dark energy, dark matter and gravity.

just got an idea that perhaps dark energy, dark matter and gravity are related.. that dark energy which pushes the universe apart exerts the pressure that we call gravity. if that’s the case then dark energy may also account for the pressure which creates extra mass called dark matter. it may also be the case that gravity is not a weak force after all, that the rest of the force is connected to the space which expands it, while the dark matter is a separate unit. will think further in the morning..

note: gravity should be an effect that exchanges information faster than speed of light, instantly, or the celestial objects would fly apart — the time which is needed to cover the space between objects would not let them affect each other the way they do, the objects would be in different locations in space by the time gravitational information arrives to them, like in case of light for example. the thing called gravitational waves is misleading, the waves are due to shaking of space from collisions and explosions, as a result of gravify in most cases, but gravity itself must be instant across whole the universe, or, the gravity can just be a result of another force like dark energy, not a force by itself.

another note: years ago i proposed that gravity may be due to blocking out extremely long waves of cosmic scales, similar to casimir force at microscopic level. that effect also could account for dark energy because the blocked out waves must have opposite force exerted into the universe.

Advertisements

negative zero — more uses.

although there already exist several uses of negative zero (signed zero), i propose other uses for it.

zero means nothing, so negative zero could be used in reference to everything there has ever existed, exists and will exist, including everything there has ever been imagined, is currently imagined at this very moment, and will ever be imagined. negative zero could represent everything, but is not the same notion as infinity. perhaps a special symbol for it would do better, to avoid confusions, but in absence of it the negative zero can be used to describe the idea with the existing symbols, in certain context. it should represent everything as opposed to nothing, which is represented by zero, thus 0- (not -0) would do for this concept.

also, there should be a symbol to represent absolutely nothing, an “exclusive nothing” which is an impossibility. zero represents nothing which doesn’t exclude values or other notions outside zero. exclusive nothing is impossible because we exist, and something will always exist after we are gone and our universe is gone. nevertheless the notion of exclusive nothing will clarify the point of departure in certain conjectures, in explaining possibilities and impossibilities. exclusive nothing is in essence the notion of everything there is — the exclusive nothing itself, which is the only observer of itself, with nothing else outside of it. exclusive nothing is everything in itself, the true nothingness. this notion could also be represented with negative zero: -0 (not 0-), in absence of a special symbol, but it would clarify logical reasoning better if these two types of negative zero would have their own special symbols.

thus, here’s my proposal..

negative zero representing everything: minus sign attached to zero after the number zero or crossing the zero on that attachment point, whatever symbol is easier to build on an electronic device with available tools, or in absence of merging capacity: 0- = “above observable nothing”;

exclusive zero which means ‘absolutely nothing with no outside observer’: minus sign attached to zero before the number zero or crossing the zero on that attachment point, whatever symbol is easier to build on an electronic device with available tools, or in absence of merging capacity, -0 = “below observable nothing”;

..other special symbols representing the above described concepts could also be used/proposed if there already don’t exist symbols representing these ideas, perhaps proposed by others before.. i didn’t find other similar proposals by my quick look on internet, but to be honest i didn’t do proper research neither, no time.. i just wrote down the ideas, the concepts, to clarify my thinking.

universe will always be..

universe (in sense of everything) couldn’t have a beginning, because before the beginning had to be something that caused the beginning, and that something in turn had to have its own cause, and so on backwards to the infinity (even if the notion of time would lose its meaning in certain conditions in our known physics). it also means that universe will never end, because there cannot exist such state as nothing at all. if there was nothing then there would have forever been nothing, but as we are here to confirm the existence of the universe (as the current state of existence) then the universe/multiverse/whatever has always been and always will be, that’s the only possibility. there cannot exist such a state as nothing because nothing by itself cannot exist — there wouldn’t be an observer of the nothing because an observer who determines the nothing would be something. in other words, if state of nothing would be possible then the nothing would be everything there could be, which is not the case. therefore, only existence is possible.

causation and/or coincidences.

the more i listen to the lectures in different sciences the more i see/hear baseless assumptions. many of those assumptions were taken from thin air (“educated guesses” as proposals for further scientific investigation) and in the end the logical/mathematical deliberations had produced the right answers.. but in fact different sets of assumptions can in some cases lead to the same results. also in physics. we cannot always be sure that the results are based on underlying facts of nature (which are not measured directly) or are instead mathematical similarities with different phenomenae, coincidences (universe repeats itself due to the laws the universe is built upon, thus coincidences are rather a rule than rare exceptions), not proving the underlying assumptions. the more complex some theories are growing the more difficult is to get it all right, without including speculations.

