Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anders Lindman said:
Ok, so why don't photons have rest mass?
Click to expand...

Because, since they move at the speed of light (obviously), any rest mass would be infinitely increased, due to their speed.

Now, you might speculate that the speed of photons differs ever so slightly from the theoretical c, so that an almost infinitely small rest mass is now increased to a very very small mass, but we would then be able to correlate the bending due to gravity with kinetic energy released when a photon strikes an object, like with any other moving object. This is not the case.

Finally, experiments have shown that photons retained moving in a gravity field do not show cumulative deflection, something that would be the case if gravity (or some other force) was acting on them.

Hence the conclusion that space itself curves.

ETA: There is other evidence, but this should suffice.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Because, since they move at the speed of light (obviously), any rest mass would be infinitely increased, due to their speed.

Now, you might speculate that the speed of photons differs ever so slightly from the theoretical c, so that an almost infinitely small rest mass is now increased to a very very small mass, but we would then be able to correlate the bending due to gravity with kinetic energy released when a photon strikes an object, like with any other moving object. This is not the case.

Finally, experiments have shown that photons retained moving in a gravity field do not show cumulative deflection, something that would be the case if gravity (or some other force) was acting on them.

Hence the conclusion that space itself curves.

ETA: There is other evidence, but this should suffice.

Hans
Click to expand...

"The interaction of elementary waves is proportional to the mass associated with the waves, and the normal straight-line motion of the wave becomes curved due to cumulative deflection. The photon particles corresponding to the slightly curved elementary waves follow the curved path of the wave. It is not space-time which is curved, but the elementary waves themselves." -- http://speicher.com/tew3.html

And CERN has measured particles traveling faster than light. They would never have published that result if they were SURE that it was impossible. If they were convinced it was impossible they would still be looking for measurement errors and not have embarrassed themselves with publishing that result.
 
Anders Lindman said:
"The interaction of elementary waves is proportional to the mass associated with the waves, and the normal straight-line motion of the wave becomes curved due to cumulative deflection. The photon particles corresponding to the slightly curved elementary waves follow the curved path of the wave. It is not space-time which is curved, but the elementary waves themselves." -- http://speicher.com/tew3.html
Click to expand...

That is deep into Quantum Theory. Thins happen in the Quantum realm that defies our current knowledge. However, we were talking about photons being deflected in macro gravity fields.

Also note the 'curved spacetime' is a metaphor, made to make this stuff at least slightly comprehensible. The main point is that photons are not deflected due to their mass.

And CERN has measured particles traveling faster than light. They would never have published that result if they were SURE that it was impossible. If they were convinced it was impossible they would still be looking for measurement errors and not have embarrassed themselves with publishing that result.
Click to expand...

There is nothing embarrassing in discovering something new. Discovering new stuff is the raison d'etre for CERN.

The particles in question are neutrinos, which is in many ways an enigmatic particle. We have only just begun to understand neutrinos. All this is not relevant to the topic at hand.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
There is nothing embarrassing in discovering something new. Discovering new stuff is the raison d'etre for CERN.

The particles in question are neutrinos, which is in many ways an enigmatic particle. We have only just begun to understand neutrinos. All this is not relevant to the topic at hand.

Hans
Click to expand...

How can neutrinos, who do have some form of mass I have read, exceed the speed of light while photons can't? I doesn't compute. There must be a common theory applicable to both neutrinos and photons.
 
Anders Lindman said:
How can neutrinos, who do have some form of mass I have read, exceed the speed of light while photons can't?.
Click to expand...
This is the theoretical question being asked at the moment.

The practical question being asked is whether neutrinos do travel faster than c.

CERN didn't say 'hey, neutrinos travel faster than light, that's a fact, get used to it'. What they did was publish some results and data which appear to support that hypothesis, along with a request for others to check their results.
 
Anders Lindman said:
How can neutrinos, who do have some form of mass I have read, exceed the speed of light while photons can't? I doesn't compute. There must be a common theory applicable to both neutrinos and photons.
Click to expand...

