Dark Matter-Energy And “Higgs”?
Energy-Mass Superposition
The Fractal Oneness Of The Universe
All Earth Life Creates and Maintains Genes

A. On Energy, Mass, Gravity, Galaxies Clusters AND Life, A Commonsensible Recapitulation
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/184.page#2125
The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics, which is the fractal oneness of the universe.

Astronomically there are two physics. A classical physics behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behaviour WITHIN the galactic clusters.

The onset of big-bang’s inflation, the cataclysmic resolution of the Original Superposition, started gravity, with formation – BY DISPERSION – of galactic clusters that behave as classical Newtonian bodies and continuously reconvert their original pre-inflation masses back to energy, thus fueling the galactic clusters expansion, and with endless quantum-within-classical intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters in attempt to delay-resist this reconversion.

B. Updated Life’s Manifest May 2009
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=480&#entry412704
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/140/122.page#2321

All Earth life creates and maintains Genes. Genes, genomes, cellular organisms – All create and maintain genes.

For Nature, Earth’s biosphere is one of the many ways of temporarily constraining an amount of ENERGY within a galaxy within a galactic cluster, for thus avoiding, as long as possible, spending this particularly constrained amount as part of the fuel that maintains the clusters expansion.

Genes are THE Earth’s organisms and ALL other organisms are their temporary take-offs.

For Nature genes are genes are genes. None are more or less important than the others. Genes and their take-offs, all Earth organisms, are temporary energy packages and the more of them there are the more enhanced is the biosphere, Earth’s life, Earth’s temporary storage of constrained energy. This is the origin, the archetype, of selected modes of survival.

The early genes came into being by solar energy and lived a very long period solely on direct solar energy. Metabolic energy, the indirect exploitation of solar energy, evolved at a much later phase in the evolution of Earth’s biosphere.

However, essentially it is indeed so. All Earth life, all organisms, create and maintain the genes. Genes, genomes, cellular organisms – all create and maintain genes.

Dov Henis
(Comments from 22nd century)
http://profiles.yahoo.com/blog/2SF3CJJM5OU6T27OC4MFQSDYEU

Thanks – We’d have noticed it then, yes. Pity.

Anyway – what would the Planck scale have to be in order to take care of that last 20 orders of magnitude?

For your other question, it’s a matter of general relativity. We can’t just propose some shape to the universe; we have to find a solution to Einstein’s equation that has the desired properties. The model that seems to work is one where space is pretty close to homogeneous on large scales, although people have tried other possibilities. Once you have that, the equations tell you unambiguously what kinds of matter and energy you need to fit the data, which is how we deduce the need for dark energy.

Great lecture, it does a fantastic work at explaining in very clear and easy terms those topics that interest me and thousands of people all around the world. Kudos!

I have one question though. It seems from your talk that the main explanation for Dark Energy is that of virtual particles annihilating each other in “empty” space, right? One of the things that has always plagued my mind (not being a physicist but having some notions of topology and physics) is why couldn’t you explain the accelerating universe by means of the “shape” of the universe itself. If the curvature, for some reason, had the shape of a “heap” then objects far away from the place where the Big Bang occurred would accelerate faster than those close to the place where it happened. In other words, it would be like dropping marbles at the top of a heap, at the beginning most of their movement is explained by the original explosion on a rather flat universe, and as they move away, more and more of their movement is explained by the shape of space itself. Does this make any significant sense at all?

Thanks a lot,

Has it occurred to you that just as temperature has lowered from the early universe till now so has wavelength measurements increased(as in cmb radiation). And just as those wavelength measurements have stretched out so has the Planck length stretched out. You are assuming measurement of time, which also infers constant measurement of distance and volume, is the same in todays universe as it was in the early universe. But there is good reason to believe that length and temperature are all tied to rates of passage of time and that time passed much more quickly in the early universe. This would suggest the same amount of energy is within our universe as it was in the early universe an the only reason it doesn’t seem to be so is because our time measurement standard has changed.

I just think you are dead wrong on many of your assumptions. I suppose its not your fault because you were taught these things but I think you should start thinking for yourself. I really have a problem when wrong info just continues to get propagated just because its convenient not to ask questions. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water just because someone tells you to!

The idea that dark energy is evenly distributed and has constant density is obviously only a first hypothesis, which should then be tested. It has been tested, and so far it’s done very well. Better observations could always discover some small variations, of course.

1. Dark energy is evenly distributed and
2. Dark energy has constant density.

What makes you say that? It seems to me you’re just making a guess and really have no idea. For one thing, if these were both true conservation of energy and information and the first law of thermodynamics would not apply to the universe as a whole. Are you really willing to throw out the most valuable concept in all of nature the minute you see something you don’t understand? That’s sort of like Bush throwing out habeus corpus because he has no fundamental values. That’s how I would view a physicist willing to throw out those physical laws. Has it occurred to you that quantum physics and its concept of vacuum energy has some problems with it and IT might have to be altered instead?

I confess to being an ignoramus … but a very interested ignoramus.

Sean, that is the best description of our current knowledge I’ve ever seen. I’d love to share this with my friends, but I don’t have any friends sufficiently knowledgeable to be interested.

My teenaged desire to be a theoretical physicist has caused me to follow the field over the years. A high school math teacher made me believe that I didn’t have the proper turn of mind pursue that goal … if I ever meet that man, I’ll give him a piece of my mind.

Thanks. I may be ignorant (from your perspective), but you fed my fascination. Thanks.

who, we are not expanding into something in the conventional sense that people think of a balloon expanding into ordinary space. Sure, there are brane-world models where the definitions become subtle, but the basic thing to get across is the idea that an “expanding universe” does not require an external space.

How can you know that the universe is not expanding in something? Like a brane scenario or something similar. Like the FRW metric in a R^5 space or something like that.

thanks

um… you do understand, do you not, that it has been empirically demonstrated that electromagnetism is far too weak a long-range force to be the over-riding basis of the universe, right? Sure, it rules atomic-to-micro-range interactions (to be superceded by the weak and strong nuclear forces further down the ladder), but long-range it’s next to useless.

And the fact is, DM and DE have a lot of evidence (in the sense that we know enough about what we’re looking at to say that they’re there, even if we don’t know quite what it is.

We can rule out “electric universe cosmology” pretty effectively, and even if it were a possibility, it makes no predictions that match what we see in a DE/DM universe. In fact, those predictions completely rule those “alternate cosmologies” out altogether.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/

As for dark energy, it is the biggest puzzle in modern physics, so it is always possible that it is merely a tag for our ignorance. But one should remember that most of the universe is empty, and if emptiness had non-zero energy, it would be the biggest contribution to the universe’s energy. The actual surprise is not that it is large (70% might seem like a huge fraction), but that it is so small (yet non-zero) that despite the universe’s relative emptiness, it only contributes about 70%. Our theories tell us that it is much more “natural” for dark energy to be about 99.999…..99 % of the total matter/energy content in the universe.