Keywords: Landauer's principle; holographic principle; dark energy; cosmology all particles populating a certain region in space and time, can be . The low temperature relics of the Big Bang only provide very weak information energy . Universe age might be primordial black holes of mass ~
Table of contents
- Ask Ethan: Could The Energy Loss From Radiating Stars Explain Dark Energy?
- The Big Bang model of the Universe.
- Related Stories
- Accelerated Expansion of Space, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Big Bang Processes
- Dark Energy and Estimate of Cosmological Constant from String Theory
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Throwing light on the dark side of the Universe October 21, Although we may believe humans know a lot about the Universe, there are still a lot of phenomena to be explained. Researchers determine absolute duration of photoelectric effect for the first time September 20, The photoelectric effect provides the basis for solar energy and global communications; Albert Einstein described it over a century ago.
Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank. I like that, this is what I call simplify the model if it start to get too complex. If it is correct then it will not only fit what we observe but also give us new ways of looking at things. Although the thoughts are 'simple' I'm pretty sure the mathematics won't be and some formulas will need an update to take a few 'lost' constants into account.
VestaR, according to this article, the model indicates that the universe is cyclic, so it has no age. Same old question, but I have to ask: There must be millions of them, no? This model's universe may keep cycling to and fro until it succumbs to heat death. A universe with no beginning and no end means that the current time is already at infinity, which is disturbing. But it is less disturbing than the Big Bang theory, which has two problems: And even if "our time" started at the BB, some Objective time must have existed before that, so that the BB happened at a secific instant of that time.
What I am SURE of is, after a couple of generations, our notions of the BB, and black holes having a singularity at their center, will both be considered as ridiculous as a flat earth. Meanwhile, I hope more scientists will seriously try to find alternatives to our current BB, dark matter, dark energy, etc.
I'd love to live in a universe where I feel comfortable. Time having no beginning or end, is in essence a model at steady state, right? So is Shu just building off of Hoyle? I'm not sure how this fits observations at all. The universe is accelerating as it's expanding, moreover if the universe has "always existed" the stars would have burned out long ago.
Anyone read the actual article yet, to see how it deals with the new theory potentially explaining microwave background radiation levels..? Well the wiki article on c-decay is a bit wrong in its history. C-decay was first proposed by Gheury de Bray, in , published in Nature. Setterfield's work is largely based on the rate of change in the atomic clock and the c-decay being equivalent, while the orbital clock has not altered no changes in gravitational constant have been observerd.
If c-decay has occured, then your watching everything in space in slo-mo at this point from Earth. The farther away from earth, the slower everying will appear. If you stretch space, you will also stretch the matter and light, as they occupy space. Which the Bible claims space was stretched. Can't quite grasp this hypothesis fully yet, but I'm all for any theory that gets rid of "Dark Energy" tm which seems to me to be patent nonsense!
IMO the galaxies are evaporating and condensing into streaks of dark matter somewhere else. Later the dark matter streaks are condensing into clouds of interstellar gas and new galaxies again. Do you have anything close to a theory based on observation to support that at all? How were you answering his question in any way? Unrelated to this, I wish you grew up in America so I could understand half of what you are trying to say. I like the way you brainstorm, but your grammar is unreadable at times.
So what in the theory will halt expansion and make the universe start to contract again? Also is there some magic included which replenishes the hydrogen in the universe to let stars keep burning forever? When you give yourself the liberty of treating constants as variables you can start creating models that fit pretty much anything. Now it's all well and good that Prof. His paper is 2x spaced, so it's really only 12 pgs; a quick read. In it he ends up with an eternal, expanding universe, albeit one that alternates between acceleration and deceleration note, NOT contraction.
This isn't xactly "steady state", but has the same problems. As an infinity of time has taken place before any given moment in Shu's universe you are always in the end state of the processes allowed for in that universe. As insectking has mentioned, this means the universe would have succumbed to heat death and it would have done so an infinity of time ago Anything not swallowed by BHs would have quantum tunneled to iron. And if protons have any chance at all of decaying, all that iron would be gone as well.
In case anyone wonders, he doesn't bring up cosmic regeneration and things like "C-fields" to avoid this. Shu simply needs a new pair of glasses? The other catastrophic problem with his model is that to the best of our experimental knowledge, alpha the fine structure constant from which we get c hasn't changed in parts per billion in the last 14 billion years.