Since photons and neutrinos are different kinds of particles, the same rules need not apply to them, even under a common theory. We do not know how they can exceed the speed of light (if they do), but one thesis is that c can be approached from both sides.

This is a brand new, and far from conclusive, observation. You can't expect answers to be forthcoming right away. In fact, it may take decades or more, and when the appropriate theory does materialize, it may be incomprehensible to laymen.

Heck, we have only relatively recently gained the ability to even observe neutrinos, especially in real-time. Before that, they were just another theoretical particle.

Hans
 
Paul said:
CERN didn't say 'hey, neutrinos travel faster than light, that's a fact, get used to it'. What they did was publish some results and data which appear to support that hypothesis, along with a request for others to check their results.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Only crackpot scientists make that sort of statements ;). Real scientists show their results, explain how they might be interpreted, and expect others to try to confirm (or disprove) them.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Ahh, so you agree that the video you linked to does not support your RR idea?
Good, we may be making progress.
You don't know why this researcher was kicked from his job.
Hans
Click to expand...

I agree; that we cannot be sure what really happens here.

What came to mind when I saw the video was;
The because of a cluster of galaxies also have a common center of gravity (a"COG") , and because galaxies many times fall more or less directly towards these, there certainly can be a opposite pull in galaxies and not only a pull towards the COG of the galaxy.
Under such circumstances, parts of galaxies can without any doubt be ripped apart.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
I agree; that we cannot be sure what really happens here.

What came to mind when I saw the video was;
The because of a cluster of galaxies also have a common center of gravity (a"COG") , and because galaxies many times fall more or less directly towards these, there certainly can be a opposite pull in galaxies and not only a pull towards the COG of the galaxy.
Under such circumstances, parts of galaxies can without any doubt be ripped apart.
Click to expand...

Another thing you fail to understand.

Hans
 
My guess is that the dark energy is simply the ordinary vacuum energy in empty space and that from the Big Bang the universe expanded very fast and then the expansion slowed down so that today there is not much expansion and there will not be a contraction of the universe because the dark energy will keep holding the universe inflated at the same size, pretty much like how a balloon retains its size. So the expansion of the universe will essentially stop if it hasn't done so already and enter a state of equilibrium where the dark energy and gravity balance each other and keep the universe inflated at an essentially constant size.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I think the dark energy can still be real. What I doubt is that it causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate, ...
Click to expand...
Wrong: Dark energy is by definition that thing which causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate as is observed. So it is real and it causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate.
 
Reality Check said:
Wrong: Dark energy is by definition that thing which causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate as is observed. So it is real and it causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate.
Click to expand...

But is there really the vacuum energy PLUS dark energy? I doubt that. I think the dark energy and the vacuum energy are the same thing and that is what causes the universe to expand. And the expansion slows down and an equilibrium where gravity and the dark energy balance each other is reached so that the size of the universe remains constant after a while.

This article talks about strange red galaxies from very far away: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/20...ies-a-missing-link-in-history-of-the-universe

The galaxies are not strange. They are red because the photons have traveled so far through the vacuum and lost energy. The Hubble deep field pictures have been doctored I suspect and colored in other colors than red which is the true and correct color for galaxies that far away.
 
The left Hubble Deep Field image is the original but I think it has been doctored and that the actual image looks more like the one to the right:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
Anders Lindman said:
But is there really the vacuum energy PLUS dark energy? I doubt that. I think the dark energy and the vacuum energy are the same thing and that is what causes the universe to expand.
Click to expand...
The most likely candidate for Dark energy is a non-zero cosmolgical constant. There is also vacuum energy (from QM). They are unlikely to be the same because "A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge cosmological constant from the energy of the quantum vacuum, more than 100 orders of magnitude too large".
But a future theory may say different.

Anders Lindman said:
And the expansion slows down and an equilibrium where gravity and the dark energy balance each other is reached so that the size of the universe remains constant after a while.
Click to expand...
The evidence is that the universe is flat (from WMAP).
This means that even without dark energy it will expand forever.
With dark energy it will expand faster and we may get to the Big Rip scenario.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom