I've looked at the density parameters and cosmological constant. I see your saddle shape and the conclusion of the heat death. I don't see how we should feel constrained to that view though. The model I'm suggesting differs in two regards:
1. It does not assume a uniform density - but rather two types (Dark Energy itself postulates this) - does that make it a Quintessence? Not sure.
2. It does not assume the density is eternal, but rather moving toward a net equilibrium through the mechanism of entropy, which would suggest an ultimate (perhaps unrealistic or ultimately ideal) flat geometric space.

*I would note that I am not entirely sure how geometry is defined in cosmology, and I realise the term energy is in danger of conflation between being a geometric property and a value (like how much fuel is in the gas tank) and even with entropy.

I read that the Standard Model when used to predict vacuum energy comes up with a value 120 order of magnitude too large, so I see that the door is open to ideas here. (I am working on a dark energy one that might fit in, but one step at a time).

How are you travelling with the idea?

You haven’t given a good reason for why two directions of action or entropic dissipation would be separated in a way that produces clumpiness.

The mainstream physics story is that gravity only switched on to become a contracting force after the Higgs symmetry was broken. The universe had grown enough to cool enough and so gravitating mass could condense out and start to make the distribution of matter clumpy, or bubbly.

This is why primordial quantum fluctuations in the original distribution of the Big Bang radiation are so important. There had to be a seed inhomgeneity already present in the matter distribution which the switching on of gravity would then amplify to create a fractal distribution of stars and galaxies.

So a well worked out story to account for the bubbly distribution of matter in space already exists. Theory matches observation. An army of well funded scientists have researched this.

Now you are wanting to invent an explanation for something that is not observed - a bubbly distribution of space itself.

You might argue spacetime is bubbly because it has event horizons due to its expansion and lightspeed limits on material interactions. The Cosmos has a fractal lightcone structure.

So yes, on the one hand, bubbly structure - fractal distributions - are the very hallmark of entropy-maximising processes. It is why you run up against bubbly features when talking about cosmological mechanisms.

But there is no need to invent bubbly explanations unless there are bubbly observations in need of explanation.

Dark energy is an example of a cosmic feature which looks to exist evenly everywhere for the vacuum - the basic spatial fabric of the universe.

And yes, the alternative view that dark energy is just an observational illusion - the result of the distribution of matter being more fractally distributed than the standard inflationary Big Bang model - is quite plausible. It depends on whether the calculations those guys need to do pan out and give us some detectable prediction that matches what we can see.

So matter distribution is already said to be bubbly - due to the amplification of primordial fluctuations. Now the question is whether dark energy is a further expansion mechanism when it comes to the smoothness of matter’s spatial backdrop.

Dark energy has no reason to be clumpy, either theoretically or observationally. So as speculation, that hypothesis has poor motivation.

It is my contention that when matter was created, the energy value of the universe, as detected by the container that held it, fell (the energy of matter could not be read). — MikeL

I was following you up to this point, but this is where I lose you. So, this container can detect the energy value of the universe? How's that? And what are you suggesting by that bit in brackets at the end? "The energy value of the universe fell" is somehow equivalent with "The energy of matter could not be read"? Or that the latter somehow implies the former? Or something else?

There is an assumption that gravity arises as a result of matter. But gravity is the very curvature of space itself. For now, as a heuristic (or just to humor me), imagine it the other way around. I have to leave for work now, and I don't want to rush, but I will suggest am application of this type of thinking may allow for an explanation of dark matter.

There is no meaning to having an energy value fall unless it is relative to something.

There is no meaning to having an energy value fall unless it is relative to something. — MikeL

Yes, I understand that. It fell relative to its original value. Can you please explain how that answers my questions?

Gravity is spatiotemporal curvature according to one way of modelling reality - general relativity. And it is a force in another - quantum physics (with its gravitons).

So you have to be careful not to mistake the ontological commitments that science might make in modelling with some kind of final exhaustive truth about the "thing in itself". That is, you can't say gravity is not a force because it is curvature. Both of those alternatives are themselves just models.

