Microwaves tend to scatter each other, but occasionally join together as interference patterns of stress enengy.

Some major assumptions are involved as discussed in other threads. Example kinetic DE exists as a vacuum field and opposes gravity as predicted in LaGrange Function. Also CMB had enough power in the distant past to create DM and DE. And scalar DM makes curvature like gravity.

DM should be collected in stars and destroyed by collisions making microwaves. DE quanta should attract each other and collide sometimes making microwaves.

DM and DE should be produced at about the same rate, but decompose at different rates, giving DE more energy than is predicted for DM.

DM and DE should have anisotropy related to CMB of the distant past.

There are a lot of issues both for and against CMB as a source, to be resolved in research.

The best approach is this article....But you cannot peer review by last century ideology

Article Dark­Matter in the Quantum Mechanic Universe

Javad Fardaei

Thank you for reply. DE and DM are widely accepted, but not proven to approval of many. CMB interference tends to prove that stress fields of these types must exist and be in some slow equilibrium with CMB.

Kinetic energy repelling gravity is well established in theory and research by others, but not considered to be proven by many others.

Stress energy curvature is essential for gravity in GR, but reverse curvature is not well researched.

Max Born predicted reverse curvature but did no say how to produce it. If Born was correct then stat travel may become possible with local light speed increasing with increasing field ofkinetic energy.

Small scale curvature is predicted to be a change of amplitude and frequency of quantum oscillators, but not proven or widely accepted, decreasing for gravity, and increasing for kinetic fields.

Old ideologies did not understand QM or GR very well. Stress energy and curvature plus or minus need a fairly modern approach. In recent times GR and QM are better understood, making a chance to learn more about stress fields.

Energy can be force through distance, Stress provides force and change of amplitude provides distance.

Preston Guynn

Thank you for reply. I would agree with you if I had not studied engineering design of microwave antennas. It predicts DE and DM must exist for CMB to be present.

DE can explain acceleration of galaxy clusters, while DM can explain how galaxies rotate. These would be fudge factors if CMB did not require them to exist as collections of stress energy quanta.

Dear Jerry Decker

Do you have a reference about microwave antennas related to CMB?

Do the concepts of DE and DM are related to General Relativity - Minkowski spacetime? If yes, then this will save my time and I will not need to read about them.

Thank you.

Best regards

Preston Guynn, I subscribe your reply on DM and DE.

Moreover, I would add: The expectedly theoretical effects or contrary effects of gravitational and EM activity are in fact not anything other than something dominated by gravitational and/or EM domination or reduction!

To call DE as Lambda was Einstein's mathematical trick to attain equilibrium. But I do not think that this can be called an existent propagation of energy different from G and EM. This is how I have argued in my work of 2018 (Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology).

I am sending a message to you via RG messaging facility.

DE and DM are widely research and reported by other researchers. I have added a small part to their work.

Dear Jerry, what ever you said is correct, they all are not definite...

When you consider earth's gravity as the universal, it is working under three things, Pressure, Temperature, and mass of the object, Not Newtonian weight.

Article Earth Gravity is not Newtonian

thanks

Jerry Decker,

all searches for exotic dark matter has failed, see my last book (in my profile). My explanation is just ordinary neutrinos, my first book.

In my third book I concluded that dark energy is an illusion. I analysed the original paper and found problems with it. Later experiments do no report such an effect.

Hans Gennow

Thank you for reply.

Considering that kinetic energy resides in a local stress field, and travels with objects less than light speed, the local field must have a property like dark matter that also has momentum. Al low speeds or zero speed, the local field is gravity.

Dark matter is easily found in the form of gravity fields, where the mass of an object is expressed.

Dark energy moves at light speed standard c in flat space, but less when passing through a gravity field. Energy from the two source microwaves is 2E = 2hf = 2pc

As a vehicle accelerates the DM field increases momentum. A field generator needs to make DE traveling backward from the vehicle. When DM is small or not present, the DE gives little thrust for much power. Efficiency improves when DE collides with the DM field and pushes it backward at a small relative velocity.

A second field generator may produce additional DM quanta, which can be exhausted at \velocity much less than c, providing improved efficiency. If DM is produced at the front of a fast vehicle, the DM is attracted to the mass center of the vehicle where it accumulates and can be coupled with DE from the other generator. Excess DM at mass center, more than gravity, may decompose to microwaves or be canceled out by a third field generator.

For acceleration to occur part of the DM must be exhausted backward at a speed not much different from the vehicle. Momentum and energy are conserved.

