APOD: A Force from Empty Space: The Effect... (2015 Dec 06)

[neufer]

Well Art what do I know besides what 'they' (John Hopkins and NASA.)tell me? 'The Hubble Site.'
"With dark energy, the fate of the universe might go well beyond the Big Chill. In the strangest and most speculative scenario, as the universe expands ever faster, all of gravity's work will be undone. Clusters of galaxies will disband and separate. Then galaxies themselves will be torn apart. The solar system, stars, planets, and even molecules and atoms could be shredded by the ever-faster expansion. The universe that was born in a violent expansion could end with an even more violent expansion called the Big Rip."
This from a site called 'The Hubble Site'
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoverie ... iverse.php
"A free-standing science center, located on the campus of The Johns Hopkins University and operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) for NASA."
http://www.stsci.edu/institute/

Well, it does state: "In the strangest and most speculative scenario"

If the cosmological constant is actually increasing with time it would seem that the sidereal year would also increase on the order of about 0.002 seconds per year (= 31,558,149.504 seconds/13,800,000,000 yr). Surely this would be noticed.

[Markus Schwarz]

This tiny ball provides evidence that the universe will expand forever. [...] Today, evidence indicates that most of the energy density in the universe is in an unknown form dubbed dark energy. The form and genesis of dark energy is almost completely unknown, but postulated as related to vacuum fluctuations similar to the Casimir Effect but generated somehow by space itself.

Anyway, HOW does a force causing nanoscopic attraction contribute to cosmological expansion???

The problem is that when you try to calculate the value of the cosmological constant from quantum mechanical vacuum fluctuations you get a value that is about 120 orders of magnitude above the observed value. This is known as the cosmological constant problem.

[Alohascope]

Well Art what do I know besides what 'they' (John Hopkins and NASA.)tell me? 'The Hubble Site.'
"With dark energy, the fate of the universe might go well beyond the Big Chill. In the strangest and most speculative scenario, as the universe expands ever faster, all of gravity's work will be undone. Clusters of galaxies will disband and separate. Then galaxies themselves will be torn apart. The solar system, stars, planets, and even molecules and atoms could be shredded by the ever-faster expansion. The universe that was born in a violent expansion could end with an even more violent expansion called the Big Rip."
This from a site called 'The Hubble Site'
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoverie ... iverse.php
"A free-standing science center, located on the campus of The Johns Hopkins University and operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) for NASA."
http://www.stsci.edu/institute/

Well, it does state: "In the strangest and most speculative scenario"

If the cosmological constant is actually increasing with time it would seem that the sidereal year would also increase on the order of about 0.002 seconds per year (= 31,558,149.504 seconds/13,800,000,000 yr). Surely this would be noticed.

Almost any or perhaps all cosmological scenarios are speculative because it seems the more information we gather the more uncertain the scenarios become. And RIP is the strangest only because it is the newest scenario. Even Big Bang, accepted as fact for decades, is in serious question by serious scientists. (Of course, it IS clear the moon and earth belong together, at least for now.)

[Alohascope]

Well Art what do I know besides what 'they' (John Hopkins and NASA.)tell me? 'The Hubble Site.'
"With dark energy, the fate of the universe might go well beyond the Big Chill. In the strangest and most speculative scenario, as the universe expands ever faster, all of gravity's work will be undone. Clusters of galaxies will disband and separate. Then galaxies themselves will be torn apart. The solar system, stars, planets, and even molecules and atoms could be shredded by the ever-faster expansion. The universe that was born in a violent expansion could end with an even more violent expansion called the Big Rip."
This from a site called 'The Hubble Site'
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoverie ... iverse.php
"A free-standing science center, located on the campus of The Johns Hopkins University and operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) for NASA."
http://www.stsci.edu/institute/

Well, it does state: "In the strangest and most speculative scenario"

If the cosmological constant is actually increasing with time it would seem that the sidereal year would also increase on the order of about 0.002 seconds per year (= 31,558,149.504 seconds/13,800,000,000 yr). Surely this would be noticed.

