dark energy ammendment ! [Archive]

alistair

Apr24-04, 11:18 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>If the expansion of the universe is going to stop and be stopped by\ndark energy,dark energy must change in some way because it is\ncurrently postulated to be accelerating the universe.If there is a\nchange in dark energy i.e if dark energy consists of individual\nparticles or waves that can decay and reduce their energy,can this\nenergy change be related to the heisenberg principle\nEnergy x time = hbar? I ask this question\nbecause if the heisenberg principle is valid in this case, by knowing\nhow big an energy change their is for an individual dark energy\nwave/particle we could use the heisenberg\nrelation to determine how long the universe would expand for.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>If the expansion of the universe is going to stop and be stopped by
dark energy,dark energy must change in some way because it is
currently postulated to be accelerating the universe.If there is a
change in dark energy i.e if dark energy consists of individual
particles or waves that can decay and reduce their energy,can this
energy change be related to the heisenberg principle
Energy x time = \hbar? I ask this question
because if the heisenberg principle is valid in this case, by knowing
how big an energy change their is for an individual dark energy
wave/particle we could use the heisenberg
relation to determine how long the universe would expand for.

Hendrik van Hees

Apr24-04, 08:17 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>alistair wrote:\n\n> If the expansion of the universe is going to stop and be stopped by\n> dark energy,dark energy must change in some way because it is\n> currently postulated to be accelerating the universe.\n\nDark energy, i.e., the cosmological constant doesn\'t stop the expansion\nof the universe, but does the contrary: It is reponsible for the\nobserved accelerated expansion!\n\n> If there is a\n> change in dark energy i.e if dark energy consists of individual\n> particles or waves that can decay and reduce their energy,can this\n> energy change be related to the heisenberg principle\n> Energy x time = hbar? I ask this question\n> because if the heisenberg principle is valid in this case, by knowing\n> how big an energy change their is for an individual dark energy\n> wave/particle we could use the heisenberg\n> relation to determine how long the universe would expand for.\n\nWe do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It\'s one of the biggest\nunsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the\ncosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the\nstandard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value\nwhich is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a\nfactor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!).\n\n--\nHendrik van Hees Cyclotron Institute\nPhone: +1 979/845-1411 Texas A&M University\nFax: +1 979/845-1899 Cyclotron Institute, MS-3366\nhttp://theory.gsi.de/~vanhees/ College Station, TX 77843-3366\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>alistair wrote:

> If the expansion of the universe is going to stop and be stopped by
> dark energy,dark energy must change in some way because it is
> currently postulated to be accelerating the universe.

Dark energy, i.e., the cosmological constant doesn't stop the expansion
of the universe, but does the contrary: It is reponsible for the
observed accelerated expansion!

> If there is a
> change in dark energy i.e if dark energy consists of individual
> particles or waves that can decay and reduce their energy,can this
> energy change be related to the heisenberg principle
> Energy x time = \hbar? I ask this question
> because if the heisenberg principle is valid in this case, by knowing
> how big an energy change their is for an individual dark energy
> wave/particle we could use the heisenberg
> relation to determine how long the universe would expand for.

We do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It's one of the biggest
unsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the
cosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the
standard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value
which is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a
factor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!).

--
Hendrik van Hees Cyclotron Institute
Phone: +1 979/845-1411 Texas A&M University
Fax: +1 979/845-1899 Cyclotron Institute, MS-3366
http://theory.gsi.de/~vanhees/ College Station, TX 77843-3366

Danny Ross Lunsford

Apr28-04, 01:47 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Hendrik van Hees wrote:\n\n> We do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It\'s one of the biggest\n> unsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the\n> cosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the\n> standard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value\n> which is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a\n> factor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!).\n\nIf one generalizes the geometry to that of Weyl, the CC must be zero, and\nthus a non-zero CC is a highly suspicious physical quantity, insofar as it\nrepresents a degree of freedom lost in specializing the geometry,\nreappearing as the metric with a multiplicative constant in the contracted\nBianchi identities. In Weyl space the covariant derivative of the metric is\n\ngmn;a = -Aa gmn\n\nThe lost invariance is that of local scale. Mathematically, the Weyl gauge\nvector devolves to a gradient and the geometry becomes Riemannian, and\nlength becomes integrable. When A devolves to a gradient,\n\ngmn;a = -phi;a gmn = (-phi gmn);a + phi gmn;a\n\nso\n\n(1 - phi) gmn;a = (-phi gmn);a\n\nimplying\n\ngmn;a = 0\n\nThis now allows the CC to be introduced, which actually amounts to the\nnow-global length scale. Thus the geometrical problem has become reducible,\nand we violate the sacred law of irreducibility of physical objects. I say\n"sacred" because nowhere in physics does an essentially reducible object\ncorrespond to a unique physical entity. This principle is perhaps as basic\nas Lorentz invariance for determining the mathematical description of\nphysical objects. I therefore cannot understand the obsession with the CC.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hendrik van Hees wrote:

> We do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It's one of the biggest
> unsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the
> cosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the
> standard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value
> which is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a
> factor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!).

