Oh I wasn't directing that at you; it was the other guy who keeps writing seamless walls of text. I think your idea is completely wrong but your posts are at least well-formed.

I'm not a grammar nazi, honest. I just can't deal with the Great Wall of Text.

LOL!   Cheers.

TAET:

Patrick's reply was,

". . . reciprocity and quantum mechanics . . . "

Earlier on, Patrick had said that TADEET seems to contradict "reciprocity and quantum mechanics". Since then I have read as much as possible on "reciprocity" pertaining to physics and quantum mechanics, but was unable to either see the connection, or evidence, of where it contradicts the TADEET hypothesis.

There is Greens funtion, Lorentz Reciprocity, Stanley's Reciprocity, Frobenius's Reciprocity and a few others.

It had also been said on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(electromagnetism), that for nonlinear media no reciprocity theorem generally holds. This area is extremely complicated, and admittedly above my current skills and knowledge. Admittedly, Patrick had also said "On brief reading . . .". So there may actually not have been any contradictions between "reciprocity" and the TADEET hypothesis in the first place. Also, because TAPSyT and TAPSmT are still unkowns, it is difficult to make early assumtions about these fields and whether or not they greatly influence the TADEET model itself.

If anyone has any further information about reciprocity or other evidence which contradicts the TADEET model, please let us know. All information would be helpful and appreciated. Thanks.

     THE TWIN TUBES EXPERIMENT.

After much thought, another experiment has recently come to mind, which I believe would help determine and supply further evidence to either support or debunk: 1.) the existence of Dark Energy (DE) as a by-product of atoms, 2.) its density, and 3.) its effects on other matter.

Unfortunately this experiment does not come cheap. But these days, which experiments attempting to solve great mysteries of great complexity do come cheap anyway (ie: The LHC)? Not many! This experiment is both extremely technical and of course also requires the utmost of precision and quality manufacturing.

The experiment consists of two large identical tubes. These tubes would probably need to be about 100 meters long, one meter in diameter, a very high vacuum created inside, thermal insulation and tubes of liquid helium wrapped around the outside to create a stable and cold temperature inside, and an outer casing developed for protection against as many elements and outside radiations as possible. At each end of the large tubes are both emitters, and receivers. For diversity of experimental parameters and data collection, it may be possible to have photonic emitters and receivers, neutron emitters and receivers, and atomic (ie: helium) emitters and receivers, at each ends of the large tubes.

Both tubes are calibrated with each other so any differences between them are known, and can be accounted for during running of the experiments and for data analysis later on. One tube is placed not far underground on the earth, whilst the other is placed out in space, possibly at a langrangian point trailing the earth. The point of having the two diverse locations, is to have one close to a large body such as the earth (which according to TADEET, is expelling large amounts of Dark Energy), whilst the other is as far away as practicle from any direct DE sources, such as the earth.

Now the experiments begin. Both large tubes (the one in earth, and the one out in space) are run independently. The experiments run are identical for both tubes, and the results are compared later for analysis. If TADEET is correct, there will be a measurable difference in results, which are not attributed to, by any other known factors.

Firstly, atoms (ie: helium) are emitted from one end of the tube and sent through the tube to the other end for receiving. Once received, another atom is immediately sent back towards the other end of the tube where the first atom came from. This is done trillions of times. It has to be done with utmost precission, and, knowledge of timing of any delays in emitting and receiving fully understood and recorded. The counting of the number of atoms transmitted, and the overall time for the experiment to occur, is recorded for both tubes. According to TADEET, because Dark Energy has a pressure against atoms (because they are the machines which are continually expelling them), the helium atoms travelling through the tube inside the earth which is much closer to a large, direct DE source, should be effected more than the helium atoms travelling through the tube, out in space (which is much further away from a direct DE source). The helium in the earth tube should travel slower as it tries to push through the denser DE field. There should be a measurable difference between the two tubes (taking away any other known factors we can account for, ie: manufacturing differences, etc).

If there is no difference in time travelled for all the atoms travelled back and forth between the ends of the tubes, then TADEET can be shown to be incorrect and not a valid idea. But if there is a strong difference in timing, then we have some supporting evidence. To further support TADEET, the tube in space can be brought back to earth to be placed underground, and the one underground can be swapped and flown out into space, and the experiment re-run to see if the results are consistent.

