 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Research / October 2005dark energy ammendment !
If the expansion of the universe is going to stop and be stopped by dark energy,dark energy must change in some way because it is currently postulated to be accelerating the universe.If there is a change in dark energy i.e if dark energy consists of individual particles or waves that can decay and reduce their energy,can this energy change be related to the heisenberg principle Energy x time = hbar? I ask this question because if the heisenberg principle is valid in this case, by knowing how big an energy change their is for an individual dark energy wave/particle we could use the heisenberg relation to determine how long the universe would expand for. > If the expansion of the universe is going to stop and be stopped by > dark energy,dark energy must change in some way because it is > currently postulated to be accelerating the universe. Dark energy, i.e., the cosmological constant doesn't stop the expansion of the universe, but does the contrary: It is reponsible for the observed accelerated expansion! > If there is a > change in dark energy i.e if dark energy consists of individual [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wave/particle we could use the heisenberg > relation to determine how long the universe would expand for. We do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It's one of the biggest unsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the cosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the standard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value which is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a factor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!).  SignatureHendrik van Hees Cyclotron Institute Phone: +1 979/845-1411 Texas A&M University Fax: +1 979/845-1899 Cyclotron Institute, MS-3366 http://theory.gsi.de/~vanhees/ College Station, TX 77843-3366 > We do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It's one of the biggest > unsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the > cosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the > standard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value > which is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a > factor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!). If one generalizes the geometry to that of Weyl, the CC must be zero, and thus a non-zero CC is a highly suspicious physical quantity, insofar as it represents a degree of freedom lost in specializing the geometry, reappearing as the metric with a multiplicative constant in the contracted Bianchi identities. In Weyl space the covariant derivative of the metric is gmn;a = -Aa gmn The lost invariance is that of local scale. Mathematically, the Weyl gauge vector devolves to a gradient and the geometry becomes Riemannian, and length becomes integrable. When A devolves to a gradient, gmn;a = -phi;a gmn = (-phi gmn);a + phi gmn;a so (1 - phi) gmn;a = (-phi gmn);a implying gmn;a = 0 This now allows the CC to be introduced, which actually amounts to the now-global length scale. Thus the geometrical problem has become reducible, and we violate the sacred law of irreducibility of physical objects. I say "sacred" because nowhere in physics does an essentially reducible object correspond to a unique physical entity. This principle is perhaps as basic as Lorentz invariance for determining the mathematical description of physical objects. I therefore cannot understand the obsession with the CC. > We do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It's one of the biggest > unsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the > cosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the > standard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value > which is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a > factor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!). If one generalizes the geometry to that of Weyl, the CC must be zero, and thus a non-zero CC is a highly suspicious physical quantity, insofar as it represents a degree of freedom lost in specializing the geometry, reappearing as the metric with a multiplicative constant in the contracted Bianchi identities. In Weyl space the covariant derivative of the metric is gmn;a = -Aa gmn The lost invariance is that of local scale. Mathematically, the Weyl gauge vector devolves to a gradient and the geometry becomes Riemannian, and length becomes integrable. When A devolves to a gradient, gmn;a = -phi;a gmn = (-phi gmn);a so (1 + phi) gmn;a = gmn;a implying gmn;a = 0 This now allows the CC to be introduced, which actually amounts to the now-global length scale. Thus the geometrical problem has become reducible, and we violate the sacred law of irreducibility of physical objects. I say "sacred" because *nowhere* in physics does an essentially reducible object correspond to a unique physical entity. This principle is perhaps as basic as Lorentz invariance for determining the mathematical description of physical objects. I therefore cannot understand the obsession with the CC. Signature-drl |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.