[ExI] Dark Energy and Causal Cells

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Sun Feb 25 18:21:09 UTC 2018

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:

> >  The calculated value would be even larger, infinite in fact, if
>> certain assumptions were not made, assumptions that don't have a scrap of
>> experimental evidence of support, such as distances can't get smaller than
>> 1.63*10^-35 meters and time can't get shorter than 5.39*10^-44 seconds.
> *> Lol. Last time we had *this* discussion, it was you who was trying to
> convince me that space-time was pixelated while I was arguing for the
> continuum. Ironic eh?*

Something has to be quantized for a quantum theory of gravity, but it might
not be space or time that is, maybe we'll find something more fundamental
than either of this things that is quantized. Or maybe unlike just about
everything else in nature gravity just isn't quantized, maybe the and Real
Numbers really are real and gravity makes use of them, maybe that's why
gravity seems so different from the other fundamental forces; but even if
that is the case General Relativity would still need to be supplemented to
explain what's going on at the center of a Black Hole.

 *> Dark Energy supposedly caused inflation.*

Nobody knows if Dark Energy caused inflation or if they are unrelated
phenomenon, its true that they both cause space to expand but whatever
caused inflation was astronomically more powerful than Dark Energy. During
inflation he expansion was exponential which means it had a fixed doubling
time, in this case every 10^-37 seconds the diameter of the universe
doubled. In 10^-35 seconds it doubled a hundred times and it probably
continued doubling for much longer than 10^-35 seconds. Dark Energy, as far
as we know, can’t do anything like that.

*>  why did inflation ever end?*

That is a very good question. According to Andrei Linde's Eternal Inflation
idea inflation never did end. Alan Guth, the inventor of inflation,
postulated an inflation field that decayed away in a process somewhat
analogous to radioactive half life, and after the decay the universe
expanded at a much much much more leisurely pace. But then Linde proved
that for Guth's idea to work the inflation field had to expand faster than
it decayed, Linde called it "Eternal Inflation". Linde showed that for
every volume in which the inflation field decays away 2 other volumes don't
decay. So one universe becomes 3, the field decays in one universe but not
in the other 2, then both of those two universes splits in 3 again and the
inflation field decays away in two of them but doesn't decay in the other
4.  And it goes on like this forever creating a multiverse.

>>  it seems to me there is circularity in your argument.
> *> The same criticism could be made of Maxwell's Theory of
> Electromagnetism.A changing electric field generates a changing magnetic
> field that creates a changing electric field that creates a changing
> magnetic field. And round and round we go.*

Maxwell said a changing electrical field causes a magnetic field, and a
changing magnetic field creates a electric field, and if the rate of change
of the progenitor field is accelerating the resulting field will be
changing. And so you get a wave. There is nothing circular in that

* > The key is that both theories are about time-dependent phenomena that
> manifest as waves and waves and circles are mathematically related.*

Maxwell's wave equation only has the time variable on one side, it has
space on the other side. Put in the time on one side and it will give you
the electric and magnetic field at any point in space on the other side;
but you have the time variable on both sides because both the scaling
factor and the Hubble "constant" are both functions of time.

You say S(t)= H (t)^2*h*G/c^5  but H(t) depends on the acceleration of the
universe, which depends on the Dark Energy density, which depends on the
scaling factor S(t). So H(t) = S(t) *C1 where C1 is some constant, your
theory does not tell us what C1 is and it can only be obtained by
observation.  So  S(t)= [S(t)*C1]^2*h/c^5,  but C1^2*h/c^5 is also a
constant , lets call it C2. Now you get:

S(t)= [S(t) ]^2*C2

The only way that could be true would be if S(t)=0 for all values of t, but
that doesn’t work because we know from observation the universe is
accelerating and the Dark Energy density is not zero.

 *> Look, John, I am just an amateur no longer affiliated with any
> university and my background is in microbiology not physics. I am kind of
> out of my depth here. So what would you suggest I do to improve my theory?
> What do you think I should do with it?*

Just keep at it, who knows maybe you'll find something others have missed,
sometimes a
amateur can strike gold
and even it you don't you'll have learned a lot in the attempt. By the way,
I don't know if it means anything but I still think its sorta neat that you
found a dimensionless number of such magnitude.

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20180225/d97fa463/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list