If one generalizes the geometry to that of Weyl, the CC must be zero, and
thus a non-zero CC is a highly suspicious physical quantity, insofar as it
represents a degree of freedom lost in specializing the geometry,
reappearing as the metric with a multiplicative constant in the contracted
Bianchi identities. In Weyl space the covariant derivative of the metric is

gmn;a = -Aa gmn

The lost invariance is that of local scale. Mathematically, the Weyl gauge
vector devolves to a gradient and the geometry becomes Riemannian, and
length becomes integrable. When A devolves to a gradient,

gmn;a = -\phi;a gmn = (-\phi gmn);a + \phi gmn;a

so

(1 - \phi) gmn;a = (-\phi gmn);a

implying

gmn;a =

This now allows the CC to be introduced, which actually amounts to the
now-global length scale. Thus the geometrical problem has become reducible,
and we violate the sacred law of irreducibility of physical objects. I say
"sacred" because nowhere in physics does an essentially reducible object
correspond to a unique physical entity. This principle is perhaps as basic
as Lorentz invariance for determining the mathematical description of
physical objects. I therefore cannot understand the obsession with the CC.

Danny Ross Lunsford

Oct12-06, 05:09 AM

Hendrik van Hees wrote:

> We do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It's one of the biggest
> unsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the
> cosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the
> standard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value
> which is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a
> factor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!).

If one generalizes the geometry to that of Weyl, the CC must be zero, and
thus a non-zero CC is a highly suspicious physical quantity, insofar as it
represents a degree of freedom lost in specializing the geometry,
reappearing as the metric with a multiplicative constant in the contracted
Bianchi identities. In Weyl space the covariant derivative of the metric is

gmn;a = -Aa gmn

The lost invariance is that of local scale. Mathematically, the Weyl gauge
vector devolves to a gradient and the geometry becomes Riemannian, and
length becomes integrable. When A devolves to a gradient,

gmn;a = -phi;a gmn = (-phi gmn);a

so

(1 + phi) gmn;a = gmn;a

implying

gmn;a = 0

This now allows the CC to be introduced, which actually amounts to the
now-global length scale. Thus the geometrical problem has become reducible,
and we violate the sacred law of irreducibility of physical objects. I say
"sacred" because *nowhere* in physics does an essentially reducible object
correspond to a unique physical entity. This principle is perhaps as basic
as Lorentz invariance for determining the mathematical description of
physical objects. I therefore cannot understand the obsession with the CC.

--
-drl

Danny Ross Lunsford

Oct12-06, 05:09 AM

Hendrik van Hees wrote:

> We do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It's one of the biggest
> unsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the
> cosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the
> standard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value
> which is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a
> factor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!).

If one generalizes the geometry to that of Weyl, the CC must be zero, and
thus a non-zero CC is a highly suspicious physical quantity, insofar as it
represents a degree of freedom lost in specializing the geometry,
reappearing as the metric with a multiplicative constant in the contracted
Bianchi identities. In Weyl space the covariant derivative of the metric is

gmn;a = -Aa gmn

The lost invariance is that of local scale. Mathematically, the Weyl gauge
vector devolves to a gradient and the geometry becomes Riemannian, and
length becomes integrable. When A devolves to a gradient,

gmn;a = -phi;a gmn = (-phi gmn);a

so

(1 + phi) gmn;a = gmn;a

implying

gmn;a = 0

This now allows the CC to be introduced, which actually amounts to the
now-global length scale. Thus the geometrical problem has become reducible,
and we violate the sacred law of irreducibility of physical objects. I say
"sacred" because *nowhere* in physics does an essentially reducible object
correspond to a unique physical entity. This principle is perhaps as basic
as Lorentz invariance for determining the mathematical description of
physical objects. I therefore cannot understand the obsession with the CC.

--
-drl

Danny Ross Lunsford

Oct12-06, 05:09 AM

Hendrik van Hees wrote:

> We do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It's one of the biggest
> unsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the
> cosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the
> standard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value
> which is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a
> factor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!).

