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.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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]

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.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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-universe-the-big-crunch-vs-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.

 

[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.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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

Agreed.

We've discussed Universal Truths; can we agree that these constants are examples of Universal Truths whereas morals are relative?

 

[Cypress]

Agreed.

We've discussed Universal Truths; can we agree that these constants are examples of Universal Truths whereas morals are relative?

I guess I was using the word "universal" in a different way in those two contexts.

It the context of physics, I use the word universal in a cosmological context. It applies to the cosmos.

In the realm of moral philosophy, I use the word universal to denote something that is universally sensed, shared, or understood by homo sapiens. It applies to homo sapiens.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I guess I was using the word "universal" in a different way in those two contexts.

It the context of physics, I use the word universal in a cosmological context. It applies to the cosmos.

In the realm of moral philosophy, I use the word universal to denote something that is universally sensed, shared, or understood by homo sapiens. It applies to homo sapiens.

Thanks for the clarification.

Unless you are assuming that homo sapiens are the only intelligent life in the Universe, then I disagree that human morals are Universal.

Additionally, most human morals are relative and/or arbitrary. Age of adulthood being one as it ties to rights, age of consent, conscription, etc.

Back on topic, am I correct that we are agreed on Universal constants in the physical universe?

 

[Cypress]

Thanks for the clarification.

Unless you are assuming that homo sapiens are the only intelligent life in the Universe, then I disagree that human morals are Universal.

Additionally, most human morals are relative and/or arbitrary. Age of adulthood being one as it ties to rights, age of consent, conscription, etc.

Back on topic, am I correct that we are agreed on Universal constants in the physical universe?

To me, age of legal drinking, age of legal voting, marriage rituals, burial rituals, are social artifacts and cultural values.

Human culture and society have a wide range of acceptable practices.

But the the fact that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Judaism all roughly zeroed in (within a margin of error) on the same basic metaphysical moral code concerning virtue, charity, mercy, justice, compassion, right speech, right manner, right thought, doesn't sound like coincidence to me.

It sounds like humans fundamentally agree on a basic maxim of universal moral truths, within a margin of error.

Whether or not they act on these truths is a matter of character and free will.


Concerning physical constants of the universe, truth is a loaded word. In science, I am not sure we ever have truth. 100 years from now, we might realize Planck's constant is just an expression of a deeper, and underlying phenomena we did not previously recognize.

The mass of an electron might have seemed like a fundamental truth at one time, until we discovered the Higgs boson and realized the mass of an electron is really just an expression of the Higgs field.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

To me, age of legal drinking, age of legal voting, marriage rituals, burial rituals, are social artifacts and cultural values.

Human culture and society have a wide range of acceptable practices.

But the the fact that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Judaism all roughly zero in (within a margin of error) on the same basic metaphysical moral code concerning virtue, charity, mercy, justice, compassion, right speech, right manner, right thought, doesn't sound like coincidence to me.

It sounds like humans fundamentally agree on a basic maxim of universal moral truths, within a margin of error.

Whether or not they act on these truths is a matter of character and free will.


Concerning physical constants of the universe, truth is a loaded word. In science, I am not sure we ever have truth. 100 years from now, we might realize Planck's constant is just an expression of a deeper, and underlying phenomena we did not previously recognize.

The mass of an electron might have seemed like a fundamental truth at one time, until we discovered the Higgs boson and realized the mass of an electron is really just an expression of the Higgs field.

Agreed on cultural values but as we've discussed, a lot of those cultural values have a religious basis. Pretty easy to guess which religion in the West. LOL

Again I have heartburn with using the word "universal" when it only applies to humans. It's like saying "Democracy is a universal idea" but only referencing the USA, not other countries. Sorry, but IMHO, it's misleading. "Common human mores" would be more accurate.

We say "killing is wrong" on one hand but applaud the execution of terrorists with the other. Ergo, killing is relative to who is gettin' killed, not a "universal moral code".

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/mores-examples.html

Mores are often dictated by a society's values, ethics, and sometimes religious influences. Some mores examples include:

• It is not considered acceptable or mainstream to abuse drugs, particularly those such as heroin and cocaine.
• It is not considered acceptable to drive at 90 mph in a residential area.
• It is expected that one would hold the door for a person behind him or her when entering a building.
• Normal dress for women at work excludes clothes that are highly revealing.
• It is not considered acceptable for a woman to be highly sexually promiscuous.
• It is expected that one will be on time for work the majority of the time.
• It is not acceptable to wear casual clothes in most fine dining establishments.
• It is expected that alcohol consumption in public will be in moderation.
• Talking to oneself in public is not considered a normal behavior.
• Stealing is considered unacceptable under any circumstance.
• Adults are expected to work in order to support themselves.
• Nudity in public is not acceptable in most areas.
• Picking one's nose in public is not an acceptable behavior.
• People are expected to be honest.
• Respect for other people's property is important.
• If a promise is made, it is expected it will be kept.
• Chewing with one's mouth closed is expected.
• Eating in a sloppy way and at fast pace is not an acceptable behavior.
• Being married to more than one person is not acceptable in most areas.
• Incestuous behavior is not considered normal.
• Using the phrase "thank you" is expected when someone has provided a service.
• Quick repayment of debt to another individual is an expected behavior.
• Murder is not acceptable.
• Remaining loyal to one's spouse is an expected behavior.
• Rising for the national anthem is an expected behavior.
• Sending a thank you note to someone who has given a present is expected.
• Not abusing children is a societal expectation.
• Providing adequate housing and food for oneself and one's family is expected.
• Shorts should not be worn in a professional work atmosphere.
• When dressing for a job interview in an office, men should wear and a suit and tie.
• If something is knocked over in a store, the person who did so will clean up after himself.
• Belching at the dinner table is not an acceptable behavior.
• Cursing in polite conversation is not acceptable.
• Rudeness to service staff is not societally acceptable.
• Wearing a bikini to church would not be expected.
• Robbing a bank is against social norms.
• Setting one's own property on fire is not socially acceptable.
• Insurance fraud is not an acceptable behavior.
• Going to work or school barefoot is not socially acceptable.
• Being kind to animals is socially expected.
• Slurping one's food is not acceptable in the U.S.
• Ignoring someone when they are speaking is not acceptable.
• Talking while someone else is talking is considered unacceptable.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed on cultural values but as we've discussed, a lot of those cultural values have a religious basis. Pretty easy to guess which religion in the West. LOL