nb! in so many science lectures the scientists are laughing themselves about several components included in their formulas, which have been taken out of nowhere, just to get the right results, expecting these new inclusions to be proven by observations later. i personally see nothing there to laugh when scientific terms are misused — even as i understand the sense of humor in their talks and i like science presentations with some good humor included, one should take science more seriously and not call such things ‘theories’ but what they really are: scientific speculations. which is not in a bad sense though, you must try something to get to the truth, but calling a calculation with many baseless assumptions (or ‘conjectures’, as scientists like to say, to confuse and convert others into believers in the proposed formulas/logic) a ‘theory’ is a way of making science cheap and may end up with some scientific notions losing their value and respect.

about coincidences in mathematics: for example right now there are two completely different ‘theories’ in physics on how the universe began, with absolutely different starting assumptions about the reality, but both are leading to — by precise calculations built on the assumptions — exactly the same proven and measured results. only more precise measurements in future can perhaps discard one of the theories as not valid.

same with the gravity: some scientists assume that gravity is negative energy (regardless the theoretically presumed field never being measured directly nor particle being found), some say gravity doesn’t exist (einstein) but is only the effect we see due to the warped space, and yet others say that gravity is a statistical phenomenon, something like entropy. all of them provide their mathematical calculations and arrive to the correct results. oh, i forgot to mention the theory of quantum gravity which also claims to be correct. thus we can’t be sure which assumption about gravity corresponds to reality.

therefore, as long as physicists keep arguing between themselves about underlying truths of nature below our observable reality, i have all the rights to propose my own theories about the reality of relations between physical phenomenae, based on my observations, while discarding some accepted ‘truths’ about physics which are not making sense — don’t correspond to the reality based on my obsevations in nature.

here are some notes to think about:

it seems that einstein had made an error in his thought experiment about gravity, claiming that acceleration/deceleration and gravity are the same effect, that gravity doesn’t exist but is the phenomenon arising from curvature of space. these effects look similar but are off by factor of too many. imagine how much a small acceleration/deceleration must (un)bend the space to account for the same effect that gravity produces. solving this error could free us from the speed of light being the absolute speed limit in the universe, fixing it only to certain special circumstances.. which in turn would solve the mystery of “spooky action at distance” — the effect of quantum entanglement, the mystery of inflation and several other ‘impossible’ facts about our universe, like information exchange in cosmic scale not letting it to collapse into lumps. perhaps gravity acts faster than speed of light and is the result of quantum entanglement between objects (the latter i made just up, a quick speculation so to say).

if matter warps space-time, and black holes have so much gravity that even light can’t escape, why is it that the gravitational lensing improves our vision of farther away celestial objects, not diminishing the light as it should fall into the black hole which warps the space.. where is the logic? is it taking light in and gathering even more light from around? due to the lensing there should be areas with less visibility instead of improved visibility of farther away objects.. or.. perhaps the black hole shouldn’t be visible at all (as a black area in space) because the warped space should close in without leaving any trace of the black hole, like a visibility cloak does (invisibility cloak). and what about time differences due to the gravitational lensing? (please note there’s a huge difference between the lensing principle of light passing through a magnifying glass which bends gathered light and the lensing by a black hole which absorbs light).

relative time clarified.

regardless of the form of energy pumped into a system, be it gravity or heat, more time is created, thus from local point of view (in the system) time speeds up (regardless of not being noticed from inside the system about the system, when there’s nothing outside to compare with). the outside system’s life lags behind, like you’re moving at high velocity, and for outside observer, in which system there’s less time available, the observed high gravity (or high temperature) system’s time goes faster. the high energy density system has spent more time when counted at the meeting point of the two observers where time equalizes.

just imagine that time is like a flow of points: 

more time in the system: ……………….. 

less time in the system: . . . . . . . . . .  

in this sense “more time” doesn’t mean time is streched but in contrary to that — time is compressed, more time is squeezed into the local space, into the area of the system with high energy density. thus for yet another (third) observer, with whatever time density, the person in the “more time in the system” (more energy: heat, gravity) has aged more rapidly in comparison between the first two, when meeting at the point where two time flows have equalized.

thus i was correct that physics textbooks have an error in it. traveler at close to speed of light, with acceleration and deceleration pumping up gravity, increases local time, with that for outside observer in outside timeframe the traveler has passed more time, aging faster.. and is not arriving in the future (this is a fundamental error in reasoning, in the physics textbooks). the traveler had simply aged more than it would had happened by moving slowly. this makes way more sense than the commonly accepted description by physicists trying to describe time travel. there’s no such thing as time travel — you will always arrive to the same time flow where you left off (in the new point in time where the local time has arrived to), but you have aged faster at high energy densities, which also means at high time densities.

again, as i have mentioned in my earlier writings, everyday examples only prove my reasoning: we refrigerate food in order to preserve it, slowing its local time. even people are being frozen these days (cryonics), to wake them up in the future, to cure them from deadly conditions not curable today. one cannot travel to the future or to the past [sending data as quantum states may be possible, but not objects with a mass], only to speed up or to slow down local time. time flows like a fluid, like heat. there’s no doubt in my mind anymore that time is not constant but a flexible unit, we are just so used to the physical facts around us that we don’t realize how time flows at different rates in objects around us, depending how much energy is in them. perhaps heat (the temperature above absolute zero) is the very thing that we call time.. but that may be a leap too far in my thinking. definitely temperature and time are correlated.