While not proven, the representation is internally consistent and in agreement with GR, LaGrange Function, and other established science of energy and momentum.

One exception, if Braun and Dicke are correct about variable light speed in gravity fiend, design of generators is the same. It is in agreement with mechanics where mass equivalent of energy is used, but is not helpful for star travel.

Second exception, if Bergmann is correct a design is still the same but less helpful in star travel.

Star travel depends much on testing the view of Max Born at high speed, who otherwise agreed with Einstein and Tolman.

Raphael Neelamkavil I corrected a typo When DM is small or not present, the DE gives little thrust for much power.

Jerry Decker, you said:

1. "Dark energy moves at light speed standard c in flat space, but less when passing through a gravity field."

2. "As a vehicle accelerates the DM field increases momentum. A field generator needs to make DE traveling backward from the vehicle. When DE is small or not present, the DE gives little thrust for much power."

Etc.

Are these concepts of Dark Matter and Dark Energy that you speak about just some engineering concepts, or based in physical science? How does Dark Energy behave unlike or like gravity at various situations, if Dark Energy really exists as more than some fictitious world and as really different from gravity? IS DARK ENERGY THE OPPOSITE OF OR THE SAME AS GRAVITY?

Raphael Neelamkavil

Dark Energy repels gravity and as such is the opposite of Dark Matter which attracts gravity. This is best shown in the Lagrange Function used in the Action, where kinetic energy and potential energy compete for control of how planets and moons move, when more than one group of movements is possible to conserve the Hamiltonian. Some researchers now use the LaGrange Function and LaGrange Density in calculating stress energy of GR.

When thrust occurs the force must pass through the field generators to the vehicle.

1.The first result of Friedmann's equation for accelerated expansion was negative mass density

Nobel lecture by Adam Riess : The official website of the Nobel Prize

Refer to time 11m : 35s ~

https://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/?id=1729

=====

Negative Mass?

Actually the first indication of the discovery!

=====

HSS(The High-z Supernova Search) team : if Λ=0, Ω_m = - 0.38(±0.22) : negative mass density

SCP(Supernova Cosmology Project) team : if Λ=0, Ω_m = - 0.4(±0.1) : negative mass density

*This value is included in a paper awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the accelerated expansion of the universe.

They had negative thoughts about negative mass. So, they discarded the negative mass (density) without sufficient scientific review. They corrected the equation and argued that the accelerated expansion of the universe was evidence of the existence of a cosmological constant.

They introduce negative pressure, which hides the negative mass density in the negative pressure, but this does not mean that the negative mass density has disappeared, it has only lessened the antipathy of people by the name change. It cannot change the essence.

ρ_Λ + 3P_Λ = ρ_Λ + 3(-ρ_Λ) = - 2ρ_Λ

If we rearrange the dark energy term, the final result is a negative mass density of -2ρ_Λ. The negative mass density did not disappear, but compared to what we call negative mass (density), the negative pressure definitely reduces the rejection.

2. Logical structure of the standard cosmology

Let's look at the equation expressing (ρ+3P) as the critical density of the universe.

In the second Friedmann equation,

(1/R)(d^2R/dt^2) = -(4πG/3)(ρ+3P)

Matter + Dark Matter (approximately 31.7%) = ρ_m ~ (1/3)ρ_c

Dark energy density (approximately 68.3%) = ρ_Λ ~ (2/3)ρ_c

(Matter + Dark Matter)'s pressure = 3P_m ~ 0

Dark energy’s pressure = 3P_Λ = 3(-(2/3)ρ_c ) = -2ρ_c

ρ+3P≃ ρ_m +ρ_Λ +3(P_m +P_Λ)= (1/3)ρ_c +(2/3)ρ_c +3(−2/3)ρ_c= (+1)ρ_c + (-2)ρ_c = (−1)ρ_c

ρ+3P ≃ (+1)ρ_c + (-2)ρ_c = (−1)ρ_c

Standard cosmology is a universe with a positive mass density of (+1)ρ_c and a negative mass density of (-2)ρ_c. So, finally, the universe has a negative mass density of “(-1)ρ_c”, so accelerated expansion is taking place.

The current universe is similar to a state where the negative mass density is twice the positive mass density. And the total mass of the observable universe is the negative mass state.

3. So, what can correspond to this negative mass density?

When mass-energy is present, the negative gravitational potential energy produced by that mass-energy distribution can play a role. The gravitational potential energy model is a model in which +ρ and -ρ_gs exist, and shows that |-ρ_gs| can be larger than +ρ.

