Dark Energy, Dark Matter

[attofishpi]

Well, thanks to Astro Cat I now get that acceleration effectively means travelling through space. If you're just being carried along by expanding space, you don't experience any acceleration. Mind you, you don't if you're in free fall. Anyway, the expansion of space must at some point be 10mss. I'm fairly confident that was some time ago. Then again, the nature of expansion is that at some shifting radius the expansion will always be 10mss. So to clarify, the answer is either definitely not/absolutely/fucked if I know.

Haha. Welcome aboard. I've been thinking about this of late and am reminded of a conversation we had over coffee.

Apparently, there is no information loss at an event horizon. We could imagine that we are indeed a projection from a 2D plane, expanding until maximum entropy. The holographic something or other, I think it was Susskin - not sure how to spell his name, the plumber dude that corrected Hawking's theory.

The Holographic Principle is tricky and I barely understand much about it because I do not have a full QFT class under my belt yet (it's not offered except on the coasts, but a few of us are going to take one remotely). There is a weird consequence of some of the earliest thermodynamic evaluations of black holes where Hawking proposed a hard positive energy condition (coming straight from GR, but can be thought of as a consequence of the fact that despite being really weird degenerate matter, black holes are still composed of matter). It would be possible to extract energy from a black hole under a few exotic circumstances (one of the most famous/first proposed is the Penrose process).

This was a problem because the possibility of a black hole shrinking due to the Unruh effect/Hawking radiation would have amounted to violating the Second Law of thermodynamics. Bekenstein and Hawking worked out that the Second Law isn't really violated if considering some constant of proportionality between entropy and (area)/(h-bar)*(gravitational constant) with a value of exactly 1/4 such that any change in (entropy + A/4(h-bar)G) is greater than or equal to zero.

In extraction processes like the Penrose process, energy is theoretically extracted by lowering something down to the black hole: in the Penrose case to take some of the angular momentum of a spinning black hole, etc. Well, when Hawking and Bekenstein worked out the constant of proportionality mentioned above, it meant that you can hover a box of size R and energy S < 2piER and get any closer to the horizon than R. This is now called the Bekenstein Bound.

That has the profound consequence that the most entropy that can be contained in a surface area A is proportional to A/4 (Planck units).

t'Hooft took this further and argued that the quantum states in a finite region must be encoded on the boundary of that region rather than a volume (and indeed, it's been suggested by at least one person I know of -- Lee Smolin -- that some quantum computation won't be helped by building into the third dimension, I don't remember where I read him speculate on that but I know that he did). It's already a consequence of earlier, more classical black hole thermodynamics that we know the entropy of a black hole is associated with the area (not the volume) of the event horizon.

Susskind came along and tried to make a little more sense of what it means to have a hard entropic limit in a finite space. He basically pointed out that it doesn't matter whether there's something about the universe that "doesn't like" >A/4 entropy in an area because if you tried to put >A/4 stuff in an area, you'd just end up with a black hole, which would reduce the entropy down to A/4, which would mean that you were never able to put >A/4 "stuff" there in the first place by reductio ad absurdum.

I love intelligent ladies! I am going to have to study some of that, cheers.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Haha. Welcome aboard. I've been thinking about this of late and am reminded of a conversation we had over coffee.

Apparently, there is no information loss at an event horizon. We could imagine that we are indeed a projection from a 2D plane, expanding until maximum entropy. The holographic something or other, I think it was Susskin - not sure how to spell his name, the plumber dude that corrected Hawking's theory.

The Holographic Principle is tricky and I barely understand much about it because I do not have a full QFT class under my belt yet (it's not offered except on the coasts, but a few of us are going to take one remotely). There is a weird consequence of some of the earliest thermodynamic evaluations of black holes where Hawking proposed a hard positive energy condition (coming straight from GR, but can be thought of as a consequence of the fact that despite being really weird degenerate matter, black holes are still composed of matter). It would be possible to extract energy from a black hole under a few exotic circumstances (one of the most famous/first proposed is the Penrose process).

This was a problem because the possibility of a black hole shrinking due to the Unruh effect/Hawking radiation would have amounted to violating the Second Law of thermodynamics. Bekenstein and Hawking worked out that the Second Law isn't really violated if considering some constant of proportionality between entropy and (area)/(h-bar)*(gravitational constant) with a value of exactly 1/4 such that any change in (entropy + A/4(h-bar)G) is greater than or equal to zero.

In extraction processes like the Penrose process, energy is theoretically extracted by lowering something down to the black hole: in the Penrose case to take some of the angular momentum of a spinning black hole, etc. Well, when Hawking and Bekenstein worked out the constant of proportionality mentioned above, it meant that you can hover a box of size R and energy S < 2piER and get any closer to the horizon than R. This is now called the Bekenstein Bound.

