Dark energy could be gravitons

[kurious]

Dark energy could be the energy of a huge number of gravitons.
As photons traveling from one galaxy to another redshift they could emit gravitons that adds to the dark energy total and so keep the density of dark energy constant.Also if the gravitons carry the colour force , like gluons,
then they would be inhibited by other gravitons as they travel from one mass to another-they would lose energy to other gravitons and the force of gravity would be very weak by the time they reached a distant mass.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Dark energy is defined as a hypothetical energy evenly filling the universe where there is no ordinary matter or dark matter. It is a more general idea of energy than the cosmological constant (energy balancing parameter in general relativity). The time derivative of dark energy is not zero. But unfortunately, cosmologists do not presently believe that photon can emit graviton. They are distinct types of force quanta. Photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic force and graviton is the quantum of the gravitational force. These two forces are not related although Einstein used to think so and he did try to unify gravity and electromagnetism but he never succeeded in this attempt. The Kaluza-Klein theory of 5th dimension is also another attempt to unify gravity and EM. This was forgotten but revived by the superstring theory to 10th dimension and M-theory to 11th dimension. Still graviton is not found by experiment. The reason why it is very difficult to detect graviton is that gravitons are the quantized waves of spacetime itself while photons are waves traveling through spacetime. To give an analogy using surfing, the photons are the surfers and graviton are the breakers.

 

[kurious]

ANTONIO LAO:

The reason why it is very difficult to detect graviton is that gravitons are the quantized waves of spacetime itself while photons are waves traveling through spacetime. To give an analogy using surfing, the photons are the surfers and graviton are the breakers.

KURIOUS:

I agree with this.But I still believe photons impart energy to dark energy.
Dark energy has to come from somewhere!
Since space-time as a whole is constant, if it imparts energy to matter then it must
get some back too.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Dark energy has to come from somewhere!

The origin of dark energy is still a mystery. It is used to explain the forces of antigravity in an inflationary universe. An inflationary universe is a step more advanced timewise than the big bang singularity. There still no theory that can explain the singularity of the standard model of the big bang.

 

[sol2]

The origin of dark energy is still a mystery. It is used to explain the forces of antigravity in an inflationary universe. An inflationary universe is a step more advanced timewise than the big bang singularity. There still no theory that can explain the singularity of the standard model of the big bang.

In terms of theoretical developement, what views would have supported cyclical universes? If Singuarities are a not a end feature anymore from the possibiltiy of the action of Fission/fusion being detailled in black hole creation?

The collapse fo the balckhole signals other considerations, and needed to be geometrically consistent in the model explanations topological considered?

How would you do that?

We develope theorectical models in place of actual physics, in the hopes of being pointed in complete visualized summations one might have understood how the geometry of bubble inversion might comeout of expansitory modes, while entropy understanding of those black holes become geometrical defined.

 

[kurious]

No need for a singularity at all.
If the universe never got smaller than about 10^24 metres in radius then (using energy density is proportional to 1/ R ^ 4 for photons) the temperature of the cosmic microwave background would have been about 10^10K after 1 second -which current big bang theory says it was at a radius of 10^-35 metres.The pressure generated by this temperature could have enabled the universe to reach its current radius in 10^18 seconds - the current age of the universe.

 

[sol2]

You have to understand the gravitational perspective is also being developed along side of critical density. That has to be done geometrically?

 

[Antonio Lao]

Maybe we are back to dimensional problem of space? In a 1D universe, how many closest points does each point of this universe has? My answer is 2. In a 2D universe the number of nearest points is 4. For 3D, it's 6. For 4D, it's 8. For 5D, it's is 10. For 6D, it's 12. For 7D, it's 14. For 8D, it's 16, For 9D, it's 18. For 10D, it's 20.

In terms of theoretical developement, what views would have supported cyclical universes?

My idea is that the complete universe is like a figure 8 or $\infty$. One loop contains all the antimatter and the other contains matter. If one loop decreases in radius the other increases in radius and vice versa. The figure never becomes a figure of "O."

 

[Prometheus]

In a 1D universe, how many closest points does each point of this universe has? My answer is 2. In a 2D universe the number of nearest points is 4. For 3D, it's 6. For 4D, it's 8. For 5D, it's is 10. For 6D, it's 12. For 7D, it's 14. For 8D, it's 16, For 9D, it's 18. For 10D, it's 20.

I don't understand this. You claim that for x dimensions, the number of immediate neighbors of a point is 2x. Please explain this.

