Yesterday Tommaso posted on improbable article titles http://www.science20.com/a_quantum_diaries_survivor/improbable_article_titles-139036
At the bottom of the page there's a link to related topics. http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/dark_energy_puzzle_solved
It's an article by Paul Frampton dated Sept 2010. Dark energy Problem solved http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.1285v3.pdf
Paul is a well known Physics Professor, perhaps infamously so now. He was busted shortly afterwards for mule trafficking in Argentina and since we are into late June he should be homeward bound to the USA after his prison incarceration.
Tommasao was impressed by his paper, promised to get back to it but I've never seen the follow up he refers to as a conditional. Too few folks were interested.
The paper is sensational! I never knew of its existence- not surprising really. You might need a physics degree to understand its implications. Take his word for his own comments. I'm just adding to the implications. despite being short and straightforward and simple according to Tommaso- it's not, so don't make a comeback with white holes, the metaphysics of holography according to Susskind et al.
He makes the point on page 8 that it's no use introducing the Hubble constant because it's impreciely known; I pointed out before that the error is ca. 7%-8% although WMAP may infer the accuracy is good to half of that. So he tackles the DE problem in a different manner. This DE or cosmo constant isn't a lot , it's about 10-9
space. The cosmic average mass energy density, ie. this is believed to represent ca. 75% the e=mc2
mass energy of all those baryons,photns and neutrinos or equiv to 5-6 H atoms/m3
. Well we still have all those particles in the observable universe but he has effectively done away with DE. That additional acceleration due to negative pressure is none other than the Milgrom acceleration or within that order. It's the acceleration that would speed up a particle and in this case the neutrinos I mentioned in earlier posts from a cmb horizon to the velocity of light in ca. 1018
second, the lifetime of the universe. The Hubble flow of normal matter and infact for DM if it exists, and according to Hajdukovic DE in addition does not infact exist. There are alternatives to the formulation of Milgrom's acceleration mechanics.
For photons and neutrinos generated during pair production at rest the neutrinos will gravitate. Relic neutrinos with restmass have a problem cooling. A neutrino photon bath representing a phase transition is different. The photons as massless bosons don't gather as space expands. Spatial expansion here refers to a nothingness of GR space not to a quantum condensate description of space. Neutrinos with restmass 0.00117eV gravitate. Hence, there must be a reverse or counter Hubble flow amounting to a mass energy of ca. 500,000 eV/m3
or fold 10-19
. All cosmologists must agree that space expands; that the Hubble flow exists even though it's the worst accurate parameter in physics. There's no counter explanation for expansion and the redshifts as caused by spatial expansion rather than a simple Doppler shift. The most famous exception is due to Zwicky but it goes by the tired light explanation which is wrong. Similarly, Hoyle argued for continuous mass change in particles with time; Louise Rio also advocates a rate of change of light speed with time and that even the Earth harbours a central black hole. It isn't as absurd as meets the eye infact.
That galaxies recede is incontrovertible despite Zwicky's assertion . It's space that expands; this nothingness of GR. Atoms don't expand with time, nor does the Earth or solar system, nor the galaxy except by accretions of satellites and mergers. The Hubble flow is at a larger size scale. In previous posts I mentioned that space has substance. Not even the unobserved quantum foam substance that might impart a Planck mass at a Planck length or 10120
fold the cosmological constant value but the humdrom tiny energy of the cmb and its neutrino complement 10-19
. Space in GR can expand at faster than light speed yet in each local frame of reference nothing can overtake a photon. That I believe is true except that a photon does interact or is scattered or is stopped! In an interaction we don't observe the virtual photon exchange so technically the new photon scattered isn't the one that arrived. A cold neutrino rarely interacts but when it does it gravitates. The H0t
is inaccurately known, unfortunately . Galactic and universal masses vary and are hardly any better known. Yet we do know some masses accurately, Earth mass and Solar mass. Eventually everything gravitates and ends life in a black hole and again Solar mass sizes holes are known approximately, eg. a central galaxy mass here locally at perhaps 2.5 million solar mass up to some billion mass solar supermassive agn active central black holes. These are more inaccurately known than the Hubble constant measurement.
Frampton sidesteps these unknowns and write equations pertinent to black hole physics and holography, the latter I have felt somewhat gimmicky and contrived, a consequence of my own ignorance, laziness or whatever. My own calculations of the supposed counterflow of neutrinos is derived from the Hubble parameter and cosmic density and it was very innaccurately known yesterday!.
The solar system and local groups and far out to the Virgo cluster flow with a peculiar velocity of ca. 330km/second through the relic cmb radiation. All else is part of the Hubble flow, currently ~73 km/second per megaparsec. While Smoot was increeasing detector sensitivities for Cobe and then WMAP, it was already known that there was a major anisotropy in the cmb known from balloon experiments. Whereas temperature variations are miniscule 1 part in 100000 this anisotropy was of a hotspot and colspot that varied by ca. 1 part in 1000 revealing a direction of travel through the cmb , in conflict with the often remarked Copernican principal. According to BB expansion all observers should observe no such anisotropy.
This is in conflict with condensed matter physics that does observe an absolute reference frame within their squids. Space and time are relative, some believe spacetime is absolute although others regard it as relative. I've remarked myself that spacetime is absolute; well I did so until I read Frampton's paper. I have to switch soon to a geometric measure of mass and a tiny contractile measure of bending of space and spacetime that I mentioned in much earlier posts.
