Dark matter and Dark energy

[Darth Rotor]

Don't misquote me Ziggurat.

I have not stated I believe in an infinitely old universe ... just that the observations appear to suggest it must be much older than what the mainstream, Big Bang supporting community claims. And I've cited source after source and observation after observation to prove it. I've even cited mainstream astrophysicists admitting that there just isn't enough time for some of the observed structures to have been formed and it's "back to the drawing board." And your side's response has been been to ignore the problem. Par for the course with you Big Bang advocates.

BAC: a small semantic and communications nitpick here.

To be more accurate, it would be stronger to state that your cited sources support X, rather than prove X, since if it were proved, the disagreement/discussion would have ended with those sources being published.

And I've cited source after source and observation after observation to prove it.

Back to my popcorn, and enjoying the show.

ETA: Why is a thirty year cycle of significance to you, in terms of theories being found, or fundamental discoveries made? This seems as arbitrary an expectation as the predictions of Vesuvius being on a 50 year eruption cycle.

DR

 

[Belz...]

Please note that this image is not inconsistent with the theory by electric star theorists since they say that fusion is occuring near and above the surface of the sun for quite some distance (which would produce a neutrino image that gradually dims as one moves away from the sun).

It sounds to me like those theorists are trying to have it both ways: they're trying to admit that fusion is happening in a star, while keeping their pet theory.

Of course, the fact that their theory doesn't fit the facts seems irrelevant: the other stuff doesn't contradict it because they're turning it into a pot-pourri of other theories, as well.

 

[sol invictus]

I'm asking about reality, not imagined values. Say, a cubic meter measuring device orbiting in space, lets say a little farther than the orbit of our planet.

How much mass, and how much energy is going to be found? Both in the cubic meter of space (particles of all kinds), as well as energy (of all kinds) impacting our sensor.

If you convert the energy to mass, how much mass is there in that cubic meter of space? Or how much energy?

I know there are all kinds of problems even describing what that means.

I just wonder what is the mass/energy of reality. Both specific as well as the average.

The general version of the question has already been answered several times. The average mass/energy density of the universe is of order a few protons per cubic meter. The average density in galaxies is much higher, by a factor of at least 1000s. In the solar system it's still higher.

To answer your specific question, you'd need to know the density of particles in the solar system to get the mass. That's going to depend on whether the orbit you're asking about is in the plane of the ecliptic or not, where it is relative to the asteroid belt, etc. To get the EM energy is easy - you just take the total luminosity of the sun and divide it by the appropriate factor.

EDIT - a quick estimate says that the energy density in sunlight at the radius of the earth's orbit is the equivalent to a mass density of about 6*10^5 protons per cubic meter. I think the mass density in dust etc. is much higher than that at the same radius, at least in the plane of the ecliptic. If you actually want to know, search for solar system dust or something along those lines.

 

[BeAChooser]

My calculations make the critical density about 5 protons/cubic metre, which with a 4% baryon density is about one hydrogen atom every four cubic metres. Total matter, including dark, would be 1.6 or so hydrogen atoms per cubic metre.

I now have found found multiple mainstream sources that agree with sol in saying the average density of the universe is one hydrogen atom per cubic meter (whether that includes dark matter and dark energy as sol seemed to imply is not clear). But let's go with your 1.6 per cubic meter number. It makes no difference to the problem I see.

The universe is very strongly clustered up.

But not on the order of a 1000 to 1. That's not what I see in images like these which come from various mainstream simulations and real data:

http://constellationx.nasa.gov/images/science/science_goals/cosmology/whim_filaments.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/97021main_upper-left.jpg

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/images/435572a-f1.2.jpg

http://astronomy.sussex.ac.uk/~mif20/images/millenium.jpg

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2005/12/051212090013.jpg

http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/galdyn/universe_small.gif

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Survey_universe.jpg

If the empty voids in the above are almost 1 atom per cubic meter density, how can such a large fraction of everything else be much, much higher density yet still give an average of 1 atom per cubic meter? I'm still not convinced there isn't a discrepancy.