In the general case, the value of gravitational potential energy(gravitational self-energy) is small enough to be negligible, compared to mass energy Mc^2. However, as more mass is collected, the ratio of (negative) gravitational potential energy to (positive) mass energy increases.

In the case of Moon, U_{gs - Moon} = ( - 1.89 x 10^ -11)M_{Moon}(c^2)

In the case of Earth, U_{gs - Earth} = ( - 4.17 x 10^ -10)M_{Earth}(c^2)

In the case of the Sun, U_{gs - Sun} = ( - 1.27 x 10^ -4)M_{Sun}(c^2)

In case of a Black hole, U_{gs - Black - hole} = ( - 3.0 x 10^-1)M_{Black - hole}(c^2)

In the case of a black hole, the negative gravitational potential energy is 30% of the positive mass energy.

What would happen in a universe with more mass?

A situation where the negative gravitational potential energy is greater than the positive mass energy will be possible.

4. Changes in positive mass energy and negative gravitational potential energy when the range of gravitational interaction increases

For simple calculations, uniform density is assumed.

d(Mc^2)/dR = 4πR^2ρc^2

d(U_gs)/dR = d((-3/5)GM^2/R)/dR=-(GM/Rc^2)(4πR^2ρc^2)=-(GM/Rc^2)(d(Mc^2)/dR)

Taking the critical density of the current universe and finding the value of -GM/Rc^2 according to the range of gravitational interaction, (In practice, the critical density value changes. Just look at the trend of change.)

R(range of gravitational interaction, related to the age of the universe) : -GM/Rc^2

10Gly : -0.238

15Gly : -0.533

20Gly : -0.950

25Gly : -1.48

30Gly : -2.13

35Gly : -2.91

40Gly : -3.80

45Gly : -4.81

50Gly : -5.91

When the age of the universe is small, that is, when the gravitational interaction range of the universe is small, the positive mass energy increases more, but it can be seen that the increase effect of the negative gravitational potential energy becomes larger after about 20 Gly. This time is about 7 to 5 billion years ago.

As the universe ages, the range of gravitational interactions increases, and thus accelerated expansion appears to have occurred because the negative gravitational potential energy increased faster than the positive mass energy.

As the universe grows older, the range R of gravitational interaction increases. As a result, mass energy increases in proportion to M, but gravitational potential energy increases in proportion to -M^2/R. Therefore, gravitational potential energy increases faster.

Therefore, as the universe ages and the particle horizon expands, the phenomenon of changing from decelerated expansion to accelerated expansion occurs.

ρ+3P ≃ (+1)ρ_c + (-2)ρ_c = (−1)ρ_c

If there is a positive mass density +ρ, there is an equivalent mass density -ρ_gs of the gravitational potential energy created by this positive mass, so the gravitational potential energy model conforms to the logic above equation.

In addition, through numerical calculations on the observable universe, it is proved that the negative gravitational potential energy is greater than the positive mass energy, and it suggests the time at which the universe transforms from decelerated expansion to accelerated expansion. Therefore, it is worth reviewing.

Dark energy is gravitational potential energy or the energy of a gravitational field

Preprint Dark Energy is Gravitational Potential Energy or Energy of t...

Jerry Decker To understand dark energy you have to look back at the actual observations which led to the hypothesis. It was the observation of the recession velocity of distant galaxies.

Now we all know that galaxy velocity is made up of two components. One the expansion of space and two the velocity of the galaxy through space. The nearest galaxy Andromeda is an example of this. This suggests that there is a general acceleration of distant galaxies towards the centre of mass of all the galaxies.

Here is the problem. In a universe which has no boundary and no centre there can be no preferred direction towards a centre of mass. So to explain dark energy we have to discard the cosmological principle.

Dark matter forms in a galaxy formation event and the dark matter particle has the property that it decays into two neutrons during star formation. This is why dark matter will not be found within the solar system.

Conference Paper The Explanation for Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Richard

Dark matter is a concept invented because galaxies and clusters of galaxies appear to contain more mass than can be explained by the stars we can see (if they didn't contain that extra mass, they should 'fall apart' over time, which they are obviously NOT doing). So far, every effort to find out what dark matter IS has failed, and I expect that if and when we find out what dark matter is, it will simply prove to be faint stars (white dwarfs & neutron stars) or invisible stars (black holes) that are so spread out in the vast spaces outside the easily visible parts of galaxies that they are currently impossible to observe (see http://cseligman.com/text/galaxies/dark.htm for a discussion of that). Basically, 'dark matter' must exist; but what it is remains to be seen (or not seen, depending on how long we live and how long it takes to find out the answer).