Also don't forget that dark matter has nothing whatsoever to do with dark energy.

This container can detect the energy value of the universe because... (?)

What I meant when I said such-and-such was... (?) And this is the case because... (?)

The basic idea of general relativity, as famously expressed by John Wheeler, is: "Mass tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells mass how to move."

So the shape of the spacetime "container" is determined by the distribution of its material contents. That shape then determines the gravitational acceleration that distributed masses will feel - mass will just run inertially along the curves of that space.

I believe that is the basic thought MikeL is trying to express. Though in using his own colourful language, it is not so clear how well he understands what a physicist would be meaning.

And yes, there is a mysterious issue of how could matter and spacetime "talk to each other" in this fashion. How does each "detect" the difference that each causes in the other?

This is where the metaphysics comes into it. The physics has a model that works. But the mechanism sounds a little spooky and supernatural when you start to focus on the "how" of such a two-way mutual, or dichotomous, interaction.

It is just the same as when Newton formulated his own theory of gravity and was forced just to conclude that there is "action at a distance". He knew that talk of an immaterial interaction - a connection supported by nothing - sounded metaphysically crazy. But the maths worked beautifully (over the then available scales of observation).

Later science had better instruments. General relativity came along to show that "spacetime curvature" could do away with the need for spooky instantaneous connections with nothing inbetween to explain them.

But now there is a new spooky connection between mass density and spacetime curvature to be explained. So onwards to quantum gravity theory. :)

The basic idea of general relativity, as famously expressed by John Wheeler, is: "Mass tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells mass how to move."

So the shape of the spacetime "container" is determined by the distribution of its material contents. That shape then determines the gravitational acceleration that distributed masses will feel - mass will just run inertially along the curves of that space. — apokrisis

Yes.






(And yes, he does go on to explain that it isn't just space that curves, but time too).

I believe that is the basic thought MikeL is trying to express. Though in using his own colourful language, it is not so clear how well he understands what a physicist would be meaning. — apokrisis

I don't know whether it's his thinking or his language or both, but whatever it is, it has been problematic. You're doing a much better job of explaining things, and it is much obliged.

The thing is, though, as much as I am interested to learn about physics, I didn't just come here for that. I came here - after being urged to do so by Mike himself - to check out Mike's big idea, or contention, which he seemed so eager to share and discuss. Yet, at the first hurdle I encounter in my attempt to understand his opening post, after seeking clarification from him, disappointingly, I am met with an unhelpful single-sentence reply.

I will also note that, thus far, besides aprokisis and a member who only submitted a few general comments relating to scientific anti-realism, I am the only other person to have replied.

It would be nice if Mike could explain himself properly in response to my queries, in his own words, without relying on an interpreter to act as a sort of intermediary.

I am no physicist.

The Universe as a Gas Can – Part II: Dark Matter

In QM, gravity is considered a force, the graviton being the force carrier. In GR, gravity is represented as a geometric curvature of spacetime created by mass.

When we have (spacetime) expansion and we have (spacetime) curvature, it is hard not to imagine waves. With the exception of matter, everything else in the universe seems comprised of waves. Gravity waves were predicted by Einstein and recently observed emanating from neutron stars.

“Gravitational waves are ripples in the curvature of spacetime that are generated in certain gravitational interactions and propagate as waves outward from their source at the speed of light.
In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity is treated as a phenomenon resulting from the curvature of spacetime. This curvature is caused by the presence of mass. Generally, the more mass that is contained within a given volume of space, the greater the curvature of spacetime will be at the boundary of its volume. As objects with mass move around in spacetime, the curvature changes to reflect the changed locations of those objects. In certain circumstances, accelerating objects generate changes in this curvature, which propagate outwards at the speed of light in a wave-like manner. These propagating phenomena are known as gravitational waves.” [ quote ]

Higgs, Temperature & Curvature

The Higgs Mechanism speculates that mass arose with the cooling of the universe. When energy fell below a certain very high critical temperature it caused a symmetry breaking.