The Earth is bombarded by cosmic dust and micro meteorites daily, perhaps I remember a few tonnes of additional mass per day. It is also bombarded by the cmb radiation, inconsequential compared with Solar photon flux. It is continually bombarded by a reverse or ounter Hubble flow. Through its entire history the Earth has accreted 2.86*10-11
kg/second of spacetime. Were the Earth to have existed for 1018
second, the same as universal age it would have accreted 2.86 *107
kg or ~30 million kg or 30,000tonnes ie. a battleship of mass! That represents 410 million electron neutrinos/second, omitting 1/90 th part of the energy accredited to a yet to be discovered electron neutrino pair. What about the Sun or a whole galaxy of 1011
stars? Actually Paul bumps up the number thinking that the sun is an average star- what in mass or numerosity? An average star is perhaps half stellar mass and there are perhaps ten fold more of them. The greatest gravitational influence is a central black hole. Also, he neglects DM halos, a minefield of problems. The Earth or Sol itself is the best option. The Earth's spacetime bending is 1.71 *10-23
curvature per m2
spacetime. The Earth hasn't just a gravity well it is infact a gravity drain. The Earth's inertial mass forces space and spacetime to bend or curve. Yet it's the GR geometry that curves or bends. This effect is known to extraordinary accuracy or 1 part in 1010
. But it's not the nothingness of space that is being deformed. It's the mass energy density of the cmb that is continously lost by accretion within a gravitating body or whatever possesses restmass. It is not a measurable mass or not yet. Even the sun's destruction of spacetime is minimal. Over the 14 billion year history of the galaxy ; the whole galaxy has accreted only 2.9*1029
kg, ca. a tenth of a solar mass.! More simply put in everday language- what keeps a satellite in near Earth orbit is Newton's gravity, Einstein's spacetime gravity and the counter Hubble flow. Whereas the photons are inconsequential and get recycled at the near surface the cold neutrinos end up in a 4.44 millimetre plug at the centre. This is the Earth's mass in light metre measure. The tendency then is for space to expand everywhere and not solely at the scale of inter filament measure. The presence of mass is to destroy spacetime, to convert it into whatever resides at a horizon. I don't advocate holography, I don't know enough to make a sensible remark but Marni hopefully will intervene. Media wise it's a bit like Suarez once again taking a bite out of an opponent, not by bending or scattering but by destruction. Matter informs space and spacetime how much to deform or bend in John Wheeler's description. QFT has a problem with that description. The Earth removes space perhaps rather than destroy, it is transformed ultimately residing within that 4.45 mm globe while a photon complement to the condensate makes a 1*1012
m trip of light time travel. Similarly the Sun would have a "for instance, the sun has a radius of 800,000 kilometers, but its Schwarzschild radius is of just 3 km" from Tommaso; actually1.48 km radius (the 3 is a diameter) and rounding off the diameter to five zeros is iffy The Earth is a more accurate analogy.The two approaches are equivalent in that the error of the counterhubble acceleration is ~1% and not 7%-15% as derived from the Hubble parameter. Also the local group peculiar velocity is infact a real Doppler effect. The neutrino pairs are produced at absolute rest ~+-0.7m/second; that's absolute basically, rather than digress to make A FINER POINT. The cmb anisotropoy represents a real velocity through a cmb photon neutrino condensate. It is not an unexplainable in conventional cmb relic cooling. As Marni Sheppeard has mentioned the cmb radiation is a local phenomenum. Orthogonal to the anisotropy or peculiar velocity it is generated at rest and coeval to the observer. It does not therefore represent a fossil last scattering event that happens to retain its Planck equilibrium spectrum.
The condensate gravitates not to some local centre, for all observers can refer as being central. We do know we aren't near an edge, we see only one major anisotropy, there's no observed edge effect as in a squid. The condensate neutrinos gravitate. These aren't high energy more interactive relic neutrinos with restmass. Restmass doesn't stretch. A Zwicky effect is postulated. Namely, although it's not tired light, the stretched photons exhibit a redshift but this is compensated by the distance contraction experienced locally where the gravitating bodies exist, in galaxies. As the elastic is stretched the central part contracts through the loss of space and spacetime. The Solar mass removes about 3.13 *1019
/second. The mass energy equivalent to 1 electron mass per m cubed is tiny compared with the several tonnes of mass energy lost as energy by H burning. Infact although the solar mass diminishes with time the accretion or destruction of spacetime is continuous. A planet orbits not just an energy well but a well drain where spacetime is destroyed, but not its neutrino mass energy. Space isn't a nothingness; locally its 410 million photons and an equivalent number of neutrinos of the restmass 0.00117eV variety neglecting a correction for the 0.000383 eV variety that contributes a 1/90 mass energy fraction at 0.89 Kelvin.
It's like my allotment; the pidgeons approach screeching for food at one end and depart the other with a lowered pitch; from where I don't bother to know, nor likewise to where, as they depart the other end. I do feed or provide for them though. Otherwise they would starve in winter. Were I an absentee landord they would never exist in the first instance. Like cosmology we are left with a lot of unanswered questions. Time for a cycle to water the vegetables- it's a long dryish spell.