General astronomy discussion

Re: Dark Energy Theory

TAET — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:38:17 GMT

UPDATE No .2.

I have recently read about a distant gamma ray result measured, from the website http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/news.html (28th October 2009).

On May 10 2009 a gamma ray burst of 2.1 seconds was seen. It had been shown by information from Fermi's LAT (Large Area Telescope), that there was an insignificant time delay (0.9 seconds) between the high and low energy photons, travelled over a distance of more than 7 billion light years. This is not as large a delay as previously calculated from previous gamma ray bursts and measurements by other scientists.

It was stated by Peter Michelson, principal investigator of Fermi's Large Area Telescope (LAT), at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif, that "This measurement eliminates any approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy dependent change in the speed of light,". "To one part in 100 million billion, these two photons traveled at the same speed. Einstein still rules."

There then seams to be a problem with the results between these findings and that of the Late Light gamma ray examples. There will be a reason for it somewhere. But for now, it appears that photons are not affected by some sort of quantum gravity or dark energy, if it exists. Obviously with further research and data, we will better understand what is happening later down the track.

For now, this is great news.

The TADEET model states that atoms continuosly create and expel dark energy. This very process is why atoms are affected by it. Recalling my earlier Twin Tubes experiment, I proposed using atoms, neutrons and photons to see if any or all of the components are affected by dark energy.

If the TADEET model is correct, atoms will definitely be affected, but not necessarily neutrons or photons. The results above, could therefore possibly indicate that photons are not affected by dark energy. They pass straight through it, unhindered. That would also imply that photons are not like little machines, as atoms may be, and therefore do not produce and expel their own dark energy. This is great. It means that photons would not be required to be included in the Twin Tubes experiment. Though including them still would help re-confirm the results.

I am currently attempting to design a new experiment that is cheaper and more practical to perform. I have one idea which I'll publish here when I eventually finish the design specs.

Re: Dark Energy Theory

bruth — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 21:55:17 GMT

I would think DE and DM (phantom/strange/exotic) actually assist one another in producing their phenomenom thereby increasing their magnitude.

Amazing how AE's biggest blunder, as he stated, has turned out not to be a blunder at all and even though he found Newton's laws of motion flawed, he admired IN greatly.

Bruth

"Nature to him was an open book, whose letters he could read without effort." AE on IN

Re: Dark Energy Theory

Primordial — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:56:23 GMT

TAET : Thank you very much, this is what I have been looking for. I think I have your answer. It is a process related to my concept and uses Mr. Hawkings quantum exchange but can only be a result of extremely high energy gamma photons as stepping stones.

Thank you, thank you thank you.

Re: Dark Energy Theory

TAET — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:34:43 GMT

Primordial:

TAET : I am interested in some of what you say, but from a different approach. I would like some information from you, If I may, do you have a web site that this data came from, and if so do you have one set of data from the University of Texas at Austin?

The original article I read about the late light anomaly was from the New Scientist magazine, which can also be viewed from their web site http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327210.900-late-light-reveals-what-space-is-made-of.html?page=1 .

Here are just some articles I have found around which relate to the above, which may help: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0708/0708.2889v3.pdf, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.3731v2.pdf, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.2932v1.pdf, and http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0702/0702008v3.pdf.

As for the University of Texas at Austin, I don't have any data or information (sorry). I hope this has helped some though.

Good luck with your research.

Re: Dark Energy Theory

Primordial — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:55:39 GMT

TAET : I am interested in some of what you say, but from a different approach. I would like some information from you, If I may, do you have a web site that this data came from, and if so do you have one set of data from the University of Texas at Austin?

Re: Dark Energy Theory

TAET — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:21:34 GMT

RIP_Shadowfox:

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!

Thankyou RIP_Shadowfox.

More data and examples are still very much required. It has not yet even been absolutely determined that the time difference between the low and high energy photons are not actually being produced at the source point itself. It is still too early to know for sure what is causing the anomaly.

Assuming the difference is due to the large distance travelled through space-time to reach us, attempts to explain it using currently understood phenomenon, of say refractive index dispersion or others, do not yet fully seem to fit the data.

One theoretical explanation is that related to quantum gravity. Some theories of quantum gravity predict that space-time isn’t continuous, but is variable and foamy. Because of this quantum gravity foaminess, it is claimed not all photons would travel at the same speed.

According to E=mc2, higher energy also means a higher mass, and therefore a higher gravitational potential.

Basically, because the higher energy photons mean they have a higher gravitional potential than the lower ones, they would therefore be more effected (tugged on) by the quantum gravity of space. Though extremely tiny the difference, over long distances, this extra tug on them would all add up. Those photons with higher gravitational potential (higher energies) would therefore travel slightly slower through space-time, and arrive slightly later than lower energy photons.

Though, admittedly my theoretical model of dark energy is quite different from those of quantum gravity and loop quantum gravity, it's intrinsic energy, over long distances, would also have a greater effect (drag) on higher energy photons, than the lower energy ones. Actually, this effect would happen regardless of it was patchy or not. (I also assume that loop quantum gravity's foaminess is not as relevant as initially suggested for its effect on higher energy photon's as well. Just the fact, that if it existed, may be enough to cause the effects measured).

All this theorising though is still too early to tell with the limited data we have. More data is needed. Thanks for the question, and I also apologise for the long answer. I have a habit of doing that.

Cheers.

Re: Dark Energy Theory

zachsdad — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:21:35 GMT

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.

Re: Dark Energy Theory

jodoak — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:03:33 GMT

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.

Re: Dark Energy Theory

RIP_Shadowfox — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 03:56:59 GMT

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.

Re: Dark Energy Theory

lowry — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 03:21:16 GMT

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 :).

Re: Dark Energy Theory

RIP_Shadowfox — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 03:08:50 GMT

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.

Re: Dark Energy Theory

lowry — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:14:16 GMT

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

Re: Dark Energy Theory

TAET — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:46:47 GMT

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.

Re: Dark Energy Theory

Primordial — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:03:18 GMT

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.

Re: Dark Energy Theory

lowry — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:02:10 GMT

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.