Void that is truly empty may solve the dark energy problem

[renormalised (Carl)]

Seems as though the fizzle maybe confined to those particles containing quarks and gluons...i.e. protons, neutrons, pions etc. A new study predicted that the quantum "foam" that is producing these particles maybe confined to be within the particles themselves, meaning that empty space is just that...empty. It may help resolve some of the nagging inconsistencies in the formulation of dark energy, where the energy of the vacuum should be many orders of magnitude than what it appears to be.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...gy-puzzle.html

[bojan]

According to this article, BH should not radiate... ??

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by bojan

According to this article, BH should not radiate... ??

I would assume that's so....if they're right (which is the big proviso).

I think there's another answer to this, and it has to do with higher dimensional space. Like gravity, this energy bleeds of into those higher dimensions and what we see is the "rump" end of the energy that's present.

But that's just speculation on my part.

[CraigS]

Does it also undo the explanation for the origin of the bang ?

[renormalised (Carl)]

No.

[xelasnave]

What is the effect of EME in empty space.

Obviously it is everywhere even in a void, one could assume, as the alternative is that EME somehow goes around a void and not thru it.

Is the EME presence or passage thru empty space taken into account any way? also when considering empty space is the background radiation taken into account.


alex

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

What is the effect of EME in empty space.

Obviously it is everywhere even in a void, one could assume, as the alternative is that EME somehow goes around a void and not thru it.

Is the EME presence or passage thru empty space taken into account any way? also when considering empty space is the background radiation taken into account.


alex

Ahhhh ... Alex;

Enjoy your 'prods', now that I (think) I understand more of where you're coming from !

?? EME = Electro Magnetic Energy ??? (Please clarify)

If so, have you ever thought of moving on in life with the concept of wave/particle duality, say for example, in the propagation of light ?

Cheers
PS: Respecting someone's beliefs is different from having to constantly be pressured into relating to their beliefs ..... !

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Ahhhh ... Alex;

Enjoy your 'prods', now that I (think) I understand more of where you're coming from !

?? EME = Electro Magnetic Energy ??? (Please clarify)

If so, have you ever thought of moving on in life with the concept of wave/particle duality, say for example, in the propagation of light ?

Cheers
PS: Respecting someone's beliefs is different from having to constantly be pressured into relating to their beliefs ..... !

Hi Craig
Yes EME = Electro Magnetic Energy

Moving on in life is what I do best Craig and I have people like you Carl and Steven to thank.

I only did combined physics and chemistry at high school so my physics training was basic and although I read and read I seem to only grasp a small portion.

I went to Wiki and read all I could on this matter and although Wiki has its shortcomings I find it useful in these areas as there are plenty of links and one learns the buz words...nevertheless a question arose for me that I sought to have answered....

I am not trying to read too much into your response however I think you have placed me in the wrong box, although, I can accept why you would be tempted to do so.

I would caution you on this point however...Just because my name is Alex does not mean I hold the same views as another with the same name.
I would like to think I am unique and find no comfort in hiding within a group.

Perhaps my attempt to offer an explanation as to why the pioneer slow has annoyed you because I seek to rise above my station and if so I can accept your response.

I ask my question about EME out of ignorance rather than an effort to bolster my beliefs. I suspect by the absence of any reference in the material I have covered you are going to tell me there is no account of EME in these matters and point out a property determined by the standard model that eliminates EME from the mix..

Please take my question at face value and be assured in asking I have no hidden addenda.

I am trying very hard to understand current physics and simply want to know when assessing the energy available in a void how the standard model views the EME.

I am really very sorry that I seem to irritate you but emphasis it does not worry me other than there is no need on your part to feel I am about tearing down the system...

I do not have beliefs Craig not in anything and so I have no more respect for the BBT than I do the Pope and that dogma than I do for LeSages view .. I listen to all views and approaches and although my question may appear to make some judgment internally ..as I say I have no beliefs than anyone is right...not even me....

Anyways on reflection dont worry about a reply....your reference to wave particle duality suggests that EME is not in a void as far as the standard model is concerned ...if so that would indeed be curious.