 

[BeAChooser]

Only the obvious: what's the angular resolution on these measurements

As I indicated, the image is said to cover a significant fraction of the sky (90x90 degrees in R.A. and Dec.). As seen from the earth, the sun occupies an angular region about 30 minutes in diameter. So the sun's diameter should only be about 0.6 percent of the width or height of that image. But as you can see, the strongest neutrino flux is coming from a region far larger than that.

Plus, the flux seems to GRADUALLY decrease over a distance far larger than the diameter of the sun would be in that image. If these neutrinos were coming from the center of the sun, I would expect to see a very bright spot and then almost all the rest of the image would be whatever constitutes the background. That is not what we see in that image.

Given some blurring

Why should there be any blurring in the image? Are neutrino *optics* imperfect?

and some background (which needn't be isotropic)

True, there should be a background intensity and it might not be isotropic, but the intensity around the sun's location in that image clearly falls off quite gradually as you move away from the sun. There is no reason the background sources should do that. None at all. So I don't think you've explained anything yet.

 

[BeAChooser]

Plasma is, in a way, a subset of "gas", is it not ?

It's an ionized gas but even Wikipedia recognizes that plasma is "a distinct state of matter, apart from gases, because of its unique properties." Why should big bang proponents (NASA, etc) be in the habit of ignoring those properties and failing to make the public understand there are unique properties? Why do they consistently use terminology more appropriate to the behavior of non-plasma gas ... such as "wind"?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I now have found found multiple mainstream sources that agree with sol in saying the average density of the universe is one hydrogen atom per cubic meter (whether that includes dark matter and dark energy as sol seemed to imply is not clear). But let's go with your 1.6 per cubic meter number. It makes no difference to the problem I see.



But not on the order of a 1000 to 1. That's not what I see in images like these which come from various mainstream simulations and real data:

http://constellationx.nasa.gov/images/science/science_goals/cosmology/whim_filaments.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/97021main_upper-left.jpg

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/images/435572a-f1.2.jpg

http://astronomy.sussex.ac.uk/~mif20/images/millenium.jpg

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2005/12/051212090013.jpg

http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/galdyn/universe_small.gif

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Survey_universe.jpg

If the empty voids in the above are almost 1 atom per cubic meter density, how can such a large fraction of everything else be much, much higher density yet still give an average of 1 atom per cubic meter? I'm still not convinced there isn't a discrepancy.

What figure are you using for the volume of the universe?

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

To be more accurate, it would be stronger to state that your cited sources support X, rather than prove X, since if it were proved, the disagreement/discussion would have ended with those sources being published.

Fair enough. But then the other side uses prove all the time when support would clearly be a better choice too.

Why is a thirty year cycle of significance to you, in terms of theories being found, or fundamental discoveries made?

Because Lee Smolin, in his book, went through the past couple hundred years in 30 year periods showing the major theoretical developments and how they impacted daily lives with new technology. It was his analysis that in the last 30 years or so no fundamental advances have occurred in physics (particularly our understanding of particle physics) that have actually affected our technology ... unlike all previous 30 year periods. And he suggested this is a sign of a serious problem in physics. And I think I agree.

 

[BeAChooser]

It sounds to me like those theorists are trying to have it both ways: they're trying to admit that fusion is happening in a star, while keeping their pet theory.

Except we KNOW fusion reactions can occur in z-pinches. We can produce such fusion in our labs. So if z-pinches are what we see on the surface of the sun (as electric universe proponents contend), then there is likely to be fusion occuring on the surface (and above the surface) of the sun.

But we haven't produced a sustainable fusion reaction using the mainstreams' claims as to what is happening inside the sun. Not even after more than 30 years of trying. We don't know that it's possible based on actual experiment. The mainstream only thinks it is possible because they've assumed/inferred that there must be fusion going on inside the sun. It will be very interesting to see who actually achieves sustainable fusion here on earth first. The mainstream? Or these folks:

http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php

 

[Darth Rotor]

Because Lee Smolin, in his book, went through the past couple hundred years in 30 year periods showing the major theoretical developments and how they impacted daily lives with new technology. It was his analysis that in the last 30 years or so no fundamental advances have occurred in physics (particularly our understanding of particle physics) that have actually affected our technology ... unlike all previous 30 year periods. And he suggested this is a sign of a serious problem in physics. And I think I agree.