Art .. this is an example of how scenarios can change dramatically and quickly. "New images of an intriguing red giant star, known as CW Leonis, have turned the usual astronomy narrative on its head, with scrutiny focused not only on the stars but also on the astronomers who study them. In just a couple of years, the 400 light-year distant CW Leo has changed its appearance completely, meaning a whole set of carefully constructed models have been abandoned." From Asterisk's breaking scientific news forum.

[Ron-Astro Pharmacist]

---

<<An antimacassar is a small cloth placed over the backs or arms of chairs, or the head or cushions of a sofa, to prevent soiling of the permanent fabric. The name also refers to the cloth flap 'collar' on a sailor's shirt/top, used to keep macassar oil off the uniform.

Macassar oil was an unguent for the hair commonly used in the early 19th century. The poet Byron called it "thine incomparable oil, Macassar." The fashion for oiled hair became so widespread in the Victorian and the Edwardian period that housewives began to cover the arms and backs of their chairs with washable cloths to preserve the fabric coverings from being soiled. Around 1850, these started to be known as antimacassars. They were also installed in theatres, from 1865.

They came to have elaborate patterns, often in matching sets for the various items of parlour furniture; they were either made at home using a variety of techniques such as crochet or tatting, or purchased. The original antimacassars were usually made of stiff white crochet-work, but in the third quarter of the 19th century they became simpler and softer, usually fabric embroidered with a simple pattern in wool or silk. Annie Chapman, the second canonical victim of Jack the Ripper, was said to have made antimacassars for a living shortly before she was murdered.>>

Well at least an antimacassar has some symmetry to it. I was just trying to make up physics as usual. That's what a Fizzacist does in his spare time. Obliviously I can't portray an idea well. If matter can "pop into" existence then it should be able to "pop out" too. A black hole seemed like a good place for that to happen. It's a spot in the universe where there is "more" on the inside but it's "less" obvious from outside as to where it's going to or doing in there. With particles popping into existence (causing the Casimir effect) at least we can get, more or less of, an idea as to what is going on.

Counter intuitively black holes are always portrayed to engulf and condense matter when they also could be void. If expansion is stretching the universe then voids shouldn't seem too unanticipated. The voids could be an area of the universe without space. Sort of like my physics - some thing basic is missing.

[geckzilla]

Alright, Aloha. Keep in mind this is a mainstream science forum and there are plenty of places you can go if you wish to discuss fringe theories or whatever anti-mainstream stuff you want.

[Alohascope]

Geck .. are NASA and John Hopkins fringe? I won't post anything further on this because the science is in those mainstream urls .. but really, you should reevaluate your definition of 'fringe.'

[geckzilla]

Geck .. are NASA and John Hopkins fringe? I won't post anything further on this because the science is in those mainstream urls .. but really, you should reevaluate your definition of 'fringe.'

You posted a link to Anthony Watts's website and some other one talking about scientists debunking the Big Bang or something like that. Definitely fringe stuff and not NASA or John Hopkins.

[Martin]

What is causing this effect to be an attractive force? And what is the suspected correlation between this attractive force and the repelling force of dark energy?

[neufer]

What is causing this effect to be an attractive force?

And what is the suspected correlation between this attractive force and the repelling force of dark energy?

The title: A Force from Empty Space refers specifically
to the repellent force from the space on the outside.

[Alohascope]

Geck .. are NASA and John Hopkins fringe? I won't post anything further on this because the science is in those mainstream urls .. but really, you should reevaluate your definition of 'fringe.'

You posted a link to Anthony Watts's website and some other one talking about scientists debunking the Big Bang or something like that. Definitely fringe stuff and not NASA or John Hopkins.

I checked back and can't find Anthony Watt's name or website in my posts .. I hadn't heard of him before you named his name.

Are you saying I did NOT post from NASA or John Hopkins?

[Alohascope]

Geck .. are NASA and John Hopkins fringe? I won't post anything further on this because the science is in those mainstream urls .. but really, you should reevaluate your definition of 'fringe.'

You posted a link to Anthony Watts's website and some other one talking about scientists debunking the Big Bang or something like that. Definitely fringe stuff and not NASA or John Hopkins.

I checked back and can't find Anthony Watt's name or website in my posts .. I hadn't heard of him before you named his name.

