|Subject: So theorists are currently
in the state of trying anything and everything, ...
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 05:21:27 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Eric Linder <email@example.com>
CC: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Curt.Cutler@aei.mpg.de, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
RE: Eric Linder, Light Thoughts on Dark Energy,
"So theorists are currently in the state of trying anything
Dear Dr. Linder:
If you and your colleagues are trying anything and everything, please don't miss my proposal at my web site. I'll be happy to elaborate, starting from any paper you may wish to choose from
The Puzzle and Nature of Dark Energy,
Note: I haven't heard from Sean Carroll, who is also trying anything and everything to explain the mysterious dark smooth dynamical tension, and perhaps won't hear from Eric Linder either. See my feedback to Matthew Frank and ReadMeFirst page.
Since we model the universe as a human brain, perhaps it would be interesting to see what could be the corresponding partner of dark matter/dark energy in brain science, given the underlying thesis that in both cases we have the same phenomenon of global/local mode of spacetime, which is being manifested under different conditions and circumstances; a bit like a song played with two very different musical instruments.
The story of dark matter/dark energy in brain science is called 'interactive dualism'. One of its main proponent was Sir John Eccles, who speculated about some invisible particles, called 'psychons', which were interacting with the brain like some piano player would play his instrument. If you look at the piano (=the human brain), you will see the machinery being played by the player, but not the player himself. He is always "dark", that is, invisible.
Well, if you take into account the proposal advocated here, the 'player' will also be invisible, because it is placed in the Holon of the brain (=global mode of spacetime), but it will provide an additional physical influence to each and every neuron and synapse in the brain, such that each and every part of the brain will comply with the Holon rule 'think globally, act locally'.
Again, the additional influence from brain's Holon is both completely "dark" and totally physical. We have nothing but normal physics and chemistry in the brain, only the brain can keep its 100 billion neurons and some 60 trillion synapses in perfect harmony. But if you try to explain the brain without the additional input from its Holon, you will go crazy, because the normal physics and chemistry won't fit the bill, -- ever. Hence Sir John Eccles tried to suggest some new field, but couldn't fit it into the Standard Model. He too was trying anything and everything to explain the brain.
However, if you look at the brain carefully, you may find some very interesting "dark" imprints from its Holon. Then all you have to do is to translate them into the language of modern theoretical physics. This will probably be a tough job, but since we're trying anything and everything, why not trying the human brain? The bi-directional "talk" between the brain and its Holon might gives us a hint for explaining another bi-directional "talk" that we know since 1915.
What if the Holon state of the universe can impose its additional dark influence via spacetime geometry? It's just a bi-directional talk, nothing dangerous!
Exciting times lie ahead for dark
energy research! Let's see what will be the reaction by Eric Linder and
his colleagues. Probably something dark, as usual.
In his latest astro-ph/0406189 v1, draft version of today, June 9, 2004, he wrote:
"Just as in inflation, there is "running"
-- a variation of parameters during the acceleration -- and we need to
choose when to evaluate the derivatives, e.g. at N = 60. (...) So we have
argued that to learn the direction of new physics we need to consider not
only the value of wconst but not deny the possibility
of time variation w' .
"Understanding, or at least obtaining insight into, the nature of dark energy will be the great challenge of physics in the next decade. We must be sure that we ask questions in such a way that the answers we derive are not deconstructions -- subjective interpretations -- but faithful reconstructions of aspects of the true physics. This includes allowing explicitly for the possibility of time variation in the equation of state of the dark energy."
If you really and honestly want a "faithful reconstructions of aspects of the true physics", don't miss the utterly obvious problem of time variation during the acceleration.
What is the clock that can read these variations? What is the normal/background time parameter with respect to which we can identify these deviations as time variations? The one read by your wristwatch maybe?
Take a definition of a clock in GR, and run it along the deflation time. Make sure it enters the inflation stage. Can you bring it back to June 9, 2004, and the same place where you were sitting at your desk and writing your draft version of astro-ph/0406189 v1?
If you can, please write me back.
Then look at the fluctuations in the vacuum energy density [e.g.,
inflation work, Phys. Rev. D (1989) 39, 2100; see also
Perhaps you'll find some hints for the dark matter as well. It's package,
and a Cauchy horizon does not occur.
Re: Robert J. Budzynski, Witold Kondracki, and Andrzej Krolak, New properties of Cauchy and event horizons, gr-qc/0011033 v1:
"A fundamental unresolved problem
in classical relativity posed by Roger Penrose is whether there is a "cosmic
censor" that ensures existence of an initial surface from which the whole
of space-time is predictable and a Cauchy horizon does not occur."
Dear Drs. Budzynski, Kondracki, and Krolak,
I think we need new physics, which you can verify with your brain,
Your critical comments and those from your colleagues will be appreciated.
Is there an upper bound on the volume of space?
Dear Professor Perlmutter,
I'm very much interested in your project [Ref. 1], and would like to share with you my thoughts evoked by reading your web site.
Suppose, just for the sake of the argument, that we live in a universe which, once created, is bounded by some numerically finite but physically unattainable "boundaries". Suppose also that the dark energy of the universe comes from the quantum vacuum, and not from some ad hoc postulated scalar field.
I wonder if we could speculate about some asymptotic behavior of the dynamic dark energy, such that there would be a *limit* on the expansion of space, which would be physically unattainable.
Can you suggest some accelerated
"evolution" of the dark energy/dark matter, such that at some stage there
would be 99 per % dark stuff and 1
If yes, how large would be the volume of 3-D space then?
Further, if we assume that there will be always some "real" or visible matter, can we think of some upper bound on the volume of 3-D space, such that the ratio of the visible matter to the dark stuff would be, say, 1 in 10^120? There should be some upper bound on the buildup of the dark stuff in the universe, since it cannot eat up the visible matter entirely. If so, there should be some upper bound on the volume of 3-D space as well: a universe so large that it contains 1 part real/visible matter in 10^120 parts. The rest would be just dark stuff.
"SNAP is specifically designed to
reveal the nature of the dark energy causing the acceleration of the expansion
of the universe. (...) The essential purpose of the SNAP proposal, however,
is to address the most
"Will the universe last forever?
"Is the universe infinite in extent?
"What is the universe made of?
"What dark energy accelerates the
expansion of the universe?"