Dark energy, on the other hand, is a fairy tale made up to explain why, if the amount of mass in the Universe (normal and 'dark') is far less than the 'critical mass density' required to make its geometry appear 'flat' (which it does appear to be, the best estimates being that normal and dark matter are only 25 to 27 percent of the critical mass density), then something is needed to explain why the Universe looks flat when it SHOULD look 'hyperbolic'. In my opinion, the answer is exactly the same as why the Earth looks flat when it is actually round; namely, the actual Universe is so much larger than the small part we can see simply looks flat, because we can't see enough of it to see its real shape (though it seems big to us, most cosmologists believe that the Observable Universe is smaller, in comparison to the present size of the whole Universe, than a grain of sand is, compared to the size of the Earth). The concept also goes back to the time when most cosmologists wanted to believe that the mass of the Universe was 100% of the critical mass; and since it's actually only about a quarter of that, rather than abandon the 100% they had believed in for so long, they simply created the fiction of dark energy to make up the rest of the 100% (i.e., real visible matter plus presumably real dark matter plus fictional dark energy = 100% of the critical mass density).

Hyoyoung Choi,

as I explained earlier, dark energy is an illusion. When I analyzed the Riess paper I found problems with their analyses. Their cosmological fit is just nonsens. What du you say when they claim to have a nova at a distance of 23Gly away! The ligth has not yet reached us. The universe is just 14 Gyr old if you remember. It is all explained in my third book in my profile.

I could mention that I have pointed out this to the nobel comitee.

I could also mention that later experiments do not show an accelerated universe.

About dark matter, no searches report a signal. I have in my first book concluded it can be explained by neutrinos. There are plenty of them, perhaps as much as 90%.

By including neutrinos in the galaxies I arrive at a flat velocity distribution as observed.

It was long argued do neutrinos have mass, but finally decided they do, also spin one half. Considering the short range of weak force, neutrinos should have mass and travel less than light speed.

Jerry Decker!

Can any energy particle ever be without motion? While at transit (motion), as you said, neutrino has mass. And photon does not have? If photons have mass at motion, then is there any difference between neutrinos and photons as energy wavicles? This, of course -- only if you consider also neutrinos as energy wavicles.

Electrons will have to be matter wavicles, because it can be resolved into energy particles. And again, this, of course -- only if you admit of a basic difference between existent matter and existent energy. (That is, if energy is just virtual or merely the mathematical quantities of energy, then we are lost out of the matter/energy distinction too.)

Raphael Neelamkavil

Vibrational energy and rotational energy are well known.

Photons feel the EM force while neutrinos do not.

All small particles are both waves and objects, because the vacuum polarizes around them.

Thanks. But my question for clarification is also about their mass. Kindly see my previous intervention. To my mind, this has been a matter of confusion in many physicists. Hence this question. Thanks again.

The concept of "dark" matter arose as an attempt to explain the rotation of Galaxies as a whole.

Since the collective motion of the stars in the sleeve refuted the laws of the usual celestial mechanics, namely the laws of Newton and Kepler. I think that first you need to understand what gravity is, without any invented fields, gravitons and Higgs bosons.

I write about this in my work "Mass as the geometry of space", posted on this site.

All modern astrophysics has forgotten the physics textbook for the 6th grade. Namely, the forces of gravity DO NOT have a lateral component !!!. And never will the substance that is sprayed in any way, resulting from the Big Bang, rotate. Yes, it can accumulate in heaps by gravity, but not rotate. This leads to only one conclusion: that the rotation was BEFORE the creation of planets, stars, Galaxies. And then we come to the option that the superdense singularity was not sprayed evenly across the universe by the Big Bang, but scattered, attracted by centrifugal force, by supermassive rotating chunks with huge density, which became black holes in the center of the future galaxy, and while rotating, protostars were thrown out of themselves, and they, in turn, dropped the outer layers - future planets. In this case, it is quite possible that there is still a piece of a black hole inside the star, the surface of which is "evaporated" by protons and neutrons. Most of the neutrons decay into protons and electrons with neutrinos, (with the release of energy !!!) but some part manages to form Helium, etc. This may explain the small number of solar neutrinos.

