Dark Energy

[Cypress]

Dark energy might be neither particle nor field

Everything else in the universe is either a particle or field. Dark energy behaves as neither, and it may be a property inherent to space itself.

.. there is no evidence that dark energy is anything other than the most basic entity imaginable: a property that is uniformly inherent to space everywhere and at all times. This can come about in one of two different ways very easily:

The universe can possess a positive, non-zero cosmological constant, a term perfectly allowable in general relativity. It has to be very, very small, but when you put it in everywhere over the whole universe, it eventually comes to dominate.

It could be a quantum property of space: the zero-point energy of all the fields in the vacuum of space is not required to be zero but could take on some positive, non-zero value. What we often interpret as quantum fluctuations, or particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence, could be the cause behind dark energy.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/dark-energy/

[Cypress]

Not really a fan of universal physical constants.

They are scientifically unsatisfactory .

We can only know about them from experimental observation. We cannot derive them from first principles, and we cannot find fundamentally understand why they manifest themselves in the cosmos, or why they take on that value and not some other value.

[Doc Dutch]

Not really a fan of universal physical constants.

They are scientifically unsatisfactory .

We can only know about them from experimental observation. We cannot derive them from first principles, and we cannot find fundamentally understand why they manifest themselves in the cosmos, or why they take on that value and not some other value.

Not quite following you here.....with the confession that hardcore physics is a barely understandable field for me.

https://www.britannica.com/science/physical-constant

physical constant, any of a set of fundamental invariant quantities observed in nature and appearing in the basic theoretical equations of physics. Accurate evaluation of these constants is essential in order to check the correctness of the theories and to allow useful applications to be made on the basis of those theories.

The speed of light in a vacuum (c) appears in electromagnetic theory and in relativity theory; in the latter it relates energy to mass through the equation E = mc2. Its value does not depend on any particular experimental conditions such as would affect the speed of a sound wave in air (for which air temperature and the direction and speed of any wind would matter). It is a universal constant of nature.

[Cypress]

Not quite following you here.....with the confession that hardcore physics is a barely understandable field for me.

https://www.britannica.com/science/physical-constant

Basically the universal contants just are what they are...

We cannot derive them from any laws of physics or chemistry

We only know about them from experimental measurement.

It just is what it is.


That is what I mean by scientifically unsatisfactory. We have no deeper understanding of these Universal constants. I guess it ultimately becomes a philosophical question.

But some people wonder when you start having 20 or 25 universal constants holding the universe together, and which cannot be independently derived from physical laws, if it means we are missing something deeper and more fundamental about reality.

[Doc Dutch]

Basically the universal contants just are what they are...

We cannot derive them from any laws of physics or chemistry

We only know about them from experimental measurement.

It just is what it is.


That is what I mean by scientifically unsatisfactory. We have no deeper understanding of these Universal constants. I guess it ultimately becomes a philosophical question.

But some people wonder when you start having 20 or 25 universal constants holding the universe together, and which cannot be independently derived from physical laws, if it means we are missing something deeper and more fundamental about reality.

Yet, without those constants, NASA wouldn't be able to put the James Webb telescope up and predict it's orbit.

IMO, and again my math stops at Trig, it's like calling gravity a "theory". Theory or not, throwing bowling balls off the roof of a 10 story building has a single outcome; all the balls will hit the ground.

[Cypress]

Yet, without those constants, NASA wouldn't be able to put the James Webb telescope up and predict it's orbit.

IMO, and again my math stops at Trig, it's like calling gravity a "theory". Theory or not, throwing bowling balls off the roof of a 10 story building has a single outcome; all the balls will hit the ground.

It is nice to know what the values of these constants are, and how to use them in engineering and space flight applications.

[Into the Night]

Yet, without those constants, NASA wouldn't be able to put the James Webb telescope up and predict it's orbit.

IMO, and again my math stops at Trig, it's like calling gravity a "theory". Theory or not, throwing bowling balls off the roof of a 10 story building has a single outcome; all the balls will hit the ground.

Gravity is not a theory. It's a force. How fast the balls hit the ground is easily predicted by Newton's law of gravition, assuming the mass of the Earth and the mass of the bowling ball are known.
The mass of the Earth was first measured by Cavendish.

[Into the Night]

Basically the universal contants just are what they are...

We cannot derive them from any laws of physics or chemistry

We only know about them from experimental measurement.

It just is what it is.


That is what I mean by scientifically unsatisfactory. We have no deeper understanding of these Universal constants. I guess it ultimately becomes a philosophical question.

