<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:10 PM, 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><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>all particles are also waves. And the Equipartition Theorem works for<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>waves as well.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">Actually the Equipartition Theorem failed to predict how blackbody radiation works, it said anything above absolute zero should radiate an infinite amount of energy and obviously that's not correct, in fact it was this very failure that forced Max Planck to dream up quantum theory. </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">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>The beginning eigenstate effectively had an energy and entropy of zero<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>because both rely on differences between two or more states to have<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>meaning.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>A single state with no other states to compare it to has zero<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>energy and entropy.</blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">I<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> would</div> say in that situation energy and entropy would be undefined not zero.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>And we've known for 90 years that at the very largest scale, the cosmological scale, if Spacetime is curved<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>energy is not conserved<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>under<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>General<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Relativity. This is because Noether's Theorem<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>tells us that the conservation of energy is equivalent to time<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>translation invariance, that is to say the fundamental laws that determine how things move do not change with time; but if<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Spacetime is curved then they do change, so energy is not<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>conserved. For example consider all the photons in interstellar space, as space expands with time the number of photons remains the same but each individual photon is redshifted and<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>thus<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>has less energy than it did before.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Much more recently physicists discovered<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>it works the opposite way for Dark Energy because the vacuum energy<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>of<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>empty space<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>remains the same but the total amount of empty space increases so the total amount of energy in the<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>universe increases too. However nobody<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>needed to rewrite physics textbooks 90 years ago because energy is conserved<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>locally<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>if Spacetime is flat as it is in Newtonian physics.</font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><font size="4"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">And this has been confirmed experimentally,<wbr> the percentage of the various elements that comprise ordinary matter depends on how fast the universe was expanding during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang, and that depends on the changing radiation energy density of the universe. The calculated percentage of elements and the observed values are almost identical.</font></div></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><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">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>One of the solutions it yielded was a universe where radius is a function<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>of the universe's density. It starts out at zero density and radius,<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>increases in density and radius gradually through a flex point early on.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Then as the density approaches an assymptote at located at twice the<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>critical density Dc = 3H^2/(8*pi*G), the radius shoots up to infinity!<br></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">I'm very suspicious of that H term. It may be called "The Hubble constant<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>" but it's not constant, the name is a historical accident coined at a time when everybody thought the rate of expansion has never changed, or at least not changed by much. But we now know<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>the rate of expansion of the universe has never been<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>even close to being <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>constant, very early the expansion rate was enormous then it slowed down by a lot and continued to slow down for about 8 billion years, and then<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>about 6 billion years ago it started accelerating again. Right now we say the Hubble<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>"constant"<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>is 160 km/sec per million-light-year<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">s</div>,<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>but that figure will change, by how much nobody is quite sure.</font><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>Communicating using gravity is patently ridiculous.</blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">The sun communicates with the Earth with gravity telling it to keep moving in an elliptical path, but the sun as it was 8 minutes ago or less is not telling the Earth anything because that region of Spacetime is not causally connected to anything on the Earth as it is right now, but it will be in 8 minutes. </font></div><font size="4"> </font></div><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"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>The energy required to<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>generate gravity waves far exceeds the energy to just visit in person and<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>deliver the message yourself. Of course if I wanted to send a message into<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>the past, somehow ringing a black hole like a bell would be how I would do<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>it.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">The energy required is not the issue, </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">gravity</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> waves don't travel faster than light, and sending messages into the past creates logical contradictions. Even </div>quantum <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>entanglement<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> won't let you communicate faster than light. </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>In any case it seems that gravity/dark energy somehow connect causally<br>
disconnected parts of the universe.</blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">If those regions of Spacetime are causally connected then something must travel faster than light, then you can use that something to send messages into the past, and they you're in big BIG logical trouble. </div> </font></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><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>When I mathematically modelled dark energy and causal cells, I came up<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>with some very interesting discoveries. Dark energy and gravity are part<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>of the same scalar potential field and related vector field. I have<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>equations for these fields but ascii text is not the best medium to convey<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>vector field equations.The point is they are the same kind of force! </blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">Gravity is attractive, Dark Energy is repulsive. Gravity gets weaker as the universe expands and the density of matter becomes less , but unlike gravity Dark Energy does not originate from matter but seems to be a property of space itself, so it never gets diluted regardless of how empty the universe gets. </font></div></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><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4"><br></font></div><br></div></div></div>