“The simplest description of the mechanism adds a quantum field (the Higgs field) that permeates all space, to the Standard Model. Below some extremely high temperature, the field causes spontaneous symmetry breaking [between the electroweak interactions (electromagnetism and weak interaction- which at high temperature appear symmetrical in all respects)].
The breaking of symmetry triggers the Higgs mechanism, causing the bosons it interacts with to have mass.” [ quote1 ] (In Supersymmetry, which attempts to unite QM with GR the bosons are force carriers with no mass, fermions are the constituents of matter because they have mass)

The first important thing to note here is that the Higgs Mechanism talks in terms of fields – the Higgs field which is added to the Standard Model (of fundamental forces) to explain the formation of mass. It also talks of temperature invoking the creation of mass (claiming a symmetry break of electroweak forces). I want to look at temperature as it relates to curvature of space.

If the Universe continues to expand, science predicts a heat death (where there is no difference in temperature across space). The heat death has been described as occurring due to entropy. “When all the energy the in the cosmos is uniformly spread out, there is no more heat or free energy to fuel processes that consume energy, such as life.” [ quote2 ]


The equal distribution of energy in the universe would correspond to one with no curvature (no region denser than another).

“If the topology of the universe is open or flat, or if dark energy is a positive cosmological constant (both of which are supported by current data), the universe will continue expanding forever and a heat death is expected to occur, with the universe cooling to approach equilibrium at a very low temperature after a very long time period.” [ quote3 ]

Thus, curvature and temperature can be related in this sense. A flattening of space equates with a reduction in temperature because of the even distribution of energy across it. The Higgs Mechanism suggests that a decrease in temperature (the spacing of energy) caused matter to materialise via this mechanism. We might thus re-write this assumption as: a change in the curvature of spacetime caused matter to materialise via this mechanism.

An inward curvature of space represents gravity. Thus, we could say that gravity caused matter to materialise… via this mechanism. Note, this is suggesting gravity is the cause of matter, not that matter is the cause of gravity. It is a distinction I wish to stress (and my assertion).

Gravity Waves and The Big Bang

“In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity is treated as a phenomenon resulting from the curvature of spacetime. This curvature is caused by the presence of mass.” [ quote4 ]

I believe there is a problem with looking at gravity in terms of mass. The problem is it becomes very pointilised. A sun has a gravity of X-value, and sits in its well, bending space around it enough to trap the orbits of the planets which all sit in their own gravity wells trapping their moons etc. Each one of the positions is a point in space from which gravity emanates.

I find the idea of such pointilised gravity counter-intuitive at large scales – we don’t see points. We see corridors or troughs of gravity. Higgs suggested a change in a field to create matter. Changes in field states are expressed as waves.

I suggest that gravity propagated as a wave at the time of the Big Bang, much like it did in the recorded observations of the neutron stars. As it’s wavelength redshifted, the temperature dropped causing mass/matter to precipitate through some (the Higgs) mechanism. It was no ordinary wave though. I suggest it was a ‘Prime Wave’, meaning that it came momentarily before the others.

Gravity is unique among the forces, for while it does not respond to the influence from the other forces, it does exert an effect upon them, much like a master-slave relation. “Gravitational waves can penetrate regions of space that electromagnetic waves cannot.” [ quote5 ]

“The fundamental reason that gravitons have proved harder to model than other bosons such as photons, is that other types of bosons do not interact with other bosons of their own type. For example, photons do not interact with photons. Photons carry the electromagnetic force, but are not charged themselves and do not interact via this force. Photons have (relativistic) mass and interact with gravity, but not with their own forces. Like photons, gravitons also carry (relativistic) mass, but unlike photons and gluons, they carry the gravitational force which interacts with this mass. As well as gravitons having to thus interact with other gravitons, quantum mechanics means they must also interact with themselves via virtual particles.” [ quote6 ]

It's prime position among other particles and forces, and the way it curves spacetime, suggests that the emanating gravitational wave from the time of the Big Bang might be the underlying fabric of spacetime itself.