But some people wonder when you start having 20 or 25 universal constants holding the universe together, and which cannot be independently derived from physical laws, if it means we are missing something deeper and more fundamental about reality.

They are each derived from physical laws.
A universal constant is nothing more than a constant to convert a relation to our units of measurement.

[Cypress]

They are each derived from physical laws.
A universal constant is nothing more than a constant to convert a relation to our units of measurement.

Nope.

You would think in an ideal universe, physical laws could be derived simply from first principles, aka mass, acceleration, momentum, energy, wavelength, frequency. Newton's second law, for instance, just involves mass and acceleration.

But the universal gravitational constant, Plank's constant, and other constants had to be derived by measurment or empirical calculation. There is nothing self-evident about them.

[Doc Dutch]

Dark energy might be neither particle nor field

Everything else in the universe is either a particle or field. Dark energy behaves as neither, and it may be a property inherent to space itself.

.. there is no evidence that dark energy is anything other than the most basic entity imaginable: a property that is uniformly inherent to space everywhere and at all times. This can come about in one of two different ways very easily:

The universe can possess a positive, non-zero cosmological constant, a term perfectly allowable in general relativity. It has to be very, very small, but when you put it in everywhere over the whole universe, it eventually comes to dominate.

It could be a quantum property of space: the zero-point energy of all the fields in the vacuum of space is not required to be zero but could take on some positive, non-zero value. What we often interpret as quantum fluctuations, or particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence, could be the cause behind dark energy.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/dark-energy/

Well above my scientific abilities but it does go to prove there is more to the Universe than what we see.

[Cypress]

Well above my scientific abilities but it does go to prove there is more to the Universe than what we see.

The normal matter and energy we can see or detect - aka, atoms, photons, radiation and the electromagnetic spectrum - only account for about 5 percent of the universe.

We don't know what the other 95 percent of the universe is, but we know something else is there by indirect evidence.

[Doc Dutch]

The normal matter and energy we can see or detect - aka, atoms, photons, radiation and the electromagnetic spectrum - only account for about 5 percent of the universe.

We don't know what the other 95 of the universe percent is, but we know something else is there by indirect evidence.

Agreed. That part I can understand. Furthermore, based on current evidence, the Universe is not only expanding but due to dark energy the expansion is accelerating thus dampening the Oscillating Universe theory.

https://astronomy.com/news/magazine/...the-big-freeze
FROM THE JANUARY 2021 ISSUE
The Beginning to the End of the Universe: The Big Crunch vs. The Big Freeze
Astronomers once thought the universe could collapse in a Big Crunch. Now most agree it will end with a Big Freeze.
How will the universe end? Humanity has pondered this question for thousands of years. And now science actually has the knowledge and tools to attempt an answer.

Until rather recently, astronomers thought the cosmos would repeatedly expand and collapse in an infinite cycle of cosmic death and rebirth. But the best evidence points to a distant Armageddon filled with more existential dread than the Book of Revelation. Trillions of years in the future, long after Earth is destroyed, the universe will drift apart until galaxy and star formation ceases. Slowly, stars will fizzle out, turning night skies black. All lingering matter will be gobbled up by black holes until there’s nothing left. Finally, the last traces of heat will disappear.

Rather than meeting its end through fire and brimstone, the cosmos will likely succumb to “heat death.” Astronomers call it the Big Freeze.

[Into the Night]

The normal matter and energy we can see or detect - aka, atoms, photons, radiation and the electromagnetic spectrum - only account for about 5 percent of the universe.

We don't know what the other 95 percent of the universe is, but we know something else is there by indirect evidence.

Just what IS 5% of infinity?

[Cypress]

Just what IS 5% of infinity?

Infinity is a mathematical concept in set theory.

I am not talking about set theory or Euclidean volumes.

My post was crystal clear that I was talking about proportions, ratios, aka fractions.

[Melchizedek = Michael]

Dark energy might be neither particle nor field

Everything else in the universe is either a particle or field. Dark energy behaves as neither, and it may be a property inherent to space itself.

.. there is no evidence that dark energy is anything other than the most basic entity imaginable: a property that is uniformly inherent to space everywhere and at all times. This can come about in one of two different ways very easily:

The universe can possess a positive, non-zero cosmological constant, a term perfectly allowable in general relativity. It has to be very, very small, but when you put it in everywhere over the whole universe, it eventually comes to dominate.

It could be a quantum property of space: the zero-point energy of all the fields in the vacuum of space is not required to be zero but could take on some positive, non-zero value. What we often interpret as quantum fluctuations, or particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence, could be the cause behind dark energy.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/dark-energy/

Spirit world aren't subject to the laws of Physics that control the physical universe.