Model two processes for yourself :

1. A rotating body throws off the outer layers by centrifugal force, while decreasing in mass. Part of the rotation is carried away by flying pieces, and a decrease in the mass of the central part increases its rotation speed with the remaining momentum, continuing to throw the mass out. This is how galaxies were formed. At the same time, the substance of the central Black Hole was "smeared" in the form of stars in the surrounding space, reducing the gravitational attraction of the flying piece to the central part. That is why the galaxy rotates as a whole. And so there are arms of the galaxy that the ejection from the central part was localized on its surface, usually in two opposite directions.

2. The rotation of a black hole, in which the centrifugal forces of its rotation exceed the force of gravity. Quite a possible option.

If you get formulas confirming this, feel free to publish - this is a revolution in cosmology. As a confirmation of my words, an article about the "Geometric model of atomic nuclei". There, at the end, it shows how the core is divided by intercluster connections into unequal fragments.

We can discuss it. [email protected]

Ilya Boldov, a very clear reply. Wonderful.

Ilya Boldov,

you should read my books "Born:A universe xx" (can be downloaded from my profile) to get the right story about the creation of the universe.

It tells you how the elementary particles were creatad that led to the massive cores of the galaxies. The galaxies was formed around the cores by accreting debris. At the end the CMB was created with a photon distribution of a black body of 2.7K.

Ilya Boldov

Einstein expressed ideas about geometric mass in his autobiographical notes, for the purpose of treating particles as field energy in unifying GR with EM. He could not succeed because he had no preferred zero velocity. CMB was discovered after he died.

Quantum field theory continued Einstein's advice but struggled with too much curvature until recently when reverse curvature was allowed to express about half of the energy as kinetic.

Astrophysics invites non specialists to contribute original work, and explains the most advanced concept in terms a larger scientific community can understand.

A blackhole can rotate event horizon at light speed without centrifugal throwing off any mass. This is likely to occur by conserving angular momentum.

Hans Gennow

Origin of universe needs to be recalculated to express energy in dark particles, inflation in Hierarchy of Plancks, squeezed photons, and scale relativity.

Something important is available to be discovered, and it relates to high speed in deep space, maybe eventual travel between stars. My main interest is in probing the properties of space and time is to find new opportunities for star travel.

Einstein concepts of kinetic field energy, and light speed decreasing in a gravity field. Most helpful is the concept of Max Born local light speed increasing in and around a fast moving traveler in deep space. If correct, star travel is likely to occur within the next few generations with stress field effect accelerators, possibly a journey being completed within a few years instead of decades.

The GR concept of frame dragging is thought to be the same as Einstein kinetic field energy.

Beyond GR at high energy the concept of Hierarchy of Plancks leads to spontaneous wormholes after about a year of acceleration

equal to Earth surface gravity.

My works posted on this site have answers to your questions:

1 .Mass as a curvature of the geometry of space.

2. Geometric shape of elementary particles.

3. Geometric models of atomic nuclei.

At the end of the third work, the structure (by core layers) of 238 U is shown and how the core is divided by intercluster bonds into unequal fragments by centrifugal force.

Gravity's deceleration of the speed of light doesn't really exist. For our universe, the time constant of the transfer of the excited state of the vacuum discrete to the neighboring discrete determines the constancy of the speed of light of a photon (neutrino) in any direction and regardless of the velocity of the particle that emitted this photon.

It's just that gravity distorts space and the photon is forced to travel more along the slope of the gravitational funnel. Naturally, the projection of its speed on our space will be less than usual.

Ilya Boldov,

in my first book (Born:A universe) I could show how neutrinos can explain the rotational velocity distribution in galaxies. No need for exotic dark matter.

Considering that neutrinos and anti neutrinos are all thought to have positive mass, attracted by gravity, if they survive in sufficient numbers to explain galaxies, then there should be enough mass to slow expansion of the universe. Expansion seems to be accelerating.

Dark energy is said to repel gravity, being all kinetic. Neutrinos are also said to have mostly kinetic energy with tiny potential energy of mass. LaGrangian is suggesting that neutrinos should curve space backward because of kinetic excess shown in momentum balance.

When microwaves exist in swarms like CMB, DE and DM must also occur as destructive interference patterns.

If antimatter had negative mass, annihilation would cancel out mass +/- and fail to conserve total energy. It is suggesting that all mass is positive.

Jerry Decker,

your dark matter is just neutrinos. They can constitute up to 90% of the mass of the universe as I found in my first book.

There is no dark energy as I concluded in my third book. It is based upon analysis of experiments.

