Qualia XX: Further Conversations between Physicists - 2: "Dark Matter or Dark Energy?" From the QUFD website, at: http://go.to/QUFD

Qualia XX: Further Conversations between Physicists - 2: "Dark Matter or Dark Energy?"


Exploring QUFD Principles,
from the QUFD website,
at: http://go.to/QUFD

By Father Jerome

  1. On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 21:48:27 -0800, Father Jerome FIWD wrote:

  2. Richard

  3. I want to tell you of something of importance in what I have previously sent to you. In doing this, I am responding to a 'compulsion', if it might be called that, possibly from the Guy Upstairs, to, in effect, 'get it right', or accurate!

  4. In doing this, I realize that I may not have 'got it right' or accurate in the first place, but as to the actuality, I am leaving it to your 'expertise' to decide. What I am referring to is the issue of 'dark matter' versus 'dark energy'. I will admit that the first instance of my 'hearing' was that of 'dark matter', which somehow, I don't know how, was subsequently 'associated' with Consciousness. Of the 'connection' of the two, I have no doubt, but I am now hereby compelled to question WHICH 'dark' I was referred to and which was which: 'dark matter' OR 'dark energy'! In other words, SHOULD my initial 'association' have been to 'dark energy' rather than 'dark matter'??? Of course, I realize that, in all my writings where I just naturally 'associated' Consciousness with 'dark matter' instead of 'dark energy', I may have been wrong!

  5. So, what I am saying, is that, in the context of everything that I have just put forth to you recently, I feel that I am yet correct, in the 'association' of 'dark ???' to Consciousness, but what is tenuous is the which 'dark' - dark 'matter' or dark 'energy'??? So, what I am asking for you to do, in evaluating my words to you, which I do certify as essentially correct... I would like you to reverse every instance of 'dark matter' with every instance of 'dark energy', and I will let you decide which is correct, 'dark matter' or 'dark energy'! In other words, when I say that the 'medium', or 'means', of enabling a 'shadow' or 'reflective' world, is that of 'dark matter' and that the 'shadow world' so 'reflected' is of 'dark energy'... let us reverse these two, letting the 'medium' be 'dark energy' and the 'reflected world' be 'dark matter', and then ask which may be correct! In either case, the remaining third aspect, that the real world derives from Consciousness, yet IS CORRECT! But, is Consciousness actually 'dark matter' OR 'dark energy'???

  6. I'm bringing this to your attention, Richard, as you are more certainly an 'expert' on 'dark matter'/'dark energy' than I am, such aspects, even though relative TO Incorporeality, having more so originated within the 'theories' of Newtonian Physics and Quantum Mechanics than within the quantum realms of Incorporeality. In other words, I did NOT 'hear' of 'dark matter'/'dark energy' from the Guy Upstairs, but, instead, from Newtonian Physics or such! But I certainly DID 'hear' of Consciousness and Incorporeality from the Guy Upstairs! So, Consciousness is Consciousness, as far as I am concerned. WHICH 'dark- is the same as Consciousness, 'dark matter' or 'dark energy'... You are more the expert on such than I am and thusly I'll let you make the most accurate proclamation!

  7. Jerome
    Father Jerome, OA/OWB
    D.Th.(In Esse-the Theology of Reality), D.Sc.(Quantum Physics)
    Father Jerome USA,
    Author of the world-renown 'textbook-on-the-Web'
    (listed in the TOP 1% of worldwide websites),
    the QUFD (Quantum Unitary Field Dynamics) website, at:
    http://go.to/QUFD
    An Affiliate of the
    Freedom, Independenace & World Democracy (FIWD) Institute,
    London (OA/OWB)

  8. (End of Father Jerome's message.)

  9. (Beginning of Dr. Ruquist's response.)