That has the profound consequence that the most entropy that can be contained in a surface area A is proportional to A/4 (Planck units).

t'Hooft took this further and argued that the quantum states in a finite region must be encoded on the boundary of that region rather than a volume (and indeed, it's been suggested by at least one person I know of -- Lee Smolin -- that some quantum computation won't be helped by building into the third dimension, I don't remember where I read him speculate on that but I know that he did). It's already a consequence of earlier, more classical black hole thermodynamics that we know the entropy of a black hole is associated with the area (not the volume) of the event horizon.

Susskind came along and tried to make a little more sense of what it means to have a hard entropic limit in a finite space. He basically pointed out that it doesn't matter whether there's something about the universe that "doesn't like" >A/4 entropy in an area because if you tried to put >A/4 stuff in an area, you'd just end up with a black hole, which would reduce the entropy down to A/4, which would mean that you were never able to put >A/4 "stuff" there in the first place by reductio ad absurdum.

Talk about imaginations running wild, and being based solely upon on 'that' what is essentially nothing more than just assumptions or guesses about what only might be true anyway.

At least they are educated 'assumptions' based on having spent years studying the subject and the work of others who have studied it all of their adult lives. I don't have to visit Uranus to know that I wouldn't be able to survive there.

[Age]

The Holographic Principle is tricky and I barely understand much about it because I do not have a full QFT class under my belt yet (it's not offered except on the coasts, but a few of us are going to take one remotely). There is a weird consequence of some of the earliest thermodynamic evaluations of black holes where Hawking proposed a hard positive energy condition (coming straight from GR, but can be thought of as a consequence of the fact that despite being really weird degenerate matter, black holes are still composed of matter). It would be possible to extract energy from a black hole under a few exotic circumstances (one of the most famous/first proposed is the Penrose process).

This was a problem because the possibility of a black hole shrinking due to the Unruh effect/Hawking radiation would have amounted to violating the Second Law of thermodynamics. Bekenstein and Hawking worked out that the Second Law isn't really violated if considering some constant of proportionality between entropy and (area)/(h-bar)*(gravitational constant) with a value of exactly 1/4 such that any change in (entropy + A/4(h-bar)G) is greater than or equal to zero.

In extraction processes like the Penrose process, energy is theoretically extracted by lowering something down to the black hole: in the Penrose case to take some of the angular momentum of a spinning black hole, etc. Well, when Hawking and Bekenstein worked out the constant of proportionality mentioned above, it meant that you can hover a box of size R and energy S < 2piER and get any closer to the horizon than R. This is now called the Bekenstein Bound.

That has the profound consequence that the most entropy that can be contained in a surface area A is proportional to A/4 (Planck units).

t'Hooft took this further and argued that the quantum states in a finite region must be encoded on the boundary of that region rather than a volume (and indeed, it's been suggested by at least one person I know of -- Lee Smolin -- that some quantum computation won't be helped by building into the third dimension, I don't remember where I read him speculate on that but I know that he did). It's already a consequence of earlier, more classical black hole thermodynamics that we know the entropy of a black hole is associated with the area (not the volume) of the event horizon.

Susskind came along and tried to make a little more sense of what it means to have a hard entropic limit in a finite space. He basically pointed out that it doesn't matter whether there's something about the universe that "doesn't like" >A/4 entropy in an area because if you tried to put >A/4 stuff in an area, you'd just end up with a black hole, which would reduce the entropy down to A/4, which would mean that you were never able to put >A/4 "stuff" there in the first place by reductio ad absurdum.

Talk about imaginations running wild, and being based solely upon on 'that' what is essentially nothing more than just assumptions or guesses about what only might be true anyway.

At least they are educated 'assumptions' based on having spent years studying the subject and the work of others who have studied it all of their adult lives. I don't have to visit Uranus to know that I wouldn't be able to survive there.

ANY 'assumption', so-called 'educated' or not is STILL just A GUESS (about what MIGHT BE or MIGHT NOT BE true).

I found if one just LOOKS AT what is ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, then they do NOT HAVE TO 'assume' absolutely ANY thing.

See, the way the Universe ACTUALLY, IRREFUTABLY, and FUNDAMENTALLY IS, and how It works, can be SEEN, and KNOWN, without ANY 'assumptions' HAVING TO BE MADE, AT ALL.