Frame dragging was noted by Thomas in atomic physics a long time ago, before GR.

There is no curved space. Gravity bends particles, not space.

Hans Gennow

If the universe did contain mostly neutrinos, space could not be nearly flat, and expansion would be much faster than observed.

Neutrinos can collide with each other and be destroyed within range of weak force, which would occur often if neutrinos were so numerous.

CMB requires destructive interference patterns to exist, confirmed many times by antenna experiments. whether or not neutrinos are numerous.

You need to find another way for neutrinos to be destroyed. Example neutrino and antineutrino approaching within distance of weak force when their numbers become large enough. Experiments in deep mines also show that neutrinos interact occasionally with ordinary chemicals.

Jerry Decker,

sorry, you have got it wrong. The elementary particles were created rigth at the beginning. The total mass created of each species was the same according to Heisenberg. Charged particles will annihilate much more often than neautrinos. Therfore the result will be an overweight of neutrinos. These guys will to a large extend fly away outwards, but may also be colleted within the outskirts of the galaxies.

The CMB has nothings do to with this. The creation of the CMB is described in my fourth book. It is formed by the galaxies themselves.

I would like to know in what sense you all use "annihilate", "create", etc. Earnestly!

Raphael Neelamkavil,

when a particle meets its antiparticle they annihilate. In doing so 2 photons will instead be cretated. In the case of nucleons a pi+/pi- pair may be created due to the larger Q-value. Strange?

No, not strange. This is common knowledge. But when a physicist says something is annihilated, especially in the cosmological context of the evolution of an already existing universe, one gives the impression that one is not bothered about the Conservation of Matter and Energy, and of Momentum.

Similarly, when cosmologists speak of creation of matter, they seem to imply that creation of millions of universes is from mere vacuum (i.e., quantum vacuum which they say is zero and then insist that they add up to the stuff for all the new universes being created. Why then do they put it all at zero value of energy? Where then is the Conservation? This is strange.

So far no physicist has found more suitable words for their 'annihilation' and 'creation'. This is strange.

I hope this is not a matter to jeer at. I ask an earnest question.

Raphael Neelamkavil,

I invite you to read my books. The creation process I have described fullfills conservation of energy, momentum as well as angular momentum. It is based on Heisenbergs principles that allows a particle-antiparticle to be created out of a vacuum bubble for a very short time. I made a modification to be able to make one pair go free while a second one forms a bound state. As I said the process conserves energy and so on.

The probability for such a process must be very small otherwise we might see other universes building up inside ours. We have all the time in the world to make one. How many other there may exist we cannot tell.

Thanks Hans Gennow. Will search for the book. Title?

Hamiltonian is conserved sum of potential and kinetic energies. It disproves claims that positive and negative energies cancel out.

Science doesn't tell how energy originates. In other threads I proposed that a newly created universe may have a little more total energy than the old universe it replaced. The difference is suggested to be allowed by Heisenberg uncertainty, pending resolutions of energy increase not completed when time stops as 4D decays to 3D.

Raphael Neelamkavil,

start with "Born: A universe" which you find in my profile. Number "V" is a short summary with the aim to confront my results with recent interesting observations.

Thanks.

Hans Gennow

How do Planck units fit into your Born: A Universe?

Jerry Decker,

the Planck stuff is just a mathematical construct. Nohing pecial.

However, in my second book I arrived at possible gravitational structures close to the planck mass. A gravitational structure, or object, is build upon the gravitational field. C.f electrons that are built by the electrical field.

“How Did Dark Matter And Dark Energy Originate?”

- “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” are fundamentally different mainstream cosmological phenomena/notions, and so have different originations:

- “Dark Matter” originates in the standard “Lambda-cold dark matter” model since it is necessary to explain “non-Newton” stars distributions/speeds in galaxies and observed gravitational lensing of far objects images; while

- “Dark Energy” originates in the model as the “Lambda term” in the GR equations at application of the equations to whole observed Matter, aimed at to “explain” observed accelerated “space expansion” that causes observed “Matter expansion”; and, at that, “originates” in the model as some mystic actualization of really indeed till now as quite rigorously following from QM, but really quite mysterious, “Zero-point energy” [ZPE].

While there is no something strange in existence on dark matter - moreover, it looks as quite natural, as that is shown in the 2017 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s initial cosmological model, see section “Cosmology” in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics

- “Dark Energy” remains be completely mysterious, including it isn’t impossible that it really has some relation to ZPE, though it looks as more probable that the probably really observed “Matter’s expansion”, which isn’t, of course, some “space expansion”, that is fundamentally impossible,

- but real expansion of the ultimate base of Matter –4+4+1]4D dense lattice of

primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), indeed requires spending of some unknown in physics now energy.