Are you saying I did NOT post from NASA or John Hopkins?

Geckzilla, are you saying my statement, "Even Big Bang, accepted as fact for decades, is in serious question by serious scientists" is seditious? I didn't even include a url for that one.

[geckzilla]

Yeah, I deleted the links. BB is always under serious question by serious scientists, but not widely or really at this forum since there aren't many people with the necessary skill to ask such questions in a meaningful way. You want to discuss parts of the BB you don't understand, fine. It's not sedition to be skeptical of mainstream science or anti-mainstream, it's just that it always gets us absolutely nowhere. That's why the rules were made to keep us on track as an educational and informative place rather than a place where confused and fruitless arguments occur.

Furthermore, I am once again reminded why we don't discuss the details of moderation in public as we've now derailed the thread. I do like to do this sometimes so that people can see more openly how moderation is handled and get a feel for the forum. I hope it did not bother you too much to have to be defensive for a moment in public. Anyway, please direct further questions to me via private message.

[Markus Schwarz]

What is causing this effect to be an attractive force? And what is the suspected correlation between this attractive force and the repelling force of dark energy?

These are difficult questions and there is no clear answer yet. In particular the relation between the Casimir effect/ vacuum fluctuations and cosmological constant / dark energy. The universe undergoes accelerated expansion, which is best described by a cosmological constant. One way to explain/interpret this constant is as a type of energy density. Since this energy density does not interact with light directly, it is referred to as dark energy. Now, on the other hand we know that there are fluctuations of virtual particles in "empty space" (see for instance Lamb shift). When you look at the energy density of these vacuum fluctuations, you obtain similar properties as that of dark energy. Also, in the frame work of general relativity, every type of energy density contributes to the curvature of space, i.e. gravity. Thus, a common hypothesis is that the vacuum fluctuations are responsible for dark energy. The big problem with this is that calculations yield an energy density 120 orders of magnitude above the observed value This problem may be solved by the theory of quantum gravity, which, alas, we don't have yet. I hope this helped.

[neufer]

The big problem with this is that
calculations yield an energy density 120 orders of magnitude above the observed value

Close enough for government work.

[Alohascope]

Yeah, I deleted the links. BB is always under serious question by serious scientists, but not widely or really at this forum since there aren't many people with the necessary skill to ask such questions in a meaningful way. You want to discuss parts of the BB you don't understand, fine. It's not sedition to be skeptical of mainstream science or anti-mainstream, it's just that it always gets us absolutely nowhere. That's why the rules were made to keep us on track as an educational and informative place rather than a place where confused and fruitless arguments occur.

Furthermore, I am once again reminded why we don't discuss the details of moderation in public as we've now derailed the thread. I do like to do this sometimes so that people can see more openly how moderation is handled and get a feel for the forum. I hope it did not bother you too much to have to be defensive for a moment in public. Anyway, please direct further questions to me via private message.

I would have to be a member of the forum to send you a private message, and while so far I have enjoyed the forum in degrees both large and small it is not open minded enough for me to want to become a member of. Our mental and spiritual associations can influence our thought processes, and I don't mean what I say next as an insult but I saw quickly that at this form speculation which can lead to huge advancement is a quality not esteemed. I will remain a casual participant unless you are to ban me for my assessments.

[geckzilla]

You know nobody knows or cares who you are if you have an anonymous username or are an anonymous guest? You're already a "member" by choosing to participate, you just don't have the access to useful features. Some people just like to make things difficult...

[Alohascope]

You know nobody knows or cares who you are if you have an anonymous username or are an anonymous guest? You're already a "member" by choosing to participate, you just don't have the access to useful features. Some people just like to make things difficult...

"Some people just like to make things difficult?" You, Geckzilla, must be that some person who likes to make things difficult then, because I don't and I have not. And "no" I am not a member by participating .. I would become a member if I signed up. I am a "user" according to your sign in format, a visitor by another term, and you persuade me to make my visits less frequent, and absolutely convince me NOT to become a member. Please don't take what I say as an insult though, I mean it only for your benefit.

[Martin]

Thanks for the replies guys.