“In some descriptions energy modifies the "shape" of spacetime itself, and gravity is a result of this shape, an idea which at first glance may appear hard to match with the idea of a force acting between particles.” [ quote7 ]

The universe we see is not dominated by outwardly expanding rings of gravity, but rather cut up into interference patterns (clusters of matter in long thin threads). For this reason, the idea of gravity troughs or gravity corridors carries a greater visual power than gravity waves – although the one necessarily implies the other. (I will attempt to explain this clumpiness shortly).

Dark Matter

“Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter distinct from baryonic matter (ordinary matter such as protons and neutrons), neutrinos and dark energy.
Dark matter has never been directly observed; however, its existence would explain a number of otherwise puzzling astronomical observations. The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.” [ quote8 ]

At this point I would like to redirect your attention to the earlier quote: “Gravitational waves can penetrate regions of space that electromagnetic waves cannot.” [ quote9 ]

“Although dark matter has not been directly observed, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects such as the motions of baryonic matter, gravitational lensing, its influence on the universe's large-scale structure, on the formation of galaxies, and its effects on the cosmic microwave background.
The standard model of cosmology indicates that the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy. Thus, dark matter constitutes 84.5% of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content.” [ quote10 ]

I define gravity corridors as long sunken regions of space where the collective gravities are exerting a collective pull on the fabric of space. I further suggest that this collective pull on the fabric of space is causing a sinking of space beyond the numerical sum of each individual gravity (an extended caving in around gravity clusters)- such an effect could be a candidate for Dark Matter. It is an important note here while I am insisting there can be no matter without gravity, I am also asserting the existence of gravity without matter. We could liken the formation of matter from gravity as similar in nature to a thermocline, where matter precipitates out beyond a certain gravity value/curvature. That value was attained at the time of the Big Bang.

The idea that gravity should be thought of in terms of permanent corridors (more than just being a ripple effect of a disturbance or a matter-point phenomenon) is further strengthened by the examination of superclusters.

“The entire universe can be seen as an intricate network of galaxies called the Cosmic Web. Some areas are almost empty, dark voids. Others are densely packed regions of galaxies known as superclusters. Superclusters are the biggest structures found in the universe. But scientists have struggled to map where one ends and the other begins.” “Cosmic flows are the paths galaxies migrate along.” “Most galaxies are being pulled toward a dense centre, known as The Great Attractor” (paraphrased) [ Link ] I highly recommend you watch the 4 min video in this link.

Once created, matter became ‘locked’ in its energy configuration, to mostly dwell in the bottom of the gravity corridors in which it was formed. The settling of matter in these descending corridors has created the appearance of “Clustering or Clumpiness” of matter in the universe.

As was established at the start of the first OP, matter has sequestered energy that is no longer freely available for the universe to use in its energy fields. It is perhaps useful to think of matter, with its gravity that will only yield to entropy, as a stabilising force, giving a certain rigidity and integrity/permanence or inertia to gravitational wave corridors.

In addition to acting as a stabilising force, this locking of energy gives a property to matter discreet from gravity. It is the ability to move translationally through spacetime given enough momentum to do so- taking its gravity with it. Collisions amongst particles, gravity slingshots, or descending gravity corridors, might have provided such momentum.

This interaction of matter with itself has created the interference patterns in the otherwise symmetrical ripples of space time. It is these interference patterns and gravity corridors we can see when we look at the Cosmic Web and superclusters.

Thus gravity is a wave phenomenon which gave (gives?) rise to matter. Matter thereafter has it's own intrinsic gravity. Gravity though persists without the need for matter, although matter will settle into it's deepest parts. It is this recognition of gravity not dependent on matter which could account for Dark Matter - an unseen gravitational force of massive magnitude.

Part II — MikeL

Moving on without me? Okay then. Enjoy your discussion with apokrisis.