 

[jcsd]

Maybe we are back to dimensional problem of space? In a 1D universe, how many closest points does each point of this universe has? My answer is 2. In a 2D universe the number of nearest points is 4. For 3D, it's 6. For 4D, it's 8. For 5D, it's is 10. For 6D, it's 12. For 7D, it's 14. For 8D, it's 16, For 9D, it's 18. For 10D, it's 20.

There's no such ting as 'closest points' in space as there is always required to be one point inbetween any two points.

If you are going for some sort of quanitiztion in which (3-D) space becomes a countable set of ordered triplets, it's actually quite easy to show that your scheme cannot as your space has a taxi-cab-like metric.

We measure the distance between any two points in (Euclidean) space as:

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2


But in this system:

ds = |dx| + |dy| + |dz| ==>

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + (|2dydx| + |2dzdx| + |2dydz|)

So for any measuremnt we made between two points there would be a noticeable difference between the distance given by the Euclidean metric and the distance given by the taxi-cab metric due to the triangle inequality (at whatever level the quantiztion took place).

 

[force5]

Dark energy could be the energy of a huge number of gravitons.
As photons traveling from one galaxy to another redshift they could emit gravitons that adds to the dark energy total and so keep the density of dark energy constant.Also if the gravitons carry the colour force , like gluons,
then they would be inhibited by other gravitons as they travel from one mass to another-they would lose energy to other gravitons and the force of gravity would be very weak by the time they reached a distant mass.

Using QM language, I would think of Dark energy as anti-gravitons. In other words, the destiny of a photon depends on converging vs. merging with other photons from other sources.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Prometheus and jcsd,

If the distance between two points approaches zero can be defined. The limit exists.

$$lim_{d\rightarrow 0} f(d) \neq 0$$

 

[Antonio Lao]

Prometheus,

If we imagine a dimension as an infinitely extended line in both directions then each point on the line has two immediate neighbors.

Two dimensions would have two infinitely extended lines intersect at a point and this point of origin would have 4 closest neighbors.

Three dimensions would have three infinitely extended lines intersect at a point and this point of origin would have 6 closes neighbors.

 

[jcsd]

Prometheus and jcsd,

If the distance between two points approaches zero can be defined. The limit exists.

$$lim_{d\rightarrow 0} f(d) \neq 0$$

Which function of d though?. As I said before there is always another point between any two points and your scheme assumes a taxi-cab metric.

 

[jcsd]

Prometheus,

If we imagine a dimension as an infinitely extended line in both directions then each point on the line has two immediate neighbors.

Two dimensions would have two infinitely extended lines intersect at a point and this point of origin would have 4 closest neighbors.

Three dimensions would have three infinitely extended lines intersect at a point and this point of origin would have 6 closes neighbors.

I have already explained to you why this is not and cannot be the case. I mean fior a start ask yourself, how many different lines can intersect a point?

 

[sol2]

I feel safe in coordinated systems, but the reality is, that dimension is very different then we have all assumed?

Can you imagine everyones face when Reimann gave his speech and Gauss was sitting in the audience as a proud father?

Interest in the intrinsic geometry of surfaces can be traced to the work of Gauss, who in his 1827 Treatise on the Geometry of Curved Surfaces encouraged his readers to imagine the sorts of measurements that would be made by intelligent flatworms moving along the surface of a membrane in space. His concern with geodesy led him to recognize the effect of curvature on geometry, for example in determining the sum of the angles of a triangle drawn with shortest lines on a sphere or an irregular surface. These ideas were elaborated in 1854 in the dissertation of Bernhard Riemann, The Hypotheses Which Underlie Geometry, which introduced intrinsic measurements on abstract spaces of any number of dimensions and did not require reference to a containing space of higher dimension in which material objects were supposed to be 'curved'.

http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/ISR/ISR.html

I hope I am not confusing the historical here, but if I am, can someone please correct.

So indeed it got pretty mystical for a while, but we now understand not just the physics behind the search for dimensions , but of how "colorful," this search has been.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Which function of d though?.

The function of the metric (d) will not be always zero. When d=0, then space is continuous. In special relativity, when the spacetime interval is zero, this defined a constant velocity of light.

In my research, when the metric and not the force is exactly zero, force and spacetime are equivalent.

how many different lines can intersect a point?

For nonorthogonal system, many lines (infinite) can intersect at a point. For mutually orthogonal lines, only three. Orthogonality is very important in my theory. In projective geometry, orthogonality is not preserved since distances are not preserved.
In a sense, orthogonality predefines the meaning of distance or the geodesic (which can be curvelinear in other geometries).