The fact is I had moved on from my interest in science after I got my boat ....my obsession with gravity caused me to review my life and the realization that I spent so much time on this site left me thinking that being out in a real and tangible world is better than being at a key board trying to understand why the standard model cant resolve various problems ....

Unfortunately I dropped in here again and various posts sparked my interest again ....

But you are right I should have listened to myself and moved past the trivial pursuit that gravity is still not understood.

alex

[CraigS]

I actually wasn't being sarcastic (Well maybe a little bit in my "PS" comment) ... I guess we'll eventually get on the same playing field ... I'm actually trying my best ... I'll practice more patience. You probably outrank me on that front .. so you can call me on it !

Obsessions ? Addictions ? yeah ...I have 'em too .. they come and go ..!! That's Ok.

I'm no expert on voids ... but I can't see why light (or radiation) can't propagate through one. And that wouldn't necessarily invalidate the definition of "void". I wouldn't think that light would be bent and hence, the geodesic path it would take through a void would be as straight as an arrow. (?). The void would still move away from other matter outside the void, I would think, courtesy of expansion, though.

These voids are interesting phenomena from a similar perspective as Black Holes ... except no mater, no gravity ... must be lots of theoretical stuff to look at there.

Cheers & Rgds

[xelasnave]

There is so much to try and understand even with the areas that we consider absolutely nailed down and indeed one must be patient to work thru stuff that presents huge problems even to the experts who understand their subject at the highest level.

I will not think less of you because you hint at addiction or obsession issues
for as I said I have been obsessional in the past about Le SAge gravity and the prospect of a steady state universe alternative being ruled out too early. Everyone has problems and there is no problem in that.

Some of my concerns that physics has raised many questions that remain in the too hard basket is reasonable and a short list can be found here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ems_in_physics

There are other places where one can get a better run down on the matters we still have questions about but I think you will better understand "where I come from" but more importantly " where I am determined to arrive" ....my style is aggressive and disrespectful which I understand is confronting but I am not really aggressive or disrespectful...I respect all things, all people and all life as hard as that may be to accept.


So having labored under the misapprehension that I lived in an age where all is understood to find that our cutting edge of science still has a mountain of problems to resolve leaves me confused and not confident as to what is solid ground... what will we do if it becomes clear the search for the HB was in vain... how much of our science will need changing...frighting dont you think? Fortunately science will move forward irrespective of the result because we will know more what can be and what will never be...thats science ..great isnt it?

My rants about gravity are indeed an expression of the frustration that the most fundamental of all the forces and presumably the engine of the universe is still beyond the understanding of humans. Our most recent step forward with gravity produced GR but in truth it does not take us a long way given we still use Newtonian physics for our space craft etc.


I find the fact that there are voids out there fascinating... I read of a void that was determined to be some 500 billion light years across... is that true..well one has to rely on many things one cant personally satisfy oneself about but my point is if such a report is valid then considering why such things are out there is very interesting... why should this be so..how does it relate to BBT and other observations... is such a void really empty or does EME penetrate, are they places as you say similar to a black hole in so far as things may work very differently to our human experience and what else may we find...so finally one can ask is there anything we can call nothing or is there something in all places.

I would have thought EME would pass thru a void in a straight path as you assume..subject as you say to the overall expansion of space and what factors may influence the course of least resistance..geowhatever.

When you posted on the latest research on "nothing" I really became excited because the concept of nothing I find interesting... mind you I am surprised their conclusion seemed to say that nothing does exist.
alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Largest voids....like the Bootes Void, are around a billion light years wide, not 500 billion. That would be wider than the observable universe (by about 5 times)!!!!.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Largest voids....like the Bootes Void, are around a billion light years wide, not 500 billion. That would be wider than the observable universe (by about 5 times)!!!!.

Yes of course I was thinking 500 million and half a billion and screwed the communication up Carl...anyhow thanks for that sure is a lot of nothing.
alex

[xelasnave]

AND another apology Carl I should have given you the recognition for posting rather than Craig ...more evidence I am fading fast it seems.
alex