There's no evidence that G has changed either, which would have caused changes in stellar physics and chemistry among other things. Sounds like somebody really needed to publish or perish. How is this model reconciled with the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Does the overall entropy of the universe be constant? If the universe has been around for eternity then it must.
Does this mean that we have an infinite source of energy available for work? I don't think this model has problem with Hawkings radiation, because h is not constant in it, so radiation would be much slower at earlier stages. My problem is that there is no attempt to show how constants k,tau and nu are related to fit parameters mu and beta obtained from fitting the Hubble diagram. So we are left hanging without explanation how to get these fundamental constants, and also how to find at what moment of cosmic time are we at the moment.
If this is not possible just from that data alone, what data is needed? Is the overall entropy of the universe constant? Nither do I, but I don't even know how to distinguish between earlier and later stages in his model. As far as I can tell every stage would have to be the latest possible stage, except he dosen't seem to treat it that way. My problem is that there is no attempt to show how constants k, tau and nu are related to fit parameters mu and beta obtained from fitting the Hubble diagram. Agreed, even though section four of his paper is dedicated to the redshift and data fitting, this gets pretty much swept under the rug.
Didn't we learn that arbitrary constants give rise to unrealistic and incongruent results? This is the steady state blunder reborn. I think he is on the right track in a few areas, but then he goes right down the tubes with an assertion that a dimension of space-time no longer being a dimension due to antrocentric observational difficulty. He's effectively smashed up the relevance of Time within expanitive equations.
I agree with you here regarding models. Shu creates problems in essence because his model assumes no beginning or end.
Which is what Skeptic argues as well. Remember though that Einstien didnt state the velocity of light was simply constant. The 2nd postulate states that light is "always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. One half of observable Universe this one smaller then the human creatures expands and it gains entropy. The remaining one collapses due its gravity into more dense state, thus balancing entropy of Universe.
Everyone can observe it. From dense aether theory follows, the middle of the entropic scale would be defined exactly by wavelength of cosmic microwave noise. Universe should exhibit red shift, when being observed in shorter wavelengths - and blue shift for longer wavelengths, for example the radiowaves.
Nothing actually expands or collapses here, though - it's a geometric phenomena resulting from transverse wave spreading through random inhomogeneous environment. You can observe this effect during heavy rain as a dark Alexander's band between primary and secondary rainbows. The dense rain droplets are playing the role of CMB noise here.
Actually the same phenomena we can observe at the water surface - every surface ripple disperses during spreading along it and it converts itself into longitudinal waves, which are spreading through extra-dimensions of underwater. The water surface is an analogy of space-time here. As the result, every observer can see only limited portion of his local space-time, like the observer of landscape under fog.
I explained it here at least ten times already - and some guys still cannot comprehend it I dunno, what the "expanitive equations" are supposed to be - but I know, some people never admit new ideas - no matter, whether they're supported by logics of transparent analogies in this case they're just screaming "shut up and give us the math! Actually your religious stance is supported with scientific research too, because it was observed many times, when the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people simply try to reason it away.
Often they will try to ignore it, intimidate it, buy it off, sue it for libel or reason it away. You're just a model example of this behavior. Shouldn't cosmological theories providing better fits for observed data, also be measured by their ability to unify with quantum mechanics?
Ask Ethan: Could The Energy Loss From Radiating Stars Explain Dark Energy?
I'm all for any theory that gets rid of "Dark Energy" tm which seems to me to be patent nonsense! Actually the term "Dark energy" is more clever, then it appears - it contains an induction, this phenomena is related to dark matter with energy-matter duality. When you would sit outside of black hole, you would observe it like the matter, when you would sit inside of it, you would perceive it as an ocean of energy, i. If you observe the spreading of surface ripples carefully, you would see, how every source of energy at the water surface appears, like being surrounded with are of more dense water, which slows down the spreading of surface ripples due the dispersion.
The above model explains, why Pioneer anomaly attributed to dark matter manifests itself by weak deceleration, which is the product of Hubble constant and speed of light. It's simply the result of omni-directional space-time expansion, which cosmologists are considering many years - but the relativists aren't willing to incorporate it into their equations.