So this FLE expansion is fundamentally beyond physics, though possibly could be rationally described in future, when physics will solve the utmost fundamental physical problem –what is FLE logical structure.

“…the Planck stuff is just a mathematical construct. Nohing pecial.

However, in my second book I arrived at possible gravitational structures close to the planck mass. A gravitational structure, or object, is build upon the gravitational field. C.f electrons that are built by the electrical field.….”

- that is practically for sure incorrect passage. Planck units are ultimate fundamental constants that characterize main properties of FLE, while any particle by no means is built by any field, including electron isn’t built. What are electrons, fundamental Nature Electric force’s field, and why electron by no means can be built by electric field and what is in Matter really – see Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko,

you are fixed at Dark energy for some reason. I have earlier pointed out that the original paper claiming dark energy has problems. Later experiments do not see an accelerated expansion. Difficult to accept that? It is explained in my third book.

I have shown how the electron can be build by the electrical field. The mass, radius, spin come out just right. How do you explain that? Protons and neutrinos also some out right using their respective fields. By accident you mean?

Hans Gennow,

“…Sergey Shevchenko, you are fixed at Dark energy for some reason. I have earlier pointed out that the original paper claiming dark energy has problems. Later experiments do not see an accelerated expansion. Difficult to accept that? It is explained in my third book…”

- sorry, but now there exist also a lot of publications, where it is pointed that “accelerated expansion” is well observed experimentally; and, besides, besides the “accelerated expansion” in Matter’s evolution the “inflation epoch” seems practically for sure happened, where expansion of Matter [really not of Matter, but of the first version of Matter’s ultimate base of Matter – (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of the primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE]],

- which [the lattice] was formed/ expanded exponentially – and so extremely quickly - from seems one “the first” FLE, in the appeared just at creating of the first FLE the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), what was fundamentally by scientific definitions of “space” and “time” [see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics] infinite, and so further never “expanded”.

So for me there would not be surprising if the observations now of the tolerant expansion aren’t an the observers’ illusion, and that really happens. However this problem indeed really isn’t clarified on sufficient confidence level in the standard – and not only - cosmology, that will be possible only after the real topology of Matter that is consistent with the “cosmological principle” will be found.

But the SS post above is, first of all about “Dark energy”, which is necessary at any “expansions”, and practically all what is in the post is an explanation of that the real energy – which really is fundamentally necessary to make any expansion, really isn’t the GR DE in the standard model, and really is beyond physics.

Relating to

“….I have shown how the electron can be build by the electrical field. The mass, radius, spin come out just right. How do you explain that? Protons and neutrinos also some out right using their respective fields. By accident you mean?….”

- again, to say about a particle, field, etc., it is necessary before to have at least rational assumption – what are the particle, field, etc. What is fundamentally impossible in mainstream physics, since in the mainstream - and seems for you – all fundamental phenomena/notions, including “Matter” [and not only] – and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., , are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational things;

- and so all what is possible – and so is – in the mainstream is formulating of ad hoc assumptions as postulates of theories that fit for some transcendent mystic reasons and by some transcendent mystic ways, the theories with experiments.

Including, say, a few “electromagnetic masses of electron” exist in classical electrodynamics seems more 150 years, the postulate that Matter’s space is filled by existent constantly and always for/by some mystic reasons and ways “all fields of all fundamental Forces” , while “particles are excitations of these fields” is the basic postulate in QFT; and your showing is something like.

Really the real scientific definition of “Matter” [and not only] is possible, and is done, only in framework of the philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

,

- and more concretely, including the quite scientifically rational models of particles and fields is done in the physical model above

Including, again, any particle, including electron, by no means is built by any field, while at least 3 fundamental – Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear – Forces have the fields and act by using one universal scheme, besides the link in the last SS post above about what are Gravity and Electric Forces see 2023 model of Nuclear Force in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko,

give me the references you are talking about, thanks.

Hans Gennow,

“…Sergey Shevchenko, give me the references you are talking about, thanks.…..”

- the references I’m talking about are in the SS posts above,

- besides, though, about “accelerated expansion of universe”, but in mainstream cosmology numerous publications exist about that, and so that isn’t referenced in the posts, so if necessary see, e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

- to what I can only to add that instead of a rather vague – though liked by populace - term “universe” really the more scientifically concrete term “Matter” should be used.