For further data and analysis, before swapping the tubes around, the experiment can be run with not atoms being emitted and received, but photons instead. And then later with neutrons as well. If DE is found to effect the helium atoms in the experiment, then with all the extra data from the added experiments, we can then also determine if there are any other possible effects that DE may have on photons and/or neutrons. May as well get the most data out of the experiment as possible. Who knows what we may find out? Now, just need the finance.

In laymens terms (if possible), how is it concluded there is not enough "stuff" in the universe, thus creating a need for dark energy?

Is it not possible the universe is so vast there is, in fact, enough "stuff"?

 It's not because we cannot detect something that it doesn't exist. For a very long time, Black hole were only a theory. My guess is that Dark Matter is the same. Base on the general rule of relativity, we have 2/3 of mass unaccounted for galaxies.

Enfilade1:

In laymens terms (if possible), how is it concluded there is not enough "stuff" in the universe, thus creating a need for dark energy?

Is it not possible the universe is so vast there is, in fact, enough "stuff"?

 

I’ll give it a go.

Some have said that 'dark energy' is just the name given to the unexplained 'stuff' in our universe, needed to explain the universes observed expansion. So how do they know we need this stuff anyway? Can't the universe expand without it?

Scientists, doctors (not medical) and professors have gathered all the information we know so far about our universe, and had done some extremely complex mathematical calculations. With the current laws of physics, gathered over many years of theorisation, experimentation (both on earth and out in space), and confirmation, scientists had applied these calculations to everything we have measured in the universe so far, and found that there was a ‘VERY LARGE’ piece of stuff missing.  A 'deficit' of about 97%!

FINANCE, BUDGET AND DEFICIT

One way to look at this problem, is to think of it like a bit of home finance.

Imagine you come home and leave $1000 on the kitchen table for your partner to take, to do the grocery shopping with. Later you come back and find on the table, $5.27, some sugar, coffee, milk, bread, butter, and vegemite (This is usually the staple diet here in Australia. LOL), and NO receipt. You think these few items cannot possibly add up to $1000, so you do some approximate calculations. $2.25 for the sugar, $1.99 for the bread, etc, etc and come up with about $17.86. You add the $5.27 left on the table and the $17.86 for the groceries, and get $23.13. But where or what has happened to the other $976.87? There is a huge deficit! What did your partner do with it??

The scientists have done a similar finance budgeting with the 'known' universe. Oh yes! It is a very painstaking and long process. You have to make sure you get everything (we know about) into the calculation. They estimated the prices (values) of the stars, planets, floating atoms, gas clouds, black holes, gamma rays, gravity, etc, etc just like above with the sugar, coffee, milk, etc. Because we don’t have the receipt and know the exact price of the items, there must always be some approximations and assumptions just like above. But based on our current knowledge, experiments, and data collected over many, many years, they can get pretty close. Because each scientist will give a slightly different estimate value to each of the items, the results are usually slightly different, but basically they come up with a very similar result. A HUGE DEFICIT of usually between 94% and 98%!

But how do they know they started with $1000 in the first place? Like above with the groceries, you can call the bank for a statement and check your wallet and any bank slips you may have kept to be sure, the scientists had done something similar to get their starting values.

Though I personnally haven't done the calculations myself, I am fully aware of the complexity of it, and the many years of study required to be able to even attempt it and get it right. I trust the scientists have done their homework and checked each others work carefully. That's usually what they do. Especially if their work has been published in a reputable science journal. Scientists love to pick at each others work and find any errors they can. It's fun! Also, anyone with a spare 6 to 10 years or so, to go to university, can give it a go too.

The question lately has not been, do we have a deficit. The question now is, where and what has happened to this huge deficit? I can just picture a group of scientists around a table. One saying, “It'll show up one day – don't stress”. Another pulling his hair out saying “Where is 98% of our universe – we've lost it”. Another saying, “Maybe all our science we go by, and laws, are wrong”. And another saying, “It's not lost. we just haven't seen it yet – look at the bright side, we still have 98% of the universe to explore”. The stuff is there somewhere, we just don't know where exactly, or what it actually is.

But couldn't these calculations, assumptions and estimations just all be wrong? Possibly. Some have considered that. But with the constant checking and rechecking, very unlikely (but still always possible).