But from the inner perspective the dark matter effect would lead into faster expansion of space-time between galaxies, i. We can actually see, how surface ripples are changing their wavelength during dispersion at the water surface with increasing speed, i. Time is something we made up based on an observation of the universe around us, over these many years we see things related to time we did not expect.
Thus time is just the best explanation we have for now for what we observe. Sometime in the distant future when science is more important than the myriad number of religions and sports we may build a true giant space telescope out at Lagrange point 5 and see further into the universe than ever before and find that the universe is a lot bigger than we thought. Much longer after that if we do not destroy ourselves we may find the Universe is infinite.
It literally exists forever in all directions without end. For those who might jump to call this insane I offer that most ppl thought the world was flat and that the earth was the center of our solar system. I also point that the Wright brothers flew planes for years before the majority of ppl believed it was not a hoax. Science has not learned all there is to know yet. Yes - but it requires the understanding, Universe at the cosmological scale doesn't appear like relativistic object, but like quantum object with time arrow fragmented into number of event horizons.
Actually this model is symmetric with respect to time dimension and we could use it for prediction of periodicity of phase transitions at the quantum level. Even the water surface model is symmetric with respect to distance scale, because surface waves are dispersing to longitudinal ones not only at large distances, but at the small distances too by Brownian noise.
The Big Bang model of the Universe.
Actually every observer of surface ripples will face the dispersion both with using of very long waves, both with using of very short waves for observation of very tiny objects. The small objects at the event horizon of small scale will be as fuzzy, as those very distant ones. Wherever this linkboy will move to, he will always remain exactly at the middle of volume area illuminated.
Dense aether model is deeply relativistic in the opposite way, in which sparse aether always violates the relativity which is why it was rejected, after all. The cosmological distances are illustrating the past of Universe expansion in short-wavelength light, its future collapse in long wavelength light. At the quantum scale we can see the future of Universe expansion in short-wavelength light, its past in long-wavelength light.
Now you can start to think about consequences of this model. I don't want to repeat all mistakes and to say, aether model is a final solution of all causual problems, which we have with Universe. But the absence of future or past is actually the feature of this model, because every assumption of some origin or end just brings up inevitable question: Actually the random value is the only value, which doesn't bring any further question about its reasoning.
Every fixed value including the zero one will bring future question: Why not some other one? BTW In dense aether model the question of origin is ill-defined, because Universe has an infinite number of past and futures in it. Here's a consideration that I've never heard dealt with before: Has there actually been an observable, quantifiable increase in the velocity of expansion over the last 50 or so years? At the scope of fifty light years you cannot observe any trend in interstellar motion at all.
The closest Andromeda galaxy is over 2. Second Law of Thermodynamics repealed? Physical phenomena no longer irreversable? I guess time flows backwards in Black Holes? Once we're all pulled through, everything repeats? Is the universe foamy in the scale we live in; say out to a few billion light years or less? What ever the veracity of his claim, it sure is subtle and beautiful. It's not the first model of cyclic Universe - and definitely not the very last one. You should be surprised before eighty years Here's a link to the image http: In his "Cosmological Considerations of the General Theory of Relativity", Einstein theorized that the net effect of the counteracting forces of expansion and gravity should remain the same if the amount of matter in the universe stays the same.
With no consensus of evidence to the contrary, I think I'll go out on a limb and agree with Einstein. Old Al tended to be right about stuff like this, besides the concept of "Dark Energy" seems absurd to me! Since most people and modern physics haven't a clue what time is, any references to it by them are BS and are probably inherently inaccurate or just wrong. This new theory has the ring of truth to it, or at least much more so than the current theories. Read the bloody paper!
You are correct about entropy increasing even if plotted backwards in time, at least according to physicist Brian Greene. Only under the "Time as a force" model. Under the "Time as a dimension model" entropy has a direction. At least that's what I gleaned of his viewpoint from "The Elegant Universe". Why does truly empty space have to be material in any way?
If there is an edge and matter is expanding into "it," why couldn't matter be moving into an "area" that is a total vacuum? From my ignorant layperson point of view, astrophysicists seem to be making this concept more complicated than it needs to be. I guess it's the theory of gravity curving spacetime. Apparently, spacetime just doesn't make sense to me. If we detected gravity particles, could that disprove the existence of relativisic spacetime? Waves and bubbles can move along water surfaces, i. This model gives perfect meaning in relativity, because light is spreading through water surface along fastest path in the same way, like through space-time along geodesics.
