[ExI] Dark Energy and Causal Cells

Stuart LaForge avant at sollegro.com
Sat Jan 20 03:21:02 UTC 2018

>> A causal cell is a finite volume of space-time enclosed by an event
>> ? ?
>> horizon wherein all observers should agree on the temporal ordering of ?
>> events
> If you and I are moving with respect to each other we won't agree on the
> temporal ordering of events if the events happen at different positions in
>  space.

Ok, let me a rephrase that again:
A causal cell is a finite volume of space-time enclosed by an event
horizon wherein all inertial observers should agree on the temporal
ordering of time-like or light-like separated events, thus sharing an
arrow of time.

In other words, if there was any possible way A could have caused B, then
we would all agree that A happened before B.

>>> Is
>>> [a causal cell]
>>> the volume of the universe that could have had a effect on us ?, ?
>>> or the volume of we can see now, or the volume we can still effect?
>>> Those
>>> are 3 different volumes and if its the last 2 its shrinking with the ?
>>> passage of time.

>> Technically it is none of those volumes. In our specific case, it is the
>> Hubble volume.
> If your "causal cell" is the Hubble volume then it is case #2 that I
> mentioned above, it is the volume of the universe we can see now. If they
> mean the same thing I think it would be wise to use the more standard
> term rather than one you made up, it would help avoid confusion.

Firstly, "now" is a word fraught with peril in General Relativity. Whose
now? My now? Your now? The now of galaxy at the edge of the cosmic event
horizon? All those nows are different. Furthermore, most real things in
physics cannot resolve actual mathematical *points* in space-time. There
is too much quantum fuzziness, so for normal matter "here" and "now" are
small intervals and not mathematical points.

Secondly, my term "causal cell" is more general than "Hubble volume". The
Hubble volume is an example of a causal cell. As are the space-times
within all black holes and white holes. Any space-time enclosed in an
event horizon is a causal cell.

Furthermore, there is no real equivalent term in physics that can fit the
bill. Unless you want to go with "holes", "grey holes", or "desegregated
holes" or some such silliness. Moreover, most of the time, I am talking
about their interiors. So I feel completely justified defining the term
and using it.

>> It is a volume of space-time enclosed in a spherical shell
>> whose surface area A multiplied by the average density D of the space
>> enclosed is equal to a constant I call L.
> If L=A*D then L can not be a constant because, due to the expansion and
> acceleration of the universe, the area A of the Hubble volume is
> shrinking, and so is the density of the Hubble volume.

I know that equation looks ridiculously simple but it is derived from the
Schwartzschild metric and as counter intuitive as it sounds, a
white-hole's density should *increase* as it loses matter and energy and
its event horizon shrinks. It's baked right into the definition of the
Schwartzschild radius.

>> Yes, causal cells are not invariant. What is invariant is the product of
>> the density and event horizon surface area of a casual cell.
> I don't see how that could be if both are shrinking.

That's just it. It is not possible for both of them to be shrinking. The
Friedmann Equations are wrong because they are based on the
Robertson-Walker metric. The R-W metric takes it as an assumption the
universe is isotropic and homogeneous. While observations clearly indicate
it is neither.

The universe cannot possibly be isotropic because you have anisotropies in
the CMB manifesting as cold spots and hot spots. And more importantly, the
so-called-universe cannot possibly be homogeneous because there is an
actual bona-fide event horizon 14 billion light years away from us.

Event horizons are barriers to causal mixing because time is running at
right angles on either side of them. Therefore thermodynamic equilibrium
cannot be achieved across them.

The Robertson-Walker metric is wrong and everything predicted by it is
paradoxical bullshit.

>> However you
>> do hit upon a spot that is giving me a bit of trouble in my math. My
>> math predicts that the our causal should be shrinking,
> That's not a bug that's a feature, if causal cell means Hubble volume
> then the math should say its shrinking because it is shrinking.

Yes, but it should also be getting more dense. Eventually we could be the
only galaxy in our causal cell. Surely you can see how one galaxy could be
denser than the so-called universe is now?

> I think if you're going to talk about reversing the arrow of time you
> can't just stick with General Relativity, you're going to have to get into
>  Quantum Mechanics because CPT Symmetry says a observer couldn't tell if
> time reversed direction,...well..., that is to say an observer couldn't
> tell if positive and negative electrical charge was also reversed and
> things were viewed in a mirror.

If I want to bring electrical charges into it, I have to switch from
Schwarzschild metric to Reissner–Nordström metric. Maybe later, after I
have the fundamentals down.

Stuart LaForge

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list