 

[Antonio Lao]

but we now understand not just the physics behind the search for dimensions

If we assume at the outset that the fundamental dimension of space is one dimensional then the search for the reality of higher dimension is now not necessary. But still we must not stop searching the mathematics behind the illusions of two, three and higher dimensions then after all the logical mathematical thinkings, we could come back to the realization that higher dimensions are merely the motion of lower dimensions. The motion of 0-dim creates 1-dim, motion of 1-dim creates 2-dim, motion of 2-dim creates 3-dim, motion of 3-dim creates 4-dim, etc. Once we talk of motion of something, we are entering the realm of physics. but the mathematics of motion is really the differential calculus invented by Newton mainly for the purpose of describing motion of the moons, the planets, the comets, etc. The existence of time derivative of a function. The subtle point to make is that the function was also depended on the space and the motion of space was never questioned except by del operator, $\nabla$. But is this operator the motion of space? To me this operator is describing the change in size and shape of space and not its change in time.

 

[jcsd]

The function of the metric (d) will not be always zero. When d=0, then space is continuous. In special relativity, when the spacetime interval is zero, this defined a constant velocity of light.

Which function of which metric? you have to be clearer.

I see, what you're getting at your talking about pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, or specifically Lorentzian manifolds. The numebr of events with an invariant interval of zero (e.g. events with a lightlike seperation) from a partciualr event is infinite.


[quite]For nonorthogonal system, many lines (infinite) can intersect at a point. For mutually orthogonal lines, only three. Orthogonality is very important in my theory. In projective geometry, orthogonality is not preserved since distances are not preserved.
In a sense, orthogonality predefines the meaning of distance or the geodesic (which can be curvelinear in other geometries).[/QUOTE]

But as I said before you've go to be careful as it looks to me that your going for something simlair to the taxi-cab metric.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Can we say that the change in size and shape of space can happen in no time at all? It is a fact that the change in size of space as depicted by the universal expansion can go beyond superluminal speed. This seems to indicated that change in space can be instantaneous. But both matter and energy can change only in time. But what about spacetime? Spacetime as what is implied in general relativity could only have a meaning if it is equivalent to a force. This equivalence happens at infinite curvature of spacetime which is really the quantum domain of the Planck scale.

 

[Antonio Lao]

taxi-cab metric

I dont't understand this. Could you please explain a little bit more.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Which function of which metric? you have to be clearer.

$$d^2 = m^2 + n^2 + l^2 - (\vec{a} \cdot \vec{r}) t^2$$

where m,n,l are the indices for a defined quantum of length. a is a generalized acceleration and $r^2 = m^2 + n^2 + l^2$.

 

[jcsd]

The taxi-cab metric (so-called because it does have practical application in the grid-like layout of many cities in the USA)is:

ds = |dx| + |dy|

and it essientially describes a square grid.

Now the reason why I've associated this with your idea is that you have given everypoint in space a 'cube like shape' i.e. you seem to be associating the properties of a cubic tessellation with points in a manifold which is incorrect.

 

[Entropy]

I don't know if this is relevant or not but a theory called Yilmaz General Relativity where gravity acts on itself (pulling itself). It turns out that it predicts that black holes do not exists. How this would effect the universe as a whole I have no idea. Maybe some of you do.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Now the reason why I've associated this with your idea is that you have given everypoint in space a 'cube like shape' i.e. you seem to be associating the properties of a cubic tessellation with points in a manifold which is incorrect.

What I have in mind are the regular polyhedra: tetrahedron, cube, icosahedron, octahedron, dodecahedron,

 

[jcsd]

What I have in mind are the regular polyhedra: tetrahedron, cube, icosahedron, octahedron, dodecahedron,

But most of those shapes (on their own) don't tessellate in a space-filling way.

 

[sol2]

If we assume at the outset that the fundamental dimension of space is one dimensional then the search for the reality of higher dimension is now not necessary.

I think here in the brane scenarios it is 2+1 to represent a fifth dimensional (four of space and 1 of Time). I would need to be corrected here if this is wrong.

But still we must not stop searching the mathematics behind the illusions of two, three and higher dimensions then after all the logical mathematical thinkings, we could come back to the realization that higher dimensions are merely the motion of lower dimensions. The motion of 0-dim creates 1-dim, motion of 1-dim creates 2-dim, motion of 2-dim creates 3-dim, motion of 3-dim creates 4-dim, etc.

Definitely. By making the assunption of the fifth dimenisonal perspective, we have included in the brane scenario issue in regards to GR and Quantum perspectives. So how would these degrees of freedom be associated?

Once we talk of motion of something, we are entering the realm of physics. but the mathematics of motion is really the differential calculus invented by Newton mainly for the purpose of describing motion of the moons, the planets, the comets, etc.