And it explains, why spatial dimensions have no arrow with compare to time dimension.
- Dark Energy and Estimate of Cosmological Constant from String Theory | OMICS International.
- Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end?
- The still hour, or, Communion with God (1861).
If physicists would use dense aether theory, then the concept of space-time would be explained in the kindergartens as a quite natural concept in the same way, like heliocentric model appears natural for us. If we detected gravity particles, could that disprove the existence of relativistic spacetime? There is no reason to "disprove it" albeit concept of gravitons and quantization of gravity doesn't play well with general relativity. There are only good reasons for its understanding: Space-time is simply density gradient of many another density gradients: What we could get, if we would "disprove" it?
We should explain, why some equations and models are playing so well with this concept anyway. You are correct about entropy increasing even if plotted backwards in time This is a logical fallacy, until time arrow is defined just by increasing of entropy. This may be true only if you would use another definition of time arrow. But which other definition of time arrow actually violates the entropic time arrow? Actually observable matter is formed with space-time gradients, too.
We have no other explanation for material of matter, then just foam of heavily compacted and curved space-time gradients. Therefore I don't see nothing wrong about claim, space-time is the same matter conceptually, like for example water in the pond. Inside of material particles the same vacuum exists, like inside of cosmic space. Space-time is formed just with another space-times in infinitely nested fractal way - if it wouldn't, we could find the origin of Universe. Which is not reason for not to look for it anyway, indeed.
Could you just tell me what the traditional theory is instead of spewing your aether theory in every Traditional theory of general relativity models motion of matter along geodesics as a Hamiltonian flow of energy through space-time. Actually such model will not tell you very much, if you don't know, Hamilton mechanics describes the laws of optics of inhomogeneous environment with gradients of refraction index.
So, the burden of "proof" remains. From what I can tell, it appears that this is an internally consistent model, but I wonder how it will hold up to rigorous testing.
Accelerated Expansion of Space, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Big Bang Processes
Having problems in the standard model just "disappear" computationally smacks of cheating, but that remains to be seen. Have they merely managed to derive several fudge-factor constants, or are they really on to reality here? To put it another way- does making a problem disappear computationally make it disappear observationally? For example the path of planets observed doesn't follow the geocentric model very well. But we can ad some epicycles and their parameters into model.
Dark Energy and Estimate of Cosmological Constant from String Theory
After then the difference between observations and computations can be decreased bellow level of observational errors. Do you see some problem with such approach? All systems are simple. Complexity is a consequence of the interaction of simple systems. We should be grateful to Shu and others of his ilk. Scientific theories are not "provable". Mathematical theorems may be proved, of course. This is my interpretation. Time only exists in relation to matter. The universe is currently expanding rapidly, therefore time appears to be moving forwards.
Without matter there would be no time. The universe's time isn't "cyclic", there is just an infinite potential amount of time that can be created or reduced. And this is a consensus. And Otto is being generous. Are you using a translator? The big bang is the simplest theory that explains the microwave background radiation. I see no mention of it in Shu's article. Let's say you are a microbe living on some creature - say a moose. How do you know there are other microbes living on a different moose - in another state? You can't because you don't have the proper tools to figure that out.
It isn't like you pick up your phone and call someone. For every 1,ft you send a signal you introduce a new fractional portion of a degree to the possibility your cell phone won't get my cell phone's signal. Nearest star is light years away. So you are introducing millions or billions of fractional degrees. Or us - them. This is not to mention planets occluding the signal also. Ahhh, the familiar simplistic accusation of a stodgy mind. Apparently there is at least one universal constant. VestaR, "The variable light speed model has its connection to the intelligent design theory. The core of IDers have no interest in discovering a young universe.
Contrary to common propoganda, IDers really aren't just young earth creationists "in a cheap tuxedo. It implies a beginning. A return to an infinitely old universe, though it wouldn't harm the tenets of ID theory, would challenge some argument about the nature of the source of intelligence. It would increase the viability of an intra-universe intelligence such as space aliens, where the big bang with its precise constants calls for an intelligence that is not part of our universe.
