the distance corresponding to time-zero -- emerged from the quantum limit in the Big Bang.  However, the Universe may be unbounded, and possibly was so at time-zero.

Meaning that if red-shift increases with distance (and we ignore the obvious explanation that it's because the light's being stretched on the journey), it was expanding faster in past and the expansion is therefore slowing down. How can we possibly assign greater recession to further distances in space without assigning greater recession at further distance back in time? The two are intrinsically linked.

Edited May 24, 2017 by A-wal

[mrg]

 

The two are intrinsically linked.

 

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance -- baffle them with baloney."

[A-wal]

As we look further away in space, we look further away back in time. There's no way to separate the two, so the two are intrinsically linked.

[AmishFighterPilot]

If dark matter would interat with light then it would interact "electromagnetically", then we would have deduced the existence of dark matter via more direct observation as opposed to gravitational lensing and such.

Light does not interact weakly, so your idea about dark-energy interacting weakly does not hold.

The source of the CMB is well understood and not contradicted by observations and it is far from what you postulate it could be.

Thanks for the reply. If the photon itself is composed of an aggregate of quantum matter, wouldn't the gravitational sphere of influence change depending on it's relative proximity to other gravitational fields? A comet loses more orbital debris as it gets closer to planets like jupiter. If there is some sort of quantum exchange, it wouldn't need an electromagnetic mechanism.

[exchemist]

Thanks for the reply. If the photon itself is composed of an aggregate of quantum matter...[snip].....

It isn't. 

[AmishFighterPilot]

It isn't.

 

As light travels through a medium like glass, is the transfer of light a series of arising and decaying photons?

[exchemist]

As light travels through a medium like glass, is the transfer of light a series of arising and decaying photons?

No. The photons couple to the medium they are travelling through. This affects their phase velocity, resulting in refraction at the interface with another medium of different refractive index.

 

This "coupling" is a consequence of the electrons in the substance that makes up the medium being polarisable. In other words, the electric vector of the photon induces motion in the electrons, which "borrow" energy from the photon temporarily (imagine trying to walk on a bouncy trampoline - it is somewhat analogous), and alter its phase velocity. . But the photon is never absorbed. This is sadly a quite common misconception, due to attempts by some popularisers to offer a simple explanation of refraction.  If the photon were absorbed and re-emitted there would be scattering, which is not what we observe. 

 

In fact, this "coupling" is interesting, because, if you pass successively different frequencies of light through a substance (as you do with a spectrometer, for instance), you get differing degrees of coupling and, at a certain critical frequency only, you do get absorption of the photons.  This critical frequency is an "absorption line" (or band) in the spectrum of the material and occurs where the electrons in one orbital of the molecule are in exact resonance with the frequency of the photons. Either side of that frequency, the photons are slightly off-resonance and no absorption occurs, but you get strong coupling - and a big change in phase velocity and refractive index. As the frequency moves further away from the absorption frequency, the coupling becomes less and so too does the refractive index.

 

This change of refractive index with frequency is what we call "dispersion" and is why a glass prism can split light into the colours of the rainbow. (The absorption band in glass, i.e. where the resonance frequency occurs, is in the UV.)  

 

This connection between refractive index and the theory of spectroscopy was one of the more interesting things I learnt at university, on the quantum chemistry supplementary course I opted to take. Cool stuff, I thought then - and think still. 

Edited May 25, 2017 by exchemist