[ExI] Dark mass = matter that is "elsewhere"?

Tue Sep 5 01:16:04 UTC 2017

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:

> 
> Let's forget about partices and the
> 
> velocity distribution for a moment. The more fundamental thermodynamic
> 
> concept is the Equipartition of Energy Theorem.
> 
> The theorem states that the total energy of a system is shared equally
> 
> amongst all available degrees of freedom of a system such that each degree
> 
> of freedom i contains Ei=kT/2 energy.

We can't forget about particles because that theorem involved temperature
and you can't have temperature without particles, even light is made pf
particles. It related
the temperature of a system with
the
 average
energy
 of the particles in it, and classical physics said the kinetic energy of
a particle is proportional to it's velocity squared but Einstein said that
is only an approximation that only works at modest speeds.     

>
> 
> This theorem is why entropy always increases.

No law of physics alone can explain why entropy always increases, initial
conditions are also involved. The laws of classical physics can explain how
one particle in a system moving in a straight line much faster than average
can transition into a system of lots of particles moving in lots of
different directions that are moving only very slightly faster than they
were before. And it can explain how even though the second system has as
much energy as the first less work can be extracted from it because work is
a force applied in a specific direction not in lots of different
directions. And because there are more ways to be disordered than ordered
the laws of l physics can explain why Entropy will be greater tomorrow than
it is today. But

laws

can not explain why Entropy was less yesterday than today, after all if
there are far more disordered states than ordered ones

then

the probability is overwhelming that the previous state of universe was one
of those states.

The only way out of this mess is to remember that the laws of physics are
not all you need to know, you also need to know the initial conditions, you
need to  assume that everything started out in a very low entropy state.

T
here was a discontinuity at one end of the time line called the Big Bang
and, although we don’t yet know enough to be certain, there may not even be
another end to
that

line and it may go on endlessly.

> 
> the CDM model predicts a far higher number of dwarf galaxies that
> 
> our telescopes tell us are not there.

Whatever problems the Cold Dark Model has they are trivial compared to

the hot Dark Matter Model's problems..

> > 
> I am not
> 
> commited to FTL baryons.

That's good, I think it would be a good idea to abandon the FTL stuff.

> > 
> Other possibilities spring to mind. Such as
> 
> networks of microscopic wormholes instead of space noodles.These
> microwormholes could gravitationally connect the six distinct causal
> 
> cells that are separated by the speed of light and closed to the other
> 
> fundamental forces.

If they're not causally disconnected from ALL forces including gravity
then you could in theory send a message faster than light, and that means (
unless you dump Einstein completely and start from square one) you could
communicate with the past, and that produces logical contradictions.     

> > 
> Galaxies beyond the Hubble radius for example

Unless Einstein is dead wrong (and it's not wise

to bet against Einstein) those galaxies can never have any effect on us,
and because the universe is not only expanding but accelerating the number
of galaxies that can effect us is
decreasing. In the far far future our universe will consist of the Milky
Way and nothing else, like what astronomers thought the entire universe
consisted of before about 1920 when Edwin Hubble discovered that other
galaxies besides ours
existed 
in the universe. It turns out astronomers before Hubble wen't wrong just
premature.

> 
> Forget FTL baryons. Think space-like matter because that is
> 
> all my math truly implies. I am just following where my math leads. My
> 
> math says that the lightcone / hypersphere 4 volume ratio predicts the
> 
> proportion of dark energy by mass in the universe to be (1-1/pi) ~ 68.17%
> 
> as compared to the 68.3% as measured by the Planck satellite.
> 
> That is within +/- 10^-4 orders of magnitude. That makes my estimate way
> 
> more accurate than the QFT guys who were off by 120 orders of magnitude.
>

That 120

orders of magnitude

error concerns Dark Energy not Dark Matter

and I haven't heard you say much about that

, it's the thing that causes the universe to accelerate. Dark Energy

amounts

to a repulsive effect that

comes from space itself
 and
Einstein predicted
 that could happen.
And people working with quantum mechanics found that empty space

should indeed have a repulsive effect, but the numbers were huge,

gigantic
,
astronomical, so large that the universe would blow itself

apart in far far less
time 
than a billionth of a nanosecond.

This was clearly

a nonsensical result but most

weren't too worried because they

felt that once a quantum theory of gravity

was discovered a way would be found to cancel this out and the true

value of

that

repulsive effect

would be

exactly

zero.

But then less than 20 years ago

it was observed that
it isn't zero, 
the universe
is
accelerating, so now theoreticians must find a

way to cancel out

everything EXCEPT for one part in

10^120, a vastly more difficult task.

There are only about 10^90 atoms in the observable universe.

>
>> > 
>> Dark Matter particles very rarely fall into the central black hole because
>> 
>> they'd have to be heading directly toward it and all black holes are very
>> 
>> small targets.  For a particle of matter (dark or regular it makes no
>> 
>> difference) in orbit around a black hole (and it will be in orbit unless
>> it
>> 
>> is heading directly toward it) to actually spiral into it the angular
>> 
>> momentum of the particle must be reduced and by a lot because the Black
>> 
>> Hole is so small.  When any sort of matter, dark or regular, gets close to
>> 
>> a black hole it is moving very fast, but to spiral in it's got to slow
>> down
>> and get rid of most of that angular momentum.  Regular particles can do
>> 
>> that by interacting with other particles, but Dark Matter particles can't
>> 
>> so unless they're precisely aimed at it they never fall in.
>
>
> > 
> Why wouldn't CDM particles radiate away their angular momentum in the form
> of gravitational waves and spiral into the black hole eventually?
>

For the same reason the Earth hasn't radiated away all it's angular
momentum in the form of gravitational waves and fallen into the sun, at the
very modest acceleration the Earth or Dark Matter particles undergo (except
for a very very small number that are aimed almost directly at the tiny
central Black Hole)  it would take about a million billion trillion years
or so to make any significant change in the orbit and the universe is only
13.8 billion years old.

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170904/182acb50/attachment.html>