Elementary, my dear Watson! Just explain to me Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end Sure Am I the only one who has a problem with 2 dimensional space? If OUR big bang was our 1 universe dividing over time into more and more observably discrete bits-of-universe, each bit like a singularity becoming the start of a new observable universe from another pov Here's to a new model! From my understanding, as long as gravity exists, there will never be a "big crunch".
I know that sounds illogical but as long as there is gravity matter that is far away from each other will continue to move apart at a faster rate - actually they won't move further apart, the space in between them will continue to expand. There is no evidence that a big crunch will ever happen.
Maybe after Heat Death of the Universe? A Vacuum in the traditional meaning of the word in space is still energy. According to my simple brain if there was an area of "nothing" between Earth and Pluto, it would essentially be a wormhole between here and there. If there was no "space-time" in that area then you would instantly arrive there. Remember - matter in the universe isn't expanding out into "empty space" - there is no "edge". It is the space in between matter that is expanding. There is no edge to the universe. It isn't an easy concept, but once you see it you'll understand why it makes sense.
I'm a layperson to but I figured this out on my own - I think I'm right but I don't know how to properly express it. I think the 3-Sphere does the job. Light spreads through vacuum in waves in the same way, like the energy propagates through dense matter, elastic fluids or foam in particular. In addition, vacuum is capable of spreading of two kinds of waves transverse waves of light and longitudinal ones of gravity in the same way, like any other particle environment. Particle environment exhibits Brownian noise, which keeps tiny particles in "aethernal" motion - well, vacuum keeps the atoms of liquid helium in permanent motion, thus prohibiting them in freezing under room pressure.
After all, QED considers vacuum as a sea of virtual particles and black hole models of Universe are gaining popularity - there are many theories and phenomena, which actually require dense aether concept on background. One half of Universe always collapses, while the second one evaporates - in such way both halves just switch their position and behaviour. Your simple brain is working properly with compare to many other trolls here. If vacuum would have zero mass density, then every wave would propagate through it with infinite frequency - which is really not, what we can observe all the time.
Regarding the cosmological model presented in the article, there you can find opponent view to it. The paper doesn't come across as very credible from the perspective of general relativity. More important is, it appears credible from perspective of astronomical observations. Nice - now you're already using four accounts to vote for yourself. And in addition to this, I've contacted Ms. Kavassalis to inform her that you're attempting identity theft by utilizing her name in a feeble attempt to promote pseudoscience. This is now legally actionable if she presses charges. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Who cares about credibility of theories, until they're correct - the worse for people, who are labeling them in such way without arguments, don't you think? The concept of eternal universe follows from dense aether model logically even without math. Kavassalis to inform her that you're attempting identity theft by utilizing her name in a feeble attempt to promote pseudoscience She will be pleased by your report definitely How astoundingly weird; thank you for pointing that out I can't seem to find the account in question though, so perhaps they had the good sense to remove it I'm also not a doctor yet Thanks for letting me know and I'm glad you enjoy my blog.
Want to continue the lie? Like I said, this is now a legal issue if she wishes to press charges, in addition, you've removed uncertainty in regard to whether you're attempting identity theft. Just another OT question related to this whole circus: I've looked but haven't been able to connect any of the entries back to him directly. Have you managed to get youself listed yet? Where do figure you rank on Prof. Getting back to the article, this looks like a paltry attempt to rectify the Infinite Regress problem. There's an easier way to do it.
False vaccuum allows for spontaneous generation of energy as evidenced by Quantum Mechanics. As a universe ages, due to decreasing density, false vaccuum is created, leading to the spontaneous generation of energy. That energy then diffuses over time, allowing for more false vaccuum, and more spontaneous generation of energy.
The Multiverse would thusly be described as Existence giving rise to non-existence, giving rise to existence, giving rise to non-existence All supported by 11 dimensional quantum mechanics, otherwise known as M-Theory. So as this UNiverse rips. From those rips new universes will arise if the theory is accurate. LISA should generate the observations necessary to verify or falsify this prediction.
Either way I'll be very busy once that data starts comming back. As a lay person I find this discussion enthralling yet a little hard to follow at times. I would only like to add that 2, years ago, a man called Shakyamuni, or Buddha, awoke became enlightened to what he called 'the truth' about what life is. Part of that teaching is now understood as Kuon Ganjo, time without beginning or end. Buddhism also teaches that 'life' is " neither existence nor nor existence, but exhibits the qualities of both.
