|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
 Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 21:53 Post subject: Cant find a reliable science source on this. |
|
 |
In a discussion about the issue of the matter/energy of the visible universe being less than we expected, so the coining of dark matter/energy..We thought of something, maybe its not correct at all, or not able to be found any documentation on it.
We was speculating that since matter and energy are interchangeable, are they accounting for the mass of energy also out there?
For example a stars mass may be calculated and lumped into the total matter of the universe, but what about the amount of energy its outputting? Say we obverse a star, in its 360 degree output of energy, the arc of what actually hits the earth may be 0.0000001% of what its outputting. The rest shoots out in directions not aimed at us. A star is not a laser pointer directing all its output directly at us. Not even counting other particles, objects whatever it may hit on the way to us scattering small percentage of it in other directions we cannot 'see'.
I cant find a good example of what I mean...this is close as a I can find
So only the small arc of whats directed at us is what we can 'see' the rest is still outputting in every direction from the star. The other 99.9999999% of its output we cannot measure, as it never is coming at us. Like a laser pointer in a vacuum..from the side of the beam, you will measure no output or even have any indication its even outputting energy, since none of it is coming towards your detector..now make that a sphere of output, you could only measure the 'pinpoint' of what does make it to you.
Do they take this into account for the level of energy/matter?
Like if I took a light meter, and measured the energy coming out of a light bulb, technically im only measuring the energy hitting the sensor, I would need to take that, calculate it for a sphere to get its total output in 3d space. A 100w bulb does not output 100w of energy in every direction 100w is the total power but only measurable as the sum of all its output in all directions (simplifying for basic math, not taking into account resistance, bulb