What scientists have been able do so far is break up the deficit into two parts. Energy (labelled dark energy – about 65%) and matter, real stuff with real mass we haven't found yet (labelled dark matter – about 33%). This is a great start. What they are now trying to do, is find out what this stuff is and where its coming from. That is the journey now. “The Quest To Find The Answer To The Riddle Of The Missing Stuff!”. This is the type of stuff that Sherlock Holmes, Dr House or Indiana Jones love to do. Adventure, and solving puzzles! That's why I love science so much.

That's where I believe TADEET comes in with what I believe is a logical, and I hope to be, the correct answer to this puzzle. Like trying to find out what happened to the missing $976.87, using the clues left around, I've developed the TADEET model. The clues are like pieces of evidence. At this moment there isn't much of it around. We need more to be sure! More evidence (clues), experiments, etc, which will eventually lead us to know with greater certainty what and where the stuff is. This is a journey of discovery, a quest that anyone, and everyone who wishes to, can join.

Thanks. Well Done.

Well said TAET. I didn't not understand the Dark Matter theory until I started reading more advance astronomy book. From everything we have learn from gravity, galaxies wouldn't have the shape they have if it's wasn't for a mass that it's not been accounted for. It's not because we cannot detect it that it's not there.

                                          UPDATE No .1.

There are two current updates.

Firstly, I am both honoured and proud to announce that the original first post of my dark energy theory, which I had also sent as a letter to a magazine editor, has now been published! For anyone wishing to see it in print you can now find it in a magazine published by the British Interplanetary Society, 'Spaceflight – The Magazine of Astronautics and Outer Space', Vol 51 No. 8 August 2009, on page 314. A big thankyou to BIS!

Secondly, I have just recently read an excellent article titled 'The Light That Came Late', published in the New Scientist magazine, 15th August 2009, No. 2721, pages 26 to 29.

Whilst reading the article I started to become very excited. As I was reading I could see a slight connection and similarity to my earlier proposed Twin Tubes Experiment, with positive results that appear to support the TADEET model of dark energy. I'll just quickly announce that these initial results from this discovery are still early on, and limited, with further research still being conducted.

The article basically explains how the Major Atmospheric Gamma-Ray Imaging Cherenkov Telescope had witnessed an arrival difference between lower-energy photons and their higher-energy counterparts emanating from a huge energetic gamma ray burst from the galaxy Markarian 501, some 500 million light years away. The lower-energy photons had arrived up to 4 minutes earlier! This is not meant to happen.

Though there where a few possible explanations as to why this had occurred, none were completely sure. And one explanation that is being seriously considered is that space-time is not as smooth as previously presumed by many scientists. It may in fact be rough, turbulent, and lumpy, which is what is causing the differences in speeds between the low and high energy photons. This is excellent news for TADEET! According to TADEET, as dark energy (space) seeps out from massive objects over billions of years and slowly permeates outwards, creating and expanding the universe, it would become frothy, lumpy and uneven.

MAGIC was not the only telescope to have witnessed this anomaly. Nasa's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope had also only just recently seen a burst some 12 billion light years away. According to one analysis, some of the low-energy photons had arrived up to 20 minutes earlier than their high-energy counterparts. One thing that seems to be agreed on, is that more research and more telescopes are needed. Viewing a single burst from numerous locations, and different instruments would give better data sets for further analysis. With a new gamma-ray telescope being built in the Ladakh region of India, which should be completed by 2011, further data will undoubtedly expand our knowledge and understanding of this phenomenon.

One interesting part in all this is, that TADEET predicts that atoms travelling throughout the universe over long distances would be affected by the dark energy, but was unsure if photons would. If further data collection, confirmation and a better understanding of the ‘late light anomaly’ continues, and if it ends up supporting and being correlated with the TADEET model of dark energy, then the implications will be both widespread and exciting. I can’t wait!

 why would uneven space-time or uneven dark energy affect the lower energy photons more than the higher energy photons? also, congratulations on getting your paper published!

Just a few questions, from someone curious.

Do you still have no mathematical model? I'm curious about the magazine article. It's not a peer-reviewed journal, so how do they decide what to publish, or do you just pay for that? Does it appear as its own article, or is it in a "Letters" section?

Thanks for your time.