The problem with seeing farther into the universe isn't so much a matter of where the telescope is, but of how long the light has had to reach us. At this time, the "known" universe is about The "knowable" universe is more like 57 billion light years, but it will take 43 billion years for that light to reach the Earth. Obviously, the Earth won't even exist by then. Yes, the universe might be infinite, but the light beyond the knowable universe will never reach us, so we'll never know. That's OK; even the known universe is far more than we'll ever be able to explore.
While General Relativity does give us an accurate description of how things work on a macro scale, it doesn't necessarily give us an understanding of how it all works. In the quest to describe the planets motion, we relied at first upon countless epicycles before we dug deeper and found that the planets move in elliptical orbits. I don't see the trouble in exploring options of Universal models that may lead to a more promising understanding of the Universe compared to our current throw-together BB Theory.
I'm a big fan of simplicity, and this idea, while juxtaposed to classical thought, is much more simplistic than the current BB Theory, and has only as many flaws. In classical physics, each action has an equal an opposite reaction, i. Now, take a star- photons, neutrinos, etc are emitted from it in a predominently omnidirectional manner thus resulting in net-zero movement of the star itself and a slight compressional force. Light travels across distance and imparts a slight push on another star, and light from that second star impacts the first and exerts a slight push.
I could be wrong though, but it seems to work with solar sails. Well, this is a good point. Actually, some models consider the formation of antimatter and gamma rays from dark matter annihilation already Now we should find an evidence of hydrogen formation inside of dark matter streaks by now - you can consider it as one of testable predictions of steady-state Universe model. In addition, another portion of matter could be brought into Universe via dark matter flow, which was observed recently.
We can say, matter is recycled from photons, into which it evaporated previously. Finally, no more dark energy non-sense. The value of m o is irrelevant, but. We get thus two relations:. K is a constant.
The theory of GR yields the same result, but K depends then on the curvature of space. Einstein considered a closed space of constant curvature, as for the surface of a hypersphere. K is then positive, but would be negative for an open, hyperbolic space. Anyway, derivation of Equation 2 with respect to t will eliminate the constant K, but the resulting equation is then.
Considering only ordinary matter, distributed with the same mass-energy density in the whole universe, we get. This means that even the new theory of gravity cannot prevent gravitational collapse. The acceleration is greater for small values of R, because of stronger forces. However, it is now attributed to variations of the scale factor instead of motions in absolute space. Since our universe seems to be stable, Einstein thought that something is missing.
His conjecture was that. It should be noted that 5 results from 3 , when we assume that and that , but. That would be very strange, since vacuum would not only correspond to some ether-like substance. Nevertheless, this assumption was implicit in Equation 5. Einstein circumvented the resulting physical problems, by assuming that and , but this does not necessarily imply that our universe is stable. Willem de Sitter noted already in that variations of are not excluded, since Equation 5 would even allow for an exponential increase of , when we assume that our universe is empty and that is finite.
It is then sufficient to assume some initial speed , to account for the present finite value of. Since the first term on the right side of Equation 5 is predominant for small values of R, the initial expansion would be decelerated. However, the last term becomes predominant for large values of R. While Einstein assumed that , to get a static universe, it would now mean that the expansion of space will eventually get accelerated.
He translated himself the text from French to English, but dropped some minor parts and added another text. Entropy is increasing, since disorder is more probable than order, and structuring yields even more degrees of freedom. This was a logical, but revolutionary deduction from observable facts.
Einstein accepted the mathematical treatment of Equation 5 , but rejected the idea of an expanding universe. He thought that such a bold interpretation of 5 is not plausible. Friedmann considered also a function , but was mainly interested in the mathematical consequences of GR for different curvatures of space. He solved Equation 2 in for a closed universe  and in , he considered the evolution of an open one. Since he studied engineering, he was concerned with the real world and considered the problem of a possible variation of also in the context of thermodynamics.
The initial state of our universe had then to be the simplest possible one. He knew that the speed of recession of stellar objects can be determined by measuring the red-shift of spectral lines. Vesto Slipher did this already in for the Andromeda nebula . Edwin Hubble evaluated the distances of neighboring nebulas by means of Cepheid variable stars and established in that the recession speed of 22 nebulas is proportional to their distance .