Got it, Smolin's model. I'll not choose to agree, nor to disagree, unless I read his book.

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

What figure are you using for the volume of the universe?

None. I'm just looking at the images that the mainstream uses to show the structure of the universe and the observation from the mainstream that the largest void in the universe (some 2% across) has a density "somewhat" smaller than the average density. And asking how it's possible to get the average density when the even the least dense region is only "somewhat" less dense and the mainstreams images of the universe appear to show a ratio of clusters to voids far larger than 1:1000.
But no doubt they are right this time.

 

[Ziggurat]

As I indicated, the image is said to cover a significant fraction of the sky (90x90 degrees in R.A. and Dec.).

You obviously didn't understand what I was asking when I asked for the resolution. The resolution means how accurately a single detection event can pinpoint the direction of that neutrino. That angular sensitivity is independent of the angular coverage involved. The resolution function can be broader than the solid angle each pixel represents as well, and if that's the case (which I suspect it is - neutrino detection being indirect), then the neutrino image of the sun SHOULD look much broader than an optical image.

Plus, the flux seems to GRADUALLY decrease over a distance far larger than the diameter of the sun would be in that image.

Which is exactly what you get if you convolute a sharp-edged source with a broad resolution function with tails. Unless you demonstrate that the resolution function is sharp, then your "evidence" isn't evidence at all, but merely your lack of understanding.

Why should there be any blurring in the image? Are neutrino *optics* imperfect?

Neutrino *optics* don't even exist. And yes, there most certainly are error bars on the incident angle for any detection event.

 

[edd]

I now have found found multiple mainstream sources that agree with sol in saying the average density of the universe is one hydrogen atom per cubic meter (whether that includes dark matter and dark energy as sol seemed to imply is not clear). But let's go with your 1.6 per cubic meter number. It makes no difference to the problem I see.

Average mass/energy density from sol, average mass and baryonic mass from me. But I might have gone a bit wrong with calculations, it's not unknown, and I'm happy to be corrected by anyone that knows better (heck, once I calculated the mass of the observable universe as 30kg.... think I lost about 8 factors of the speed of light though!)

But not on the order of a 1000 to 1. That's not what I see in images like these which come from various mainstream simulations and real data:
[snip]
http://astronomy.sussex.ac.uk/~mif20/images/millenium.jpg
[/snip]

OK, I was thinking of the Millennium simulation at the time. I strongly recommend you look at a Millennium sim video because even if you don't believe it is at all like our universe it a) gives a better idea of the 3D structure and b) is very pretty. You've given an image very much focussed on a cluster of dark matter there too, and the baryonic matter is biased to dark matter, and that's obviously not a terribly representative region.

I'm not going to comment in great detail of the others - some of the others don't suffer from the peculiarity of focussing on a cluster (I see after writing the above that you've got a much wider view of the Mill. sim there too, so I was a bit unfair but it's still worth bearing in mind for some of the other pics) but you also again have to remember they're a projection through a large 2D volume and this may inflate the apparent density. Again, I'd encourage you to grab a flythrough vid.

Most of the sims do show dark matter densities, not baryon densities, as the bias factor isn't quite as well understood as we'd like. And the scalings in the imaging are not necessarily linear. A faint region may be much less dense than you might think, I'm not sure, but I do expect they're made more to look pretty than anything else - if one wanted to check the results you'd probably get hold of actual numbers or a portion of the simulation in question.

Galaxy survey images will show a sizeable blob for each galaxy, again to make it easier to see. It doesn't necessarily correlate to actual physical densities.

*edit: I should better explain that by bias I mean that the ratio of dark matter to baryons is not the same everywhere. The relationship between the densities of the two is not simple, but there's a general principle that where you have a lot of dark matter you have a lot of baryons, as you'd expect from the gravitational link between them. It doesn't mean that the distributions of the two components of matter are identical.

 

[BeAChooser]

You obviously didn't understand what I was asking when I asked for the resolution. The resolution means how accurately a single detection event can pinpoint the direction of that neutrino. That angular sensitivity is independent of the angular coverage involved. The resolution function can be broader than the solid angle each pixel represents as well, and if that's the case (which I suspect it is - neutrino detection being indirect), then the neutrino image of the sun SHOULD look much broader than an optical image.