Again from what I understood as well. It becomes some what complicated once you entertain the realm of comsological considerations. GR works very well here, but the problem has been joining to with Quantum theory. Hence our two models to consider(strings and LQG). I woud add Penrose here in regards to http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tweb/00006/index.shtml.

The existence of time derivative of a function. The subtle point to make is that the function was also depended on the space and the motion of space was never questioned except by del operator, $\nabla$. But is this operator the motion of space? To me this operator is describing the change in size and shape of space and not its change in time.

The time realizations even in context of the spacetime curvature parameters are well understood in the equations of the Friedmann. That you have spoken to the instantenous action of the quantum world cries out for some kind of correspondance geometrically. This progression of geometrical consideration still applies once we have reduced the five dimensions to 2+1?

What does the gap tell us?

Again I am open to corrections.

 

[Antonio Lao]

But most of those shapes (on their own) don't tessellate in a space-filling way.

Form the metric, the cube shape appears when m=n=l. But the basis for these are (1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1), the only ocurrence is when m=n=l=0 but this is just the point itself. Hence the cube is zero and the distance between a point and itself is zero.

$$d^2 = m^2 + n^2 + l^2 - (\vec{a} \cdot \vec{r}) t^2$$

 

[Antonio Lao]

the brane scenarios it is 2+1

Isn't this just some sort of three superdimensional concept?

So how would these degrees of freedom be associated?

The degree of freedom (dof) for each dimension, I am associating it with the number of closest neighbors for a given spacetime point. 2 dof for 1D, 4 dof for 2D, 6 dof for 3D, 8 dof for 4D, 10 dof for 5D, 12 dof for 6D, 14 dof for 7D, 16 dof for 8D, 18 dof for 9D, 20 dof for 10D, etc.

I don't agree with the string theorists that dimension can be compacted. For me, compactification deals with size and shape not with motion. I am concentrating my efforts on understanding how and why space can be attributed with motion. What I have found out so far is that I can only do this with 1D space and the things quantized are the directions not the magnitudes of the vector quantities in the theory but this quantization is only at the local infinitesimal region of spacetime, in the neighborhood of one point and its associated closest neighbors. The distance $d^2 = m^2 + n^2 + l^2 - (\vec{a} \cdot \vec{r}) t^2$ is defined not to the closest neighbors but to the infinite minus closest points points. By itself, the distance, $d$, shows a hyperbolic geometry. It will take two of this $d$ to form an elliptic geometry of spacetime.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Actually the time evolution of the geometry looks more like a double torus or a sphere with two holes than with that of an ellipsoid. Furthermore, there are two distinct topologies, an H-plus and an H-minus. And these I already gave some descriptions in other posts.

 

[sol2]

Isn't this just some sort of three superdimensional concept?

Its four of space and one of time.

No it includes GR and QM. From a supersymmetrical state for sure, but it can be derived from the metric to supermetric points of supergravity

The degree of freedom (dof) for each dimension, I am associating it with the number of closest neighbors for a given spacetime point. 2 dof for 1D, 4 dof for 2D, 6 dof for 3D, 8 dof for 4D, 10 dof for 5D, 12 dof for 6D, 14 dof for 7D, 16 dof for 8D, 18 dof for 9D, 20 dof for 10D, etc.

I am not sure I understand this.

I don't agree with the string theorists that dimension can be compacted. For me, compactification deals with size and shape not with motion. I am concentrating my efforts on understanding how and why space can be attributed with motion. What I have found out so far is that I can only do this with 1D space and the things quantized are the directions not the magnitudes of the vector quantities in the theory but this quantization is only at the local infinitesimal region of spacetime, in the neighborhood of one point and its associated closest neighbors. The distance $d^2 = m^2 + n^2 + l^2 - (\vec{a} \cdot \vec{r}) t^2$ is defined not to the closest neighbors but to the infinite minus closest points points. By itself, the distance, $d$, shows a hyperbolic geometry. It will take two of this $d$ to form an elliptic geometry of spacetime.

If you considered how photon interaction is affected with the theoretical definition of the graviton( witten must have shown this somewhere) it might have made sense to consider the long and short of the photon?

Even at great distances in the comso we are still talking about the distances of the very small. Do you see what I am saying. That if metric point of GR can be made more supermetrical what are we talking about? The energy is very important here in discribing of that early universe, as well as speaking to the scalable nature of gravity from strong to weak?

 

[Antonio Lao]

the long and short of the photon?

Am I right to say this make sense only for string theory? Long means more energy and short means less energy? But in string theory, gravitons are closed string ( a loop). In my theory of H-plus and H-minus, gravitons are also loops but each graviton is made of a double linked loops. These loops can be linked in two ways, an H-plus way and an H-minus way.