  10. Father Jerome,

  11. Such an interesting question, especially since on another forum, the yahoo WEDconsciousness group, I just sent an Email about how dark matter and dark energy are now accepted as conventional physics, but that a recent paper by Cahill suggests that dark matter may be a theoretical anomaly due to an approximation in Newton's theory that space is continuous. Here is his abstract and a link to his paper:
    Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constant
    Authors: Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
    Comments: 11 pages, 3 eps figures
    Subj-class: General Physics

    Gravitational anomalies such as the mine/borehole g anomaly, the near-flatness of the spiral galaxy rotation-velocity curves, currently interpreted as a `dark matter' effect, the absence of that effect in ordinary elliptical galaxies, and the ongoing problems in accurately determining Newton's gravitational constant G_N are explained by a generalisation of the Newtonian theory of gravity to a fluid-flow formalism with one new dimensionless constant. By analysing the borehole and spiral galaxy data this constant is shown to be the fine structure constant alpha=1/137. This formalism then also explains the cause of the long-standing uncertainties in G_N and leads to the introduction of a fundamental gravitational constant G not = G_N with value G=(6.6526 +/- 0.013)x 10^-11 m^2s^{-2}kg^{-1}. The occurrence of alpha implies that space has a quantum structure, and we have the first evidence of quantum gravity effects.

    Full-text: PostScript, PDF, or Other formats
    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401047

  12. So for now the jury is out on whether dark matter exists.

  13. However, recently I read another paper that claims that dark energy is an axion field. Here is its abstract and link:
    Axion Phantom Energy
    Authors: Pedro F. Gonzalez-Diaz (IMAFF, CSIC, Madrid)
    Comments: 6 pages, RevTex, to appear in Phys. Rev. D
    Report-no: IMAFF-RCA-03-03

    The existence of phantom energy in a universe which evolves to eventually show a big rip doomsday is a possibility which is not excluded by present observational constraints. In this letter it is argued that the field theory associated with a simple quintessence model is compatible with a field definition which is interpretable in terms of a rank-three axionic tensor field, whenever we consider a perfect-fluid equation of state that corresponds to the phantom energy regime. Explicit expressions for the axionic field and its potential, both in terms of an imaginary scalar field, are derived which show that these quantities both diverge at the big rip, and that the onset of phantom-energy dominance must take place just at present.

    Full-text: PostScript, PDF, or Other formats
    http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0401082

  14. It is in this paper that I first saw that axions could be both dark matter and dark energy.

  15. I must say that all I know is what I read and I have to take all of that on faith. So what I have read suggests that the axions may be the basis of dark energy, and dark matter may not even exist. But that throws a monkey wrench into current thinking about the universe. Many separate observations suggest that the space of the universe is flat, right on the boundary between being closed and open. So now the thinking is that dark matter makes up 23% of the universe, dark energy makes up 75% and the remaining 2% includes stars and us. If dark matter is dropped, the balance will have to be readjusted.

  16. Dark energy is based on the observation that certain star explosions in the distant universe, which are know to be always at the same light intensity, are further away than expected. So the expansion of the universe must be accelerating, the acceleration being due to dark energy. Now I suspect that the error bounds on this analysis are quite large. So perhaps dark energy could be 98% of the universe.

  17. But for now I would now make any drastic revisions in your thinking or the statements on your site. The constituents of dark matter are not known even if it does exist, and the source of dark energy is not known. That second paper above is just one of many suggested possibilities.

  18. Right now there is a revolution going on in high energy physics. It seems that loop quantum gravity LQG, which predicts a descrete 4-d spacetime, is going to replace string theory.

  19. String theory requires supersymmetric particles which have never been observed. It also requires extra space dimensions which also have not been observed. It predicts the wrong sign for the cosmological constant. That is it predicts that dark energy should be negative, a deceleration.

  20. LQG predicts three descrete space and one descrete time dimension from the same first principles that Einstein used for General Relativity; it predicts the correct sign for the cosmological constant, that the expansion of the universe is accelerating; it predicts the before and after of the big bang, and it even predicts quantum mechanics, namely the Schrodinger equation. I can provide references for all these papers if you are interested. They are quite recent.

  21. Again all I know is what I read. I am not expert in any of this. But I am fascinated by it all. I hope I live long enough to see it all worked out. There is no guarantee that I can find out what is really true after death- or is there?

    Richard

  22. (End of Dr. Ruquist's response.)

    Aum, Peace, Amen
    Father Jerome

| QUFD Opening Page | Main QUFD Document | QUFD Subjects/Categories Page | Site Map |