The discovery of the expansion of our universe resulted thus from independent, but complementary scientific research. Those who accepted the idea of an expansion of our universe considered that it was sufficient to set. Equation 4 and the same initial conditions would then yield a function that passes through a maximum and decrease until.
Today, we know that the Big Bang occurred about Thus , but an accelerated expansion of space is baffling. It requires a yet unknown energy source. It may be related to the existence of DM and DE, but it is necessary to clarify what these terms do really mean and how this might be possible. In such a situation, the first rational step is to describe what is known in terms of usual concepts. We can assume that DM and DE are substances that have together a mass- energy density. It has thus to be added to the mass-energy density of ordinary, baryonic matter.
This implies that the mass M in Equation 3 is composed of two parts:. We have thus to determine the value of. This seems to be simple, since energy conservation requires that. Added thermal energy increases the internal energy of any substance, which is enclosed in the volume , but it could also do work by means of its pressure p.
This relation applies to usual gases. The total number of molecules remains then constant, but their average kinetic energy could be modified. Cosmic DM and DE, contained in a huge volume are not thermally isolated, but the inflow and the outflow of heat are balanced. Since , we expect that. It follows that , where Equation 3 leads then to. Since , it would be necessary that cosmic DM and DE have everywhere a sufficiently great negative pressure, so that.
This leaves room for many speculative propositions, but we want to find out if the concept of DM particles, which results from STQ, could be helpful to understand the enigmatic accelerated expansion of space. We showed that DM particles interact with one another by exchanging N 2 bosons and that this does usually lead to elastic scattering .
The cosmic DM gas behaves then like a usual molecular gas. The actual nature and mass of DM particles are irrelevant here. Their average kinetic energy would be since classical Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics apply also to fermions and bosons at low densities. The cosmic DM gas has thus a pressure , where n is the average density of DM particles. The mass-energy density , where m is the average mass of DM particles.
It follows that , where. These concepts are confirmed by astrophysical observations  , which proved that the cosmic DM gas is cold. We mentioned in the introduction that the implies that , but DM particles interact with one another. Recent cosmological measurements  implied that for 8. Since , the previous relation could be replaced by.
This may seem to be unbelievable, since it requires that DM and DE have the capacity to keep their mass-energy density at a constant level, even when space is expanding. Nevertheless, this possibility has to be considered. It would imply that. Replacing p by in 8 , we get. This yields even when , but is it possible to prove that , which seems to be an extraordinary claim?
Fusion liberates energy, while fission requires energy. We have thus to examine the properties of the common mass-energy density. To focus our attention on the essential mechanism, we consider the particular case where the cosmic DM gas contains only two types of particles. Those of mass m are present with a density n, but they can be fused together to constitute compound DM particles of mass.
The mass defect results from the binding energy but we set. It is convenient to define a dimensionless binding parameter. The density of these compound particles is , but they can be split, to yield again particles of mass m. Fusion requires the encounter of two particles. The probability is then proportional to , while fission of the particles of mass can be spontaneous.
This yields the rate equation. The density n would remain constant when. To determine the actual values of n and , we need a second relation. It results from the fact that the total number of DM particles in the volume V is and their total mass is. The ratio defines the average mass , which is independent of V.
Constancy of implies that. Equilibrium is thus possible for this system. Figure 1 represents it by means of transitions between energy states, defined by the masses m and m' of two types of particles. To verify if this equilibrium is stable, we consider a local perturbation for constant values of the parameters as well as.
Setting , we get and. The constant A is determined by , which could be greater or smaller than n 1 , but equilibrium would always be restored. It will be reached more rapidly when is great. It could never be reached, of course, if fusion were irreversible. The cosmic DM gas is in a state of homeostasis. It constitutes an adaptive system, where DM particles produce DE in such a way that the density n of unfused particles and the density of fused particles remain constant.
The common mass-energy density is invariant when space is expanding. Even the mass-energy density of DM alone and the mass- energy density of the total liberated DE remain constant. Fusion and fission processes of DM particles yield an equilibrium that accounts for the accelerated expansion of space. According to reported values of and , the remarkable ratio. This would yield values between 2. Setting , it follows from 16 that , while.
Since q and have to be positive,. When , for instance, we get. It follows that and. The results of the Planck measurements of the cosmic background  would imply that. This allows for , which implies that and. According to the proposed theory and cosmological observations, there are thus more fused than unfused DM particles. The quotient q is of the order of 2 or 3. It also appears that fusion of DM particles would be characterized by a high binding energy, so that.