Other references are given in the posts, and I can only to repeat:

– about what are fundamental Nature Gravity and Electric forces - see Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of these Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces ;

– about what is fundamental Nature Nuclear force - see the 2023 initial model of this Forces in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force.

Including in these models it is rigorously shown that all these Forces act in Matter by one universal scheme, when the Forces’ charges [what is if a particles has corresponding charge - “gravitational mass”, “electric charge”, “nuclear charge”] act, that happens as the charges constantly and always create corresponding mediums – which are observed in mainstream physics as “Forces’ fields”, spending at that no energy and so creating no “Forces’ fields energy densities ” and “Forces fields strengths flows”

– while in the mainstream, these “energy densities” and “ the strengths’ flows” exist/proceed constantly and always; and in the mainstream if another correspondingly charged particle occurs in the field, that is observed as the particle obtains some momentum, and so obtains some kinetic energy - what looks as rather questionable – what are this energies’ sources?

Really – as that is shown in the models above – that isn’t so – the particle in a field doesn’t obtain a momentum/energy, it creates it for itself; and so, say, if a Force is attractive one, spends correspondingly only own energy – as, say, a human swims in water spending his energy,

- what results, say, in that in a coupled by an attractive Force particles systems the particles have negative mass defects, etc.;

- while, if the system is closed, then the sum of kinetic energies of the particles is equal to the mass defect, and the energy, E, that the system contains is equal to sum of the particles’ own energies, E=sum(m0ic2) – what the system had when the particles were on infinite distances.

What isn’t in mainstream theories of the Forces, where the systems can have, in principle, arbitrary energies – up to infinite energies of falling bodies that cross some black hole “event horizon” in the GR; etc. – not only in the GR - though.

More see the links.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko,

your references give no support. Your wiki link refers to Riess et al, the paper I found to have problems. That is the paper claiming dark energy.

Hans Gennow,

“…Sergey Shevchenko, your references give no support. Your wiki link refers to Riess et al, the paper I found to have problems. That is the paper claiming dark energy.….”

- as I wrote already in the post 3 days ago now:

“…..So for me there would not be surprising if the observations now of the tolerant expansion aren’t an the observers’ illusion, and that really happens. However this problem indeed really isn’t clarified on sufficient confidence level in the standard – and not only - cosmology, that will be possible only after the real topology of Matter that is consistent with the “cosmological principle” will be found….”

- and only can add that since I don’t know the topology, besides that if [with a rather non-zero probability] the first [which, besides, didn’t contained antimatter] version of Matter was created at pumping of the huge energy in the primary, i.e. just after the inflation expansion of the lattice ended, FLE lattice globally uniformly through the lattice in one/few Planck time intervals,

- then [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics] everything in Matter always was and now is in a 4D hyperplane with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) of the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [5]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), in the point ct=ct, which moves in the ct-axis with the speed of light; though even that is, again, till now quite speculative, despite that looks as rational, assumption.

Correspondingly, again, I cannot essentially enough clarify for myself – who, you or the standard model – are more correct in relation to the accelerated Matter’s expansion [again, fundamentally not “space expansion”] problem; and all what I can – and wrote already above in the thread - is that for the FLE lattice expansion, which, including, unlike the “accelerated expansion”, practically for sure happened, it was fundamentally necessary to spend some – though well possibly negligible comparing with the energy that was spent on creation of the first Matter – energy portion, which is conserved till now in recent Matter,

- and so if the accelerated expansion isn’t an illusion, some energy is spending as well. However, again, this energy is practically for sure beyond at least recent physics, and is, of course, positive – in contrast to the standard “dark energy” in the Lambda-CMD model.

Correspondingly the SS posts above relate, first of all, to your pointing that the electron can be built by the electrical field, what is incorrect, and in the post it is explained what really are particles and fundamental Nature forces’ fields; and how, at least Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces really act – by the one universal scheme.

More see the SS post above and links in the posts.

Cheers

It seems it is necessary to modify the passage in the last SS post above as

“…[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics] everything in Matter always was and now is in a 4D hyperplane with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) of the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [5]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), in the point ct=ct, which moves in the ct-axis with the speed of light;

- or, what can be more probable, , everything in Matter always was and now is on a 4D hypersphere surface with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) that has the radius R=ct, and moves globally isotropically in Matter’s spacetime above along the radiuses with the speeds of light; …”

Cheers