[Age]

See, what ACTUALLY HAPPENS IS;

There once was a 'bang', let us just say about 13.7 billion years ago, from the day when this is being written, for the sake of this discussion. Now this 'bang' MUST OF come from some 'thing' PRIOR, which for all 'we' know could have been absolutely EVERY particle of matter infinitely compressed into just One singular piece of matter. Or, it could have just been ANOTHER piece of infinitely compressed piece, or object, of matter, among MANY other pieces, or objects, of infinitely compressed particles of matter, of varyingly different sizes. 'Infinitely compressed', just means that there is NO space AT ALL within that one single piece of matter. You know, like the 'space' within an atom, between and around the sub-atomic particles of matter. In 'singularity' there just is NO 'space' AT ALL.

Now, whatever occurs to make an object expand then there obviously HAS TO BE a 'space' around that object for the object to be ABLE TO 'expand'. Which ULTIMATELY and IRREFUTABLY MEANS that there IS 'space' AND 'matter', ALWAYS. As has ALREADY BEEN PROVED True, and can further be PROVED True to those who are NOT YET familiar with this idea. Oh, and by the way, the SIMPLE REASON WHY it is CLAIMED, "But we do NOT ACTUALLY know what was BEFORE that 'bang' IS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY we do NOT know this. See, EVERY time some material 'thing' or 'object' EXPLODES or EXPANDS, if there was NO KNOWN comprehension of what that 'thing'/'object' LOOKED LIKE BEFORE, expansion of 'it', then there is NO way to ACCURATELY put 'it' back together AGAIN, EXACTLY how it was BEFORE. This can NOT be done accurately, physically NOR theoretically. BUT we ALL KNOW, INSTINCTIVELY that there HAS TO BE some 'thing' for AN EXPLOSION or EXPANSION to FIRST OCCUR. But if ANY one WANTS to ASSUME or BELIEVE that absolutely EVERY thing could have come from absolutely NO 'thing' AT ALL, or from some OTHER 'thing', then they are absolutely FREE to do so.

Anyway, if this 'bang' happened, which could just be the result of two objects colliding, or as more and more matter is being added to One singular object of matter that 'it' just started inflating, and/or self-exloding, and EXPANDING, then there IS 'matter' EXPANDING, AFTER the 'bang'.

Now, when the 'Universe' word is being defined as; Everything, TOTALITY, ALL-THERE-IS or EVERY thing, then, IF there was just One singular piece of infinitely compressed matter, at the moment of that 'bang', then, OBVIOUSLY, this One piece was either infinite itself, or of some particular size and surrounded by absolutely NOTHING AT ALL. If One singular piece of matter was infinite in size, then it could NOT expand, NOR could even go 'bang'. So, what this means is; IF there was One single piece of matter, then there was 'space' or a distance of absolutely NOTHING around it. Which further means that at that particular 'time' or 'moment' that was just the way the Universe was. The Universe was just in that shape or form.

Now, it could be the case that there was just absolutely NOTHING AT ALL, which would again just be the way the Universe was, and would have just been the shape or form of the Universe, 'back then'. BUT, if there was ONLY just absolutely NO 'thing' AT ALL, then OBVIOUSLY NOTHING ELSE could have even 'come-to-be'.

The 'Universe' IS ALWAYS in some shape and form, which ALWAYS consists of 'matter' AND 'space', and whatever shape and form the 'Universe' IS in, at ANY particular moment, the 'Universe' is ALWAYS CHANGING in shape and form, CONTINUOUSLY. (To some this may sound somewhat contradictory, but it is NOT. As can be explained.)

Now, the 'Universe' is ALWAYS, FUNDAMENTALLY, made up of 'matter' AND 'space'. So, what this means is at the moment of when this is being written, no matter how far out matter is spread, or has expanded, and/or is still expanding, there is ALWAYS an area of 'space' BEYOND, or AROUND 'objects' AND 'particles' of 'matter'. And, OBVIOUSLY there is NO limit NOR end to 'space', itself, (other than 'matter', itself, of course), 'space' just, essentially, being 'the distance' separating 'matter', itself, at the sub-atomic level AND at the classical level. So, no matter what WAY ANY one wants to LOOK AT and SEE the 'Universe', (with the above definition), then what can be CLEARLY SEEN is that the 'Universe' IS INFINITE, spatially, and IS ETERNAL, temporally, and at Its most BASIC and FUNDAMENTALLY level is just made up of the TWO 'things' of 'matter' AND 'space'. The reason 'energy' exists is because when 'matter' interacts with itself it causes friction, which creates an 'energy source', which is creating a 'reaction' process. ALWAYS has and ALWAYS will. This action/reaction process creates CHANGE, which is, essentially, just 'evolution', itself.

When 'matter' is NOT 'interacting', NOR 'reacting', with itself, then it is just moving about, or floating, absolutely FREELY, " in 'space' ", as some might call it, and NOT 'creating' ANY thing. But because it is 'moving' or 'in motion' from a previous 'action', or 're-action', then these objects/particles are either moving AWAY from each other or moving TOWARDS each other, or spinning in equilibrium with each other.