My point is that entropy may be a drive to restore the energy value of the universe by sucking it back out of matter so it can be read by the container again. It is an ontological attempt to explain entropy.

What are your thoughts? — MikeL

This is pretty much what cosmology says. The Big Bang started in a state of thermal equilibrium - an even bath of radiation with all the same temperature. Then the radiation cooled to a point where a fair chunk of it condensed out as matter.

In that respect, the universe fell out of equilibrium and so there is an entropic equilibrium to restore. All the matter will want to find ways to turn back into radiation and catch up with the general cosmic flow again if it can. Hence stars, for instance. And black holes can also radiate so will eventually evaporate over sufficient time. — apokrisis

Makes sense to me - excepting perhaps Mike's talk of a container which can "read" or "detect", but that could be down to his "colourful language". That seems to cover the main point in Part I.

So, this is not so much Mike's contention, as most likely someone somewhere had already figured it out, published what they'd figured out, and so on, such that we've reached a stage where someone with the right level of knowledge can recognise it and point it out.

The Universe as a Gas Can - Part III: Dark Energy

The previous post spoke about the inwardly curving gravitational space.
It is not unreasonable to assume that if space can curve inwardly into high density regions, it also curves outwardly into low density regions (an inward curve and an outward curve). In fact, in true wave fashion, they both must exist. Imagine flopping onto a half-inflated mattress, the depression you create is offset by the rise in the mattress around you.



Intergalactic space takes up most of the volume of the Universe, but even galaxies and star systems consist almost entirely of empty space.”” [ quote ]
Data indicates that the majority of the mass-energy in the observable universe is a poorly understood vacuum energy of space which astronomers label dark energy. [ quote 2 ]

“ Independently of its actual nature, dark energy would need to have a strong negative pressure (acting repulsively) like radiation pressure in a metamaterial to explain the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. According to general relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the stress–energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity. In the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric, it can be shown that a strong constant negative pressure in all the universe causes an acceleration in universe expansion if the universe is already expanding, or a deceleration in universe contraction if the universe is already contracting. This accelerating expansion effect is sometimes labeled "gravitational repulsion". [ quote3
]
This negative pressure is somewhat contentious. In its strictest definition it has been implied to be in the very fabric of space itself, leading to all sorts of confusion in my opinion. Nonetheless, this contention is fine, so long as we realise that the fabric of space is the Gravitational wave.

When we examine the gravity wave, we see that in addition to its gravity trough, it also has a crest. The crest rises above the height of the midline – the position it would be at if there was no wave.

While gravity in the form of matter and Dark Matter inhabits the troughs, I suggest that Dark Energy represents the crests. The midline would represent the place where gravity transitions to Dark Energy, and begins pushing back against the trough- an opposite direction.

This opposite pushing effect may be described as a negative pressure. Because it is a crest and not a trough it may also be considered anti-gravitational in nature. The crest, being antigravitational also aids in the clumping of matter, preventing it from spreading evenly throughout the universe.

When we examine the geometry of a crest we see there is an outward expansive force in two directions: forward and backwards. However, in a disrupted wave that has broken into an interference pattern, such as we noted in the previous post on Dark Matter, the expansive forces become multidirectional – or pan-directional. Outward expansion is its natural direction. It would have a resisting effect should space be compressed.

“it can be shown that a strong constant negative pressure in all the universe causes an acceleration in universe expansion if the universe is already expanding, or a deceleration in universe contraction if the universe is already contracting. [ quote4 ]

When we examine both the gravity crest and trough together we see they both exert an outward expansive force. However, gravity is pushing from a trough and Dark Matter is pushing from a crest.

The way spacetime geometry is configured, gravity- the trough- because of its ability to concentrate matter and forces becomes high density space (see the stress-energy-tensor later on), and therefore Dark Energy -the crest – is low density. To include the same overall -mass/energy equivalent, expected of a wave, Dark Energy, being low density space, would need to take up a lot more room. This is seen in the images of the superclusters and intergalactic space posted earlier – the cosmic web.