__

please note that these results are based on general thought experiments, not on precise calculations. there’s a physical limit to how much i can take on in my life.. at this point in time i have other priorities. to make precise calculations i will need to revisit the truths of mathematics and physics, not to make any mistakes. i leave making of precise calulations to professionals in physics and mathematics.

transfer of data by quantum entanglement: the solution.

i just finished my today’s urgent ‘missions’ and began thinking about the data transfer, before going to sleep, expecting that if i won’t get any good ideas then when i wake up in the morning i will think deeper to find a solution. but for my surprise, just a few minutes into the thinking process, i came up with the solution. (actually i was not sure it’s possible but i was prepared to dedicate some time for it, just because i like to work on hard problems which are considered impossible.. then nobody can blame me for being lazy if i won’t succeed in finding a solution). at least i think so that i found a solution, it’s much easier than i thought it would be.. but it depends if the technology allows to keep the measuring state of particles for some short period of time or the state of the particle decays instantly after measuring. (if i remember right it shouldn’t be a problem but i must do some research to confirm this possibility – there’s always a chance that i remember something wrong in some subjects, or someone had explained something wrong by mistake which i had happened to study). if it’s possible to keep the quantum state with the fact of observation/measuring then here’s how it works..  

you only need two pairs of separately entangled particles. the sending side will measure the quantum states of particles let say thousands of times in a second while the receiving side only measures once a second, with precise intervals. if both particles on sending side will be in the same quantum state, it will be sending a ‘zero’, when different states then ‘one’. the sender will measure particles as many times as needed until the required pair of states comes up by the random results during measuring, then stops and waits the receiving side to measure the quantum states of the entangled particles. after one second has passed the sending side starts to measure the states of particles again thousands of times a second, to arrive at required combination before the measuring time on the receiving side, and so on. 

thousands of times more is required at the sending side to ensure that by random outcome there won’t be hundreds of times in a row coming up a wrong combination of states. if i estimate correctly then a thousand times in a row to come up with a wrong (not desired) combination at random, just for two different states of equal probability, it’s something like once in a lifetime of the universe chance (with a huge reserve to account for any very improbable outcomes, for glitches in the system so to say).. a thousand measurements on the sending side to arrive at desired quantum states on a pair of particles is enough, for each measurement on the receiving side.

[writing it down took longer than coming up with a solution.. i consider it just having a right idea at the right moment, a lucky coincidence, as i’m not strong at complex math.. i prefer simple solutions and finding patterns, instead of solving formulas.] 

ps. if that is a true solution and it is possible to send data this way faster than speed of light, through entangled particles, then the cause and effect principle is broken and in principle we could get information from the future and send information to the past, which will create many issues, at least in our brain, initially. but if physics allows it then we must just wrap our brains around the reality and solve the seeming issues.

__

addition: when reading the above description of the solution just an hour later, to fix possible errors in grammar, i realized you don’t even need two pairs of entangled particles — the same can be done with the single pair. i began with a more complex way to solve the problem, instead of a simpler solution, and got fixated on it. in any case i don’t understand why physicists are still talking about the impossibility of sending information by entangled particles, due to the random nature of their states at any given moment of measurement.. you measure as many times as needed till you arrive at desired result, in your allowed time frame, and wait for the receiver to measure the opposite state of the entangled particle. no problem whatsoever, only the clocks of both parties must be precisely calibrated, for the correct measuring intervals, but even (re)calibration of clocks can be done by separate entangled particles. therefore, because of the necessity to precisely re-calibrate the clocks at great distances (due to the difference in gravity, dark energy influence which may be at different levels etc.), to avoid errors in data transfer, at least two pairs of entangled particles is a better way to go.

quantum entanglement for data transfer.

there’s a theoretical possibility (should be, in my opinion) of transfering data by quantum entanglement as emergent properties of math, using several separately entangled particles, regardless of impossibility to transfer data directly (due to random outcome of measurements of quantum states) … you only need to work out the formulas how to do that … as easy as that. maybe tomorrow i’ll work on this problem, today i’ve got other urgent things to do.. 🙂 😉