Thursday, April 22, 2010

Dark Force Waning

Tommaso's interest in the recent paper of Frampton has brought the physics blogosphere's attention, once again, to the problem of the Dark Force.

Professor Frampton, like most professionals, disagrees with the idea that quantum gravity, and not GR, is responsible for the apparent accelerated expansion, so I have one question for Professor Frampton. In his cyclic black hole cosmology, does the mass of the universe grow in cosmic time?

After all, given a constant $c$ and $G$ in the cyclic picture, a growing Schwarzschild radius must correspond to an increasing mass. Similarly, the universal temperature in this picture must fall with increasing universal mass. But if the mass is increasing, then we cannot but help wonder how Riofrio's law, $M = t$, is avoided. In the cyclic picture, presumably the particle masses are fixed in cyclic time, in which case an increasing universal mass must correspond to matter creation. How is this supposed to occur? Is not a quantum cosmology a more economical explanation?

A year ago, the blogger McCabe made an interesting comment regarding Penrose's cyclic cosmology, for which mass does evolve:
Two potential problems spring to mind. Firstly, following an argument by Gibbons and Hawking, de Sitter spacetime is widely believed to possess a minimum temperature due to its cosmological constant. With the value of the cosmological constant we observe, this temperature is about 10-30 Kelvin. A black hole will only evaporate if the temperature of its horizon is greater than the temperature of surrounding space. The temperature of a black hole is inversely proportional to its mass, and a black hole which grows large enough that its temperature drops below 10-30 Kelvin would never evaporate. However, such a black hole would have a mass approximately equal to the current observable universe ...
In other words, the idea of the universe as a black hole also has a place in evolving mass cosmologies. Anyway, quantum or no, the power of the Dark Force is waning.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Keep your book on your own blog, Nigel. I already made that observation about R=ct on Tommaso's blog.

  4. OK, black hole event horizon radius R = ct = MG/c^2 is a particularly neat derivation of Louise's equation MG = tc^3. Your comment on Tommaso's blog puts this very nicely.


  5. Penrose: the term “entropy” refers to an
    appropriate measure of disorder or lack of “specialness” of the state of the universe. - But we know that this disorder vary in a cyclic way with some kind of order, like sea waves transport debris together in strings. This charachter is inherent in disorder?

    He cont: and we expect it to collapse to some sort of complicated space-time singularity, a singularity encompassing as many degrees of freedom as were already present in its earlier nonsingular collapsing phase. Time-reversing this situation, we see that an initial singular state could also contain as many degrees of freedom as such a collapsing one. - We don't know if we should say singular or dual. It is the degrees of freedom that is important, and they don't change. This means that dark matter/energy also has degrees of freedom that we can't measure.
    The second law is about differences and changes. The term entropy is in my mind very unsatisfactory. We should rather try to determine what kind of changes we talk of. Is it mass, then there are a density of degrees of freedom, that in some way are restricted. What cause the restriction?

    Penrose: When the Second Law is a crucial
    component, there is always a far more probable set of initial conditions that would lead to this same state of affairs, namely one in which the Second Law was violated prior to the situation now! - so the second law does not always hold? Not in living things where the negentropy is maximized. This can also be seen as a delay in the rate of changes, kind of time-delay. Is all matter the same? The living Earth too? What cause the time delay then? Is it the dissipation, or exactly the disorder itself? This would be a cyclic phenomen.

    In my mind Nige talk too long bits too :) But mine is not better at all :)

  6. I must continue. You can say if I should be silent.

    Penrose: What we find, in the early universe, is an extraordinary uniformity, and this can be interpreted as the gravitational degrees of freedom that are potentially available to the universe being not excited at all. As time progresses, the entropy rises as the initially uniform distribution of matter begins to clump, as the gravitational degrees of freedom begin to be taken up. finally this gravitational clumping leads to the presence of black holes, which represent an enormous increase in entropy. - Black holes increase entropy but Big Bang had a very tiny entropy? There is something very wrong here?

    proposals for the nonactivation of gravitational degrees of freedom at the BigBang.

    At Big Bang there must have been 100% potential gravitational degrees of freedom, but very densely. How could that happen? This means matter without gravity, but real gravity is the force that make matter, by excluding degrees of freedom. The movement of matter is the key? What could make matter move if there was thermal, and informational balance, and no force from outside.

    Still today evolution happens by activating those potental degrees of freedom, or implicit order a la Bohm? Could these degrees be seen as non-emergent (potential) H-spinors?

  7. Penrose raises very important question which is a hot potatoe for the majority of colleagues. There is a genuine paradox reflecting the wrong view about relationship between geometric time and subjective time to which second law basically applies. Physics is crying for a generalization to a theory of consciousness!

    Second law applies in zero energy ontology to zero energy states which are essentially 4-D: positive and negative energy parts of zero energy state are at future and past boundaries of causal diamond.

    When we apply second law in cosmological scales, the causal diamond has the scale of the entire universe as we know it. The sequence of quantum jumps replaces this 4-D quantum state- the entire cosmic history- with a new one again and again and second law applies to sub-CDs and leads to no paradoxes since it is the entropy of the whole 4-D history which increases. Both the present and initial state become more entropic quantum jump by quantum jump.

    There are subtle effects due to the possibility of negentropic entanglement (making sense in in the intersection of real and p-adic worlds) essential for life implying that second law applies only in scales shorter than the time scale of observation.

  8. Matti, you can explain things so well, that everybody can understand :)

    positive and negative energy parts of zero energy state are at future and past boundaries of causal diamond.

    That's it. And some energy too. Much energy.

  9. Yes, the biggest flaw in standard thinking is without a doubt this problem of time. They keep going on and on and on about the 'Problem of Time' and even with those three small words they are displaying a hopeless prejudice towards ONE old kind of time, or no time at all.

  10. No time at all, and every time. And there was no time.

    Good morning Kea. I shall go to sleep:)

  11. Well,I tried to fish something here, but I am not competent to do it myself. Thought I would get a thread :)

    One possible thing that could do the transformation from uniformity with a very small entropy to a total difference with very big entropy in non-local, timeless and instantous dark matter is a hbar change. But how it would happen is another question. If second law doesn't hold in dark matter, only potential information (morphogenic field?). This is a digital transformation. Some matter with a magnetic momentum? Can dark matter be magnetic? What charachter in dark matter bends the light?

  12. Ulla, that is Louise Riofrio's black hole DM cosmology. And if you don't mind me saying so, you're beginning to resemble Nigel, lol.

  13. I know I resemble Nigel :) I said it myself. Thanks. I shall look at Riofrio.

  14. Have you noticed that Frampton has a new paper on primordial black holes.

    a primordial black hole is a natural and unique candidate for all dark matter.

    Maybe he has studied Riofrios model :) BTW I can't find it. Have you a link? I have searched her blog for black holes.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.