Fair enough. I did some further searching and found statements that the secondary scatter process smears out the image so it is many times the actual size of the sun. That's an understatement. And it turns out the image is only based on about 5000 neutrinos. So my question is resolved. Thanks.

 

[The Man]

Except we KNOW fusion reactions can occur in z-pinches. We can produce such fusion in our labs.

Please provide a reference for those laboratory results. I did not see anything in the link you provided that said fusion had been obtained using a Z-pinch.

So if z-pinches are what we see on the surface of the sun (as electric universe proponents contend), then there is likely to be fusion occurring on the surface (and above the surface) of the sun.

Why is fusion likely? Research into Z-pinch fusion has been ongoing for about 50 years with no successful fusion of the pinched plasma that I am aware of, due mostly to plasma instabilities. If fusion in a Z-pinched plasma in a controlled lab environment is so elusive, fusion in uncontrolled conditions like the surface of the sun is even less likely.

But we haven't produced a sustainable fusion reaction using the mainstreams' claims as to what is happening inside the sun. Not even after more than 30 years of trying. We don't know that it's possible based on actual experiment. The mainstream only thinks it is possible because they've assumed/inferred that there must be fusion going on inside the sun. It will be very interesting to see who actually achieves sustainable fusion here on earth first. The mainstream? Or these folks:

http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php

Well I guess you have never heard of the hydrogen bomb. All fusion is based on the same principles, temperature and pressure. Fusion has been successfully achieved using inertial confinement and compression of a fuel load (hydrogen bomb). Sandia National Laboratories' Z machine is an example of Z-pinched plasma used to generate fusion in a fuel load (as opposed to the plasma itself) although I do not know if they have succeeded yet. Regardless of whether it is a fuel load or the plasma itself that is the fusion target the principles of temperature and pressure remain the same, have been repeatedly demonstrated here on earth (U.S. and U.S.S.R. H-bomb detonations) and are the conditions that would be found in the Sun due to its gravity.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch

 

[Belz...]

It's an ionized gas but even Wikipedia recognizes that plasma is "a distinct state of matter, apart from gases, because of its unique properties."

It's a subset of "gas", is it not ?

 

[Belz...]

Except we KNOW fusion reactions can occur in z-pinches. We can produce such fusion in our labs.

Uh-huh. But we know HOW we do it, too. Does the sun do that ?

But we haven't produced a sustainable fusion reaction using the mainstreams' claims as to what is happening inside the sun. Not even after more than 30 years of trying. We don't know that it's possible based on actual experiment.

That's kinda like saying that we don't know for sure protons exist because we haven't "seen" one.

 

[Cuddles]

It's a subset of "gas", is it not ?

In all fairness, BAC is right here, to a certain extent. Plasma is a distinct phase separate from solid, liquid and gas, and there are other phases as well, such a quark-gluon plasma, Bose-Einstein condensate and so on. However, it's just meaningless semantics. Random stuff floating around in space is generally refered to as gas and/or dust just because it's easier than identifying exactly what it is in casual conversation. It doesn't mean any more than saying quarks have colour. We all know they don't, but it's a convenient way to talk about them. Of course when people do actual calculations they know what they're talking about and use the correct terms. The problem is that BAC is so hung up on plasma being all important that he can't seem to differentiate people talking about things in general terms and people actual doing physics.

 

[rats]

I totally agree, going after the bomb is much more important than probing the secrets of the universe.

Luckily with the invention of things called "farmers" and "farms" its now possible for for a majority of the population to concern themselves with pursuits other than immediate survival. We have enough farmers that we can grow the food people need, look for a bomb under your house, and investigate the secrets of the universe all at the same time! Isn't it great?

LLH

Nominated as a lovely comeback. Of course I feel obliged to point out the shame that not everyone on the world has sufficient food and sanitation.

I know, I'm rather behind in the thread but catching up...

 

[rats]

General comment...

Where are all the scientists, that BeAChooser keeps inferring about, who are earning an easy and affluent living by ignoring evidence and criticism?!

Anyway, back to reading about cosmology...