When 'matter' has 'mass' there is an 'attraction' process that naturally occurs, and it is this 'attraction', which causes what is called 'gravity'. The word 'gravity' just refers to the process of 'matter' with more mass, 'attracting' or 'pulling towards' it 'matter' with less mass.

From the time of that 'bang', when A piece of 'matter' inflated, exploded, or expanded, APART, creating 'distances', or 'space' between, and/or around 'them', then 'EXPANSION' continues UNTIL objects, which are forming, of greater mass start drawing other pieces/objects of matter towards it.

Now, because objects, themselves, are moving completely FREELY, WITH 'space' around them, (until they interact or react with other matter), a 'spin' can begin, and with this 'spin', a 'north' and 'south' pole is created, or the 'positve' and 'negative' fields of magnetism is created. These objects are forming or creating a 'magnetic energy'.

It is this magnetic 'energy' or 'force', which is what KEEPS objects in their 'relative distance' and 'spin' around each. The 'attraction' and 'repeling' 'magnetic energy force' KEEPING 'things' in relative uniformity or equilibrium, but obviously with 'expansion' AND 'contraction' STILL occurring. 'Attraction' just being 'gravity', and, 'repeling' just being 'expansion'. (Or in other words, the word 'gravity' meaning 'attracting' and the word 'attraction' here, just referring to 'contraction', or 'gravity'. While, the 'expansion' word just meaning 'repeling' and the word 'repeling' word referring to 'expansion', itself.

'The reason more 'red shift' is SEEN 'further afield' is just because what is being LOOKED AT, is just FURTHER BACK 'time wise', WHERE EXPANSION would OBVIOUSLY be greater than it is NOW, at ANY other 'time' AFTER 'that bang'.

The reason it is said that there was NO 'time' BEFORE, or up until, the 'big bang inflation' is just because if there was just SINGULARITY, or just One singular piece of matter, then there could NOT be what the word 'time' means or refers to, EXACTLY.

What is generally referred to as 'time' is just the measurement of CHANGE, itself. What is called 'time' is ACTUALLY measured by, or just in relation to, 'light', itself, ONLY. The measuring of 'light', or maybe more correctly, 'the measuring of the movement of the SHADOW of light' is how and when what is generally known as 'time' REALLY began, and all what are known as 'time measuring devices' were in correlation of 'light' alone.

But what the word 'time' can actually mean and refer to, EXACTLY, is just the measuring between two, perceived, events, and it is the CHANGE between two, perceived, events what the word 'time' is ALWAYS in relation to, EXACTLY.

Now, if there was ONLY SINGULARITY prior to what is called 'the big bang', then because just ONE 'thing' ALONE can NOT change, then there WAS NO such thing as what is called 'time', when the Universe, Itself, was in that shape and form. So, what is known as 'time' could have only begun AFTER that One object became at least two.

For any more information, please feel FREE to ask.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Talk about imaginations running wild, and being based solely upon on 'that' what is essentially nothing more than just assumptions or guesses about what only might be true anyway.

At least they are educated 'assumptions' based on having spent years studying the subject and the work of others who have studied it all of their adult lives. I don't have to visit Uranus to know that I wouldn't be able to survive there.

ANY 'assumption', so-called 'educated' or not is STILL just A GUESS (about what MIGHT BE or MIGHT NOT BE true).

I found if one just LOOKS AT what is ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, then they do NOT HAVE TO 'assume' absolutely ANY thing.

See, the way the Universe ACTUALLY, IRREFUTABLY, and FUNDAMENTALLY IS, and how It works, can be SEEN, and KNOWN, without ANY 'assumptions' HAVING TO BE MADE, AT ALL.

You are just making an ass of yourself you uneducated, arrogant know-nothing.

[Age]

At least they are educated 'assumptions' based on having spent years studying the subject and the work of others who have studied it all of their adult lives. I don't have to visit Uranus to know that I wouldn't be able to survive there.

ANY 'assumption', so-called 'educated' or not is STILL just A GUESS (about what MIGHT BE or MIGHT NOT BE true).

I found if one just LOOKS AT what is ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, then they do NOT HAVE TO 'assume' absolutely ANY thing.

See, the way the Universe ACTUALLY, IRREFUTABLY, and FUNDAMENTALLY IS, and how It works, can be SEEN, and KNOWN, without ANY 'assumptions' HAVING TO BE MADE, AT ALL.

You are just making an ass of yourself you uneducated, arrogant know-nothing.

Would you care to list ALL, or even just one, of the 'things', which you ASSUME I am "making an ass of myself" out of?

Then we can SEE who the ACTUAL 'ass' is here.