If one generalizes the geometry to that of Weyl, the CC must be zero, and
thus a non-zero CC is a highly suspicious physical quantity, insofar as it
represents a degree of freedom lost in specializing the geometry,
reappearing as the metric with a multiplicative constant in the contracted
Bianchi identities. In Weyl space the covariant derivative of the metric is

gmn;a = -Aa gmn

The lost invariance is that of local scale. Mathematically, the Weyl gauge
vector devolves to a gradient and the geometry becomes Riemannian, and
length becomes integrable. When A devolves to a gradient,

gmn;a = -phi;a gmn = (-phi gmn);a

so

(1 + phi) gmn;a = gmn;a

implying

gmn;a = 0

This now allows the CC to be introduced, which actually amounts to the
now-global length scale. Thus the geometrical problem has become reducible,
and we violate the sacred law of irreducibility of physical objects. I say
"sacred" because *nowhere* in physics does an essentially reducible object
correspond to a unique physical entity. This principle is perhaps as basic
as Lorentz invariance for determining the mathematical description of
physical objects. I therefore cannot understand the obsession with the CC.

--
-drl

Danny Ross Lunsford

Oct12-06, 05:09 AM

Hendrik van Hees wrote:

> We do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It's one of the biggest
> unsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the
> cosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the
> standard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value
> which is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a
> factor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!).

If one generalizes the geometry to that of Weyl, the CC must be zero, and
thus a non-zero CC is a highly suspicious physical quantity, insofar as it
represents a degree of freedom lost in specializing the geometry,
reappearing as the metric with a multiplicative constant in the contracted
Bianchi identities. In Weyl space the covariant derivative of the metric is

gmn;a = -Aa gmn

The lost invariance is that of local scale. Mathematically, the Weyl gauge
vector devolves to a gradient and the geometry becomes Riemannian, and
length becomes integrable. When A devolves to a gradient,

gmn;a = -phi;a gmn = (-phi gmn);a

so

(1 + phi) gmn;a = gmn;a

implying

gmn;a = 0

This now allows the CC to be introduced, which actually amounts to the
now-global length scale. Thus the geometrical problem has become reducible,
and we violate the sacred law of irreducibility of physical objects. I say
"sacred" because *nowhere* in physics does an essentially reducible object
correspond to a unique physical entity. This principle is perhaps as basic
as Lorentz invariance for determining the mathematical description of
physical objects. I therefore cannot understand the obsession with the CC.

--
-drl

Danny Ross Lunsford

Oct12-06, 05:09 AM

Hendrik van Hees wrote:

> We do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It's one of the biggest
> unsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the
> cosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the
> standard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value
> which is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a
> factor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!).

If one generalizes the geometry to that of Weyl, the CC must be zero, and
thus a non-zero CC is a highly suspicious physical quantity, insofar as it
represents a degree of freedom lost in specializing the geometry,
reappearing as the metric with a multiplicative constant in the contracted
Bianchi identities. In Weyl space the covariant derivative of the metric is

gmn;a = -Aa gmn

The lost invariance is that of local scale. Mathematically, the Weyl gauge
vector devolves to a gradient and the geometry becomes Riemannian, and
length becomes integrable. When A devolves to a gradient,

gmn;a = -phi;a gmn = (-phi gmn);a

so

(1 + phi) gmn;a = gmn;a

implying

gmn;a = 0

This now allows the CC to be introduced, which actually amounts to the
now-global length scale. Thus the geometrical problem has become reducible,
and we violate the sacred law of irreducibility of physical objects. I say
"sacred" because *nowhere* in physics does an essentially reducible object
correspond to a unique physical entity. This principle is perhaps as basic
as Lorentz invariance for determining the mathematical description of
physical objects. I therefore cannot understand the obsession with the CC.

--
-drl

Danny Ross Lunsford

Oct12-06, 05:09 AM

Hendrik van Hees wrote:

> We do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It's one of the biggest
> unsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the
> cosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the
> standard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value
> which is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a
> factor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!).

If one generalizes the geometry to that of Weyl, the CC must be zero, and
thus a non-zero CC is a highly suspicious physical quantity, insofar as it
represents a degree of freedom lost in specializing the geometry,
reappearing as the metric with a multiplicative constant in the contracted
Bianchi identities. In Weyl space the covariant derivative of the metric is

gmn;a = -Aa gmn

The lost invariance is that of local scale. Mathematically, the Weyl gauge
vector devolves to a gradient and the geometry becomes Riemannian, and
length becomes integrable. When A devolves to a gradient,

gmn;a = -phi;a gmn = (-phi gmn);a

so

(1 + phi) gmn;a = gmn;a

implying

gmn;a = 0

This now allows the CC to be introduced, which actually amounts to the
now-global length scale. Thus the geometrical problem has become reducible,
and we violate the sacred law of irreducibility of physical objects. I say
"sacred" because *nowhere* in physics does an essentially reducible object
correspond to a unique physical entity. This principle is perhaps as basic
as Lorentz invariance for determining the mathematical description of
physical objects. I therefore cannot understand the obsession with the CC.

