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

Stuart LaForge avant at sollegro.com
Thu Sep 14 20:10:10 UTC 2017

John Clark wrote:

>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
> average
​> 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.     ​

But all particles are also waves. And the Equipartition Theorem works for
waves as well.

>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.

Right now my math has me thinking that the universe started out as a
single wavefunction in a single quantum state i.e. the ground state. From
there it transitioned to a higher energy state that consisted of seven
total eigenstates somewhat like atomic orbitals. Six 1st degree
hyperspherical harmonics that are degenerate to one another and the
original 0th degree harmonic.

The beginning eigenstate effectively had an energy and entropy of zero
because both rely on differences between two or more states to have
meaning. A single state with no other states to compare it to has zero
energy and entropy.

You don't get much lower entropy than that.

>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
>line and it may go on endlessly.

I have developed some new field equations that combine gravity and dark
energy into the same scalar potential field. It has many useful properties
one of which is that it allowed me to derive solutions for what I call the
zero net energy universe!

What I did was take my new scalar potential field and integrated it by
mass to find an expression for the potential energy stored in that field.
Then I set the potential energy of the field to exactly cancel the mass
energy of the field. i.e. U(r) = -mc^2.

One of the solutions it yielded was a universe where radius is a function
of the universe's density. It starts out at zero density and radius,
increases in density and radius gradually through a flex point early on.
Then as the density approaches an assymptote at located at twice the
critical density Dc = 3H^2/(8*pi*G), the radius shoots up to infinity!

In other words my model allows a universe to start from nothing and grow
to infinity without adding energy to the system because dark energy, the
energy of space itself, is creating such that the total mass energy and
the energy of expansion itself always balance out to zero.

This means that the universe didn't explode into existence, it crystalized
out of the void and has been steadily growing from there.

Here is the appropriate equation for playing with my model normalized to
make it unitless:

P:=normalized radius = R/Rh  (Radius of universe/Hubble radius).
Q:=normalized density = D/Dc (Density of the universe/Critical density)
Note: Q is omega from the Friedman equations.

P = Sqrt(10/(3*(1-2*(2/Q)^(1/3)+2/Q)))

For reference, Rh = c/H and Dc = 3H^2/(8*pi*G,)with c being speed of
light, G is the gravitational constant, and H is the Hubble constant.

>> 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.     ​

Communicating using gravity is patently ridiculous. The energy required to
generate gravity waves far exceeds the energy to just visit in person and
deliver the message yourself. Of course if I wanted to send a message into
the past, somehow ringing a black hole like a bell would be how I would do

In any case it seems that gravity/dark energy somehow connect causally
disconnected parts of the universe. Perhaps the discrete causal cells are
connected by a network of quantumly entangled gravitons. Or perhaps on
account of their low energy, gravitons are gigantic and literally are in
multiple causal cells as once by virtue of their enormous wavelengths.

I have been too busy modelling dark energy to nail down a mechanism for
dark matter yet but those are some possibilities.

>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

Yes. It seems like a sad fate, matter being diluted out into ever
expanding space like a contaminant rather than being all we ever knew and

>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
>to a repulsive effect that
>comes from space itself
​> and
>Einstein predicted
​> that could happen.​

When I mathematically modelled dark energy and causal cells, I came up
with some very interesting discoveries. Dark energy and gravity are part
of the same scalar potential field and related vector field. I have
equations for these fields but ascii text is not the best medium to convey
vector field equations.

The point is they are the same kind of force! They are both inertial
forces that produce the same accelerations on a particle regardless of the
mass of that particle based entirely on the position of that particle.
Further both are curl-free although in the case of the dark energy term, I
have not rigorously proved this.

I suspect that space-like located matter might contribute curl to the
vector field giving the appearence of dark matter but I have yet to work
that out yet.

The divergence of the vector field A is given by div(A) = 3H^2-3*G*m/r^3,
where m is some mass at the origin, r is the distance of some point in
space from the origin. H is the Hubble parameter and G is the
gravitational constant.

The same equation can be converted to density to eliminate the point mass,
div(A) = 3H^2-4*pi*G*d with d being the density of the space contained
within a spherical surface of radius r from the origin.

The equation for the scalar potential V(r) at some point at radius r from
the origin on the surface of some sphere with density d is

V(r) =(Z-H^2-4*pi*G*d/3)*r^2

where Z is a constant of integration that I set in order make the maximum
of the curve exactly zero since potential energy is defined to be
negative. Z = 2*(4*pi*G*H*d/3)^(2/3)

Note that this is markedly different than in the Newtonian system where
zero potential is set at infinite radius. In my equations there is a
special radius Ro = (G*m/H^2) where the density d of the sphere enclosing
the mass is d = 3H^2/(4*pi*G) that is of zero potential. The
density-dependent version of the potential also falls to zero at the
origin. So there are no infinite potentials.

The zero potential sphere at Ro has zero divergence along its boundary but
it's neighborhood acts a source of space. If you model the vector field as
fluid, then the surface of the Ro sphere divides space into an outer
region acting as source of the fluid while mass inside the sphere acts as
a sink for the fluid. Inside the sphere at Ro, the divergence is is
negative while on the outside, it is positive.

Incedently, the divergence at the Hubble radius is positive so space is
accumulating faster than it can be drained. Therefore the universe is

You can recover the vector field A by applying the gradient operator to
scalar field V in the normal fashion. The density form of the potential
actually makes it easy to convert back and forth from spherical to
cartesian coordinates. Just substitute x^2+y^2+z^2 for r^2.

Stuart LaForge

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list