<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Stuart LaForge </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:avant@sollegro.com" target="_blank">avant@sollegro.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Let's forget about partices and the<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>velocity distribution for a moment. The more fundamental thermodynamic<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>concept is the Equipartition of Energy Theorem.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>The theorem states that the total energy of a system is shared equally<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>amongst all available degrees of freedom of a system such that each degree<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>of freedom i contains Ei=kT/2 energy.</blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">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 <br>the temperature of a system with <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">the</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> average </div>energy<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> 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. </div></font><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>This theorem is why entropy always increases.</blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px"></span></font></div><font size="4">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<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>laws<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>can not explain why Entropy was less yesterday than today, after all if there are far more disordered states than ordered ones<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>then<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>the probability is overwhelming that the previous state of universe was one of those states. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">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.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div></font><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">T</div><span style="font-size:large">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 </span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">that</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div><span style="font-size:large"> line and it may go on endlessly.</span></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>the CDM model predicts a far higher number of dwarf galaxies that<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div></span><span style="font-size:12.8px">our telescopes tell us are not there.</span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">Whatever problems the Cold Dark Model has they are trivial compared to</font></div><font size="4"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">the hot Dark Matter Model's problems..</div></font></div></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>I am not<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>commited to FTL baryons.</blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">That's good, I think it would be a good idea to abandon the FTL stuff.</div> </font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Other possibilities spring to mind. Such as<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>networks of microscopic wormholes instead of space noodles.These microwormholes could gravitationally connect the six distinct causal<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>cells that are separated by the speed of light and closed to the other<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>fundamental forces.</blockquote><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">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 (</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">unless you dump Einstein completely and start from square one) you could communicate with the past, and that produces logical contradictions. </font> </div> </div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Galaxies beyond the Hubble radius for example</blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Unless Einstein is dead wrong (and it's not wise</div> </font><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font size="4"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">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 </font></font></div><font size="4">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 <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">existed </div>in the universe. It turns out astronomers before Hubble wen't wrong just premature.</font> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Forget FTL baryons. Think space-like matter because that is<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>all my math truly implies. I am just following where my math leads. My<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>math says that the lightcone / hypersphere 4 volume ratio predicts the<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>proportion of dark energy by mass in the universe to be (1-1/pi) ~ 68.17%<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>as compared to the 68.3% as measured by the Planck satellite.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>That is within +/- 10^-4 orders of magnitude. That makes my estimate way<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>more accurate than the QFT guys who were off by 120 orders of magnitude.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>That 120<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>orders of magnitude<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>error concerns Dark Energy not Dark Matter<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>and I haven't heard you say much about that<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>, it's the thing that causes the universe to accelerate. Dark Energy<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>amounts<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>to a repulsive effect that<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>comes from space itself<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> and </div>Einstein predicted<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> that could happen. </div></font><span style="font-size:large">And people working with quantum mechanics found that empty space</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">should indeed have a repulsive effect, but the numbers were huge,</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">gigantic<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">,</div> astronomical, so large that the universe would blow itself</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">apart in far far less <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">time </div>than a billionth of a nanosecond. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:large"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:large">This was clearly</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">a nonsensical result but most</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">weren't too worried because they</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">felt that once a quantum theory of gravity</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">was discovered a way would be found to cancel this out and the true</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">value of</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">that</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">repulsive effect</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">would be</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">exactly</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">zero.</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">But then less than 20 years ago </span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div><span style="font-size:large">it was observed that </span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">it isn't zero, </div><span style="font-size:large">the universe </span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">is </div><span style="font-size:large">accelerating, so now theoreticians must find a</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">way to cancel out</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">everything EXCEPT for one part in</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">10^120, a vastly more difficult task.</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:large">There are only about 10^90 atoms in the observable universe.</span></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><font size="4">
><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Dark Matter particles very rarely fall into the central black hole because<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>they'd have to be heading directly toward it and all black holes are very<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>small targets. For a particle of matter (dark or regular it makes no<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>difference) in orbit around a black hole (and it will be in orbit unless it<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div></font><font size="4">is heading directly toward it) to actually spiral into it the angular<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>momentum of the particle must be reduced and by a lot because the Black<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Hole is so small. When any sort of matter, dark or regular, gets close to<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>a black hole it is moving very fast, but to spiral in it's got to slow down<br></font><font size="4">and get rid of most of that angular momentum. Regular particles can do<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>that by interacting with other particles, but Dark Matter particles can't<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>so unless they're precisely aimed at it they never fall in.</font></blockquote>
<br>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Why wouldn't CDM particles radiate away their angular momentum in the form<br>
of gravitational waves and spiral into the black hole eventually?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">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. </font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">John K Clark</font></div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>