--
-drl

Danny Ross Lunsford

Oct12-06, 05:09 AM

Hendrik van Hees wrote:

> We do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It's one of the biggest
> unsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the
> cosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the
> standard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value
> which is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a
> factor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!).

If one generalizes the geometry to that of Weyl, the CC must be zero, and
thus a non-zero CC is a highly suspicious physical quantity, insofar as it
represents a degree of freedom lost in specializing the geometry,
reappearing as the metric with a multiplicative constant in the contracted
Bianchi identities. In Weyl space the covariant derivative of the metric is

gmn;a = -Aa gmn

The lost invariance is that of local scale. Mathematically, the Weyl gauge
vector devolves to a gradient and the geometry becomes Riemannian, and
length becomes integrable. When A devolves to a gradient,

gmn;a = -phi;a gmn = (-phi gmn);a

so

(1 + phi) gmn;a = gmn;a

implying

gmn;a = 0

This now allows the CC to be introduced, which actually amounts to the
now-global length scale. Thus the geometrical problem has become reducible,
and we violate the sacred law of irreducibility of physical objects. I say
"sacred" because *nowhere* in physics does an essentially reducible object
correspond to a unique physical entity. This principle is perhaps as basic
as Lorentz invariance for determining the mathematical description of
physical objects. I therefore cannot understand the obsession with the CC.

--
-drl

Danny Ross Lunsford

Oct12-06, 05:09 AM

Hendrik van Hees wrote:

> We do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It's one of the biggest
> unsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the
> cosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the
> standard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value
> which is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a
> factor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!).

If one generalizes the geometry to that of Weyl, the CC must be zero, and
thus a non-zero CC is a highly suspicious physical quantity, insofar as it
represents a degree of freedom lost in specializing the geometry,
reappearing as the metric with a multiplicative constant in the contracted
Bianchi identities. In Weyl space the covariant derivative of the metric is

gmn;a = -Aa gmn

The lost invariance is that of local scale. Mathematically, the Weyl gauge
vector devolves to a gradient and the geometry becomes Riemannian, and
length becomes integrable. When A devolves to a gradient,

gmn;a = -phi;a gmn = (-phi gmn);a

so

(1 + phi) gmn;a = gmn;a

implying

gmn;a = 0

This now allows the CC to be introduced, which actually amounts to the
now-global length scale. Thus the geometrical problem has become reducible,
and we violate the sacred law of irreducibility of physical objects. I say
"sacred" because *nowhere* in physics does an essentially reducible object
correspond to a unique physical entity. This principle is perhaps as basic
as Lorentz invariance for determining the mathematical description of
physical objects. I therefore cannot understand the obsession with the CC.

--
-drl

Danny Ross Lunsford

Oct12-06, 05:09 AM

Hendrik van Hees wrote:

> We do not know yet what "dark energy" might be. It's one of the biggest
> unsolved problems of contemporary physics to explain, why the
> cosmological constant is as small as it is. A naive estimate from the
> standard model of elementary particle physics would suggest a value
> which is around 120 orders of magnitude too big (i.e. we are off by a
> factor of 10^120, i.e. a 1 with 120 zeros!).

If one generalizes the geometry to that of Weyl, the CC must be zero, and
thus a non-zero CC is a highly suspicious physical quantity, insofar as it
represents a degree of freedom lost in specializing the geometry,
reappearing as the metric with a multiplicative constant in the contracted
Bianchi identities. In Weyl space the covariant derivative of the metric is

gmn;a = -Aa gmn

The lost invariance is that of local scale. Mathematically, the Weyl gauge
vector devolves to a gradient and the geometry becomes Riemannian, and
length becomes integrable. When A devolves to a gradient,

gmn;a = -phi;a gmn = (-phi gmn);a

so

(1 + phi) gmn;a = gmn;a

implying

gmn;a = 0

This now allows the CC to be introduced, which actually amounts to the
now-global length scale. Thus the geometrical problem has become reducible,
and we violate the sacred law of irreducibility of physical objects. I say
"sacred" because *nowhere* in physics does an essentially reducible object
correspond to a unique physical entity. This principle is perhaps as basic
as Lorentz invariance for determining the mathematical description of
physical objects. I therefore cannot understand the obsession with the CC.

--
-drl