This is unaccustomed, but not impossible. Great values of b facilitate the liberation of the enormous amount of energy, which is required to allow for the accelerated expansion of space. Even equilibrium would be reestablished more rapidly if it were disturbed somewhere. Nevertheless, it is necessary that fused DM particles can be broken up, spontaneously or by collisions. This could result from the excitation of collective oscillations of neutralons inside the compound DM particles.
The accelerated expansion of space is due to the adaptability of the cosmic DM gas. When the volume V increases, fusion and fission processes continue to equilibrate one another by producing more DM and more DE. Since DM particles are electrically neutral, they cannot produce photons and they are not heated or cooled by contact with ordinary matter . Invisible cosmic DM gas is thus isothermal in the whole universe.
Even when space is expanding, its density and temperature is regulated everywhere by mutually controlled fusion and fission processes. Thermal agitation leads to pressure effects. They are important for the constitutions of DM atmospheres  , but nearly negligible for the accelerated expansion of space. The conjecture that the scale factor had to be finite for the present universe was correct, but it is not constant.
This is not sure anymore  and may result from a misunderstanding. Indeed, Einstein could only regret that he did not realize himself that our universe might be expanding, even when. However, this required the additional idea that cosmic expansion could start with. Maybe, Einstein did not consider this possibility because of 5. He could not explain how apparently empty space might produce energy, but he did not simply believe that this is impossible. To prepare the following chapter, we present some essential consequences of the theory of STQ in a short and different way.
The basic idea was that Nature could impose a third restriction in addition to those which led to the development of relativity and quantum mechanics. The function applies to free particles in any inertial reference frame. It depends on the rest-mass m o of these particles. It is its wave function, which allows us to express knowledge.
It defines the probability distribution for possible positions in space, but provides also information about motions in terms of possible values of p and E. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics RQM combines the relations 17 and accounts thus for c and h, but it is assumed that the wavelength could be infinitely small. This is equivalent to believing that the energy E and momentum p could have arbitrarily high values. If there did exist a finite limit a for the smallest measurable distance, we would have to accept that.
The value of a is thus determined by the highest possible momentum. Because of 17 , it would be obtained when and when the energy E has the highest possible value. This requires a photon and that its energy cannot be increased. It would thus have to be equal to the total positive energy content of the whole universe. Its value would be. Although it is gigantic, it could be finite. STQ confirms that energies , even for material particles . They can be distinguished from one another by means of their wave functions when the quantum of length.
Indeed, there are two sets of possible results when the coordinate is precisely measured along a given reference axis: The wave function has to be defined for all values of x, but it can have the same or opposite signs on the intercalated lattice with respect to the normal lattice.
Although the functions are different, the probability distribution will be unaffected. Such a modulation of wave functions is possible for any reference frame in our four-dimensional space-time. This yields four quantum numbers. Each one of them can be a positive or negative integer number, but they are everywhere identical for particles of given type. This is compatible, by multiplexing . Small and large-scale variations can be combined. The electric charge is always determined in units e by. The Standard Model of elementary particles accounts for three generations of quarks and leptons.
They correspond to and display the same family structure, in terms of triplets. When states of type correspond to up-quarks , while states of type correspond to down-quarks. In both cases, there are 3 possible permutations, defining different color states R, G or B.
The electron is an elementary particle in the state, where. Antiparticles are characterized by opposite signs for all quantum numbers. Moreover, there are states of type with 6 possible permutations and two states, when. This octet defines particles and antiparticles of charge. They are elementary DM particles. They are the supersymmetric partners of gluons. Supersymmetry results from the fact that the z-component of the spin vector along a given z-axis is defined by large-scale angular variations of -functions around this axis.
These variations are independent of small-scale variations, defined by u-quantum numbers. Every particle state for fermions corresponds thus to a state for bosons and vice-versa. Elementary particles can be transformed into one another by means of annihilation and creation processes. However, the sum of u-quantum numbers has to be conserved for every one of the four space-time axes, as well for bosons as for fermions. This accounts for the fact that a quark can change its color by creating or annihilating a gluon.
Narks can also create or annihilate gluons, since , for instance. Narks and quarks are thus particles that are subjected to strong interactions.