Again I have heartburn with using the word "universal" when it only applies to humans. It's like saying "Democracy is a universal idea" but only referencing the USA, not other countries. Sorry, but IMHO, it's misleading. "Common human mores" would be more accurate.

We say "killing is wrong" on one hand but applaud the execution of terrorists with the other. Ergo, killing is relative to who is gettin' killed, not a "universal moral code".

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/mores-examples.html

I can see where you would think the term Universal is a loaded word.

I was using the word in the sense Thomas Jefferson used it in the declaration of independence > A self evident universal truth, at least from the perspective of humanity, not for the Andromeda galaxy or Alpha Centari.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I can see where you would think the term Universal is a loaded word.

I was using the word in the sense Thomas Jefferson used it in the declaration of independence > A self evident universal truth, at least from the perspective of humanity, not for the Andromeda galaxy or Alpha Centari.

Understood. IMO, Jefferson, being a man of his times, was speaking in more of a standard human egocentric view that people are the center of the Universe. After all, it's in the Bible.

Yes, I know Jefferson was a Deist, but he's writing a joint document of signers who were, primarily, Christian.

Tying this to the topic; obviously if life is found elsewhere in the Universe, much less another civilization, many religions are going to have to wrap their head around the fact their perceptions were wrong. It would be important to apply "universal" to truly universal and separate out what is only human.

https://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/...at-bolstered-the-declaration-of-independence/

Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration, the great majority, perhaps all, identified themselves as Christians, and all but one were Protestants. Four were either present or former ministers, and a number of the signers were the sons of clergy. At least half of them had studied “divinity” at their various universities. The denominations breakdown runs as follows: 32 of the signers, well over half, were Episcopalians, or Anglicans, the old state Church of England. There were 13 Congregationalists, 12 were Presbyterians. There were two Quakers, two Unitarians, and one Roman Catholic.

 

[Cypress]

Understood. IMO, Jefferson, being a man of his times, was speaking in more of a standard human egocentric view that people are the center of the Universe. After all, it's in the Bible.

Yes, I know Jefferson was a Deist, but he's writing a joint document of signers who were, primarily, Christian.

Tying this to the topic; obviously if life is found elsewhere in the Universe, much less another civilization, many religions are going to have to wrap their head around the fact their perceptions were wrong. It would be important to apply "universal" to truly universal and separate out what is only human.

https://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/...at-bolstered-the-declaration-of-independence/

thanks

According to the dictionary definition, universal is a word perfectly acceptable when applying a truth applicable across the cosmos, or when just talking about something which is broadly embraced by humanity.

One just has to be careful in identifying the context used.

Jefferson was just riffing of the great Enlightenment thinkers, who were inspired to find universal truths and principles, whether scientific, or whether it was something shared by humanity.

That was the great Enlightenment Age project.

Cynicism about the possibility of universal (moral-ethical) first principles was a later 19th century and post-modernist trend.

 

[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.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

thanks

According to the dictionary definition, universal is a word perfectly acceptable when applying a truth applicable across the cosmos, or when just talking about something which is broadly embraced by humanity.

One just has to be careful in identifying the context used.

Jefferson was just riffing of the great Enlightenment thinkers, who were inspired to find universal truths and principles, whether scientific, or whether it was something shared by humanity.

That was the great Enlightenment Age project.

Cynicism about the possibility of universal (moral-ethical) first principles was a later 19th century and post-modernist trend.

Human hubris and egocentricity was well known by Galileo.

Agreed on the context of use, especially when overlapping topics. There's the Universe and all it is and then there's our puny perceptions of it.

Something I've posted about before is the mind-boggling size of our own solar system much less trying to comprehend the size of the Universe. On a 1/10 Billionth scale, the Sun is about the size of a grapefruit and the Earth is about the size of this "o". The Moon about the size of the period at the end of the sentence and about 3 inches away. Jupiter is over 400 feet further away with Alpha Centauri about 2,500 miles away. https://www.jeffreybennett.com/model-solar-systems/voyage-scale-model-solar-system/

Grains of sand held by a string of gravity that, on that scale, amazes me by how thin it is. Much less how a grain of sand can attract a rock the size of a mountain to destroy it. Context is, indeed, everything hence my being a bit anal about the use of the word "universal".

Thanks but it’s still mind boggling. If you ever have a chance to do it, track down one of these 1/10billionth scale Solar System models. It’s about half a mile long but the Earth is only about 43 feet from a grapefruit-sized Sun.

There are exhibits in Corpus Christi, Houston, DC, Kansas City: http://voyagesolarsystem.org/community-network/voyage-in-washington-dc/

http://voyagesolarsystem.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/DC-Site-Map1-1024x169.png

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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

So goes the theory.