RIP_Shadowfox : Could this have to do with Wien's law and black bodies and is he treating dark energy as an ideal black body? This guy has me wondering if he is really taking into consideration the General theory of relativity, and what dark energy is thought to be, and the concept of virtual pairs, and the concept of true vacuum and false vacuum. He could have a point if instead of the atom he used the black hole, because at the event horizon exists seperation between two false vacuums to all particles except the graviton and I' m not sure about it.

lowry:

Just a few questions, from someone curious.

 

Do you still have no mathematical model? I'm curious about the magazine article. It's not a peer-reviewed journal, so how do they decide what to publish, or do you just pay for that? Does it appear as its own article, or is it in a "Letters" section?

 

Thanks for your time.

Hi.

No mathematical models yet. I'm actually hoping someone with greater mathematical skills than myself, and also believes this idea may be on the correct path, may wish to try and take that challenge on. My skills are deffinately not up to it sorry to say.

My article was in the 'Letters' section. It was not paid for, and I'm really not sure how individual editors decide on the hundreds of letters I assume they recieve, on which ones to publish. I'm just really pleased they did, especially that it was quite a large article.

Cheers.

Can't shake the feeling that you're just a quack. There, someone said it.

lowry:

Can't shake the feeling that you're just a quack. There, someone said it.

i think its best that you keep opinions like that to yourself. you may not agree with his theory but that doesn't make him a quack. while it may not be an accepted theory yet, some day, it could be. how would we have most of our current theories if people like TAET didn't share them with the world? i say kudos to TAET. even if discoveries are made that prove this theory wrong, there's absolutely no shame in having put your ideas out here for us.

RIP_Shadowfox:

lowry:

Can't shake the feeling that you're just a quack. There, someone said it.

 

i think its best that you keep opinions like that to yourself. you may not agree with his theory but that doesn't make him a quack. while it may not be an accepted theory yet, some day, it could be. how would we have most of our current theories if people like TAET didn't share them with the world? i say kudos to TAET. even if discoveries are made that prove this theory wrong, there's absolutely no shame in having put your ideas out here for us.

Concern noted. Just sharing my honest opinion. He has no math to back anything up (perhaps the most important thing), the hypothesis (not theory) is illogical for numerous reasons, which I and others have pointed out, and he seems more concerned with advertising the hypothesis than with seriously pursuing it in a scientific manner (i.e. the peer review process).

That's my definition of a quack, and I doubt I'm alone; someone had to say it :).

 you're certainly entitled to your opinion, don't get me wrong. i guess all i'm saying is maybe word it in a way that's less insulting? also, i agree that it would be nice to have math to back it up. but while there isn't any, i don't think it makes the hypothesis wrong or just some wild idea. i feel like the basic idea of the hypothesis is a good one. hopefully someone is able to assist TAET by attempting the math. it would be interesting to see what they come up with, whether it disproves the hypothesis or not.

lowry:

Concern noted. Just sharing my honest opinion. He has no math to back anything up (perhaps the most important thing), the hypothesis (not theory) is illogical for numerous reasons, which I and others have pointed out, and he seems more concerned with advertising the hypothesis than with seriously pursuing it in a scientific manner (i.e. the peer review process).

 

That's my definition of a quack, and I doubt I'm alone; someone had to say it :).

May I ask what background you have to arrive at such an opinion? I personally have no background to give an opinion either way so I was just wondering.

lowry:

Concern noted. Just sharing my honest opinion. He has no math to back anything up (perhaps the most important thing), the hypothesis (not theory) is illogical for numerous reasons, which I and others have pointed out, and he seems more concerned with advertising the hypothesis than with seriously pursuing it in a scientific manner (i.e. the peer review process).

 

That's my definition of a quack, and I doubt I'm alone; someone had to say it :).

TAET brought this idea to the forums for discussion and in a effort to try and get someone to see it and possibly help to develope it.  He has been forthright about not having proof, and he has been respectful in the way it was presented.  I think he deserves a similar level of respect.  These forums get more than their fair share of folks who post 'ideas' in which they suggest (or even say outright) that our current understanding of physics is completely wrong and that they have it right if only we were "open minded" enough to listen to them.  Those folks don't respect the work that's been done before them, and I have no problem with confronting them directly.  TAET has come here for discussion and has been receptive to constructive criticism.  I may not agree with his idea, but I agree with his presentation of it.