Thus we must pay close attention here to a divergence in understanding. The gravitational crest is widening spatially so maintain the energy value of the gravitational crest. Thus, it is possible for the crest to contribute a substantially greater geometric push to spacetime while maintaining an energy integrity consistent with the waveform. From this we can see the true gravitational wave that is spacetime must be energetic and not spatial, although both exist.

This is on par with conclusions we reached when we said the universe is expanding to draw out the energy value in matter. Space and Energy are in different reference frames (or dimensions).

The expansion of the universe is a spatial expansion. It is this push that is occurring as the crest red-shifts (widens) against a trough also red-shifting (widening). That is the universal push and why it seems ubiquitous. As both crest and trough flatten, the horizontal vector component of the push increases, and we observe a universe expanding at an ever increasing rate.

It must be remembered that the gravity trough and crest are diametrically opposed in terms of the forces they exert on spatial geometry- accounting for the mysterious attributes ascribed to Dark Energy. Both will want to flatten their part of the wave up to the midline. At the midline though the forces reverse.

Entropy
I feel it would be remiss to explain the redshift of the gravitational wave in terms of space without some reference to entropy – the point we started.

"While the amount of mass loss is negligible, it isn't zero, and it has an effect on Earth's orbit. As the Sun loses mass its gravitational pull on the Earth weakens over time. As a result, Earth is receding slightly from the Sun." quote5

Even black holes experience entropy through black body radiation. Entropy causes a decrease in gravity through the loss of energy.

According to a GR reference frame, Entropy, by decreasing gravity, would affect the geometric curvature of spacetime- Specifically it would make spacetime less curved.

We can also arrive at this conclusion circuitously by looking at Gravitational Fields and the Stress-energy Tensor.
"The stress–energy tensor [sic] is a tensor quantity in physics that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime [sic]. It is an attribute of matter, radiation, and non-gravitational force fields. The stress–energy tensor is the source of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity, just as mass density is the source of such a field in Newtonian gravity." quote6

Choosing to work backwards, if gravity is declining due to entropy, then that will be reflected in a weakening gravitational field. If the source of the gravitational field is the stress-energy tensor, then entropy must be affecting the stress-energy tensor. If the stress-energy tensor describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime, then entropy must be affecting the density and flux of energy and/or momentum in spacetime.

Gravity is a high-density region of space. The density of spacetime must therefore be decreased by entropy. Decreasing pockets of high density space where gravity exists must make space more uniform (less bunched)– therefore entropy can be considered to have a space flattening effect.

We also see matter draining into “The Great Attractor”. At the distal fringes as matter moves translationally in the direction of this energy sink we can expect to see an unfolding of the space curvature. As space unfolds, either due to entropy or movement to “The Great Attractor” (or the equivalent of), it will create an expansive push against the dimension of spacetime, contributing to the expansion of the universe. This is because a rising trough/corridor will displace its previous vertically orientated trough walls into the horizontal plane. This movement will be opposed by the crest, which wishes to push its walls into the centre of the trough.

It can be speculated that as mass gathers in The Great Attractor, a black hole will eventually form, from which Entropy, through blackbody radiation will eventually dissolve it (as previously stated).

As an interesting aside to do with the the trough and crest of Dark Energy: If you don't like the idea of filling an energy value in the wave form, you could argue the asymmetry is temporal. You could suggest it arises due to gravity slowing time in the trough. The lack of gravity in the crest would similarly speed up time. When we calibrate against a standard time, we get the asymmetric wave.

To eliminate the need for the external energy comparison against which the gravity wave is trying to re-create itself - the container - it is possible to argue the geometric forces of the wave as well - its need for symmetry - as a restorative driver. In this scenario the energy of mass is being pulled out entropically as the stronger geometric forces seek to restore the wave to its symmetric (equilibrium) shape.

Such asymmetry, it could be argued arose at the time of the Big Bang fundamentally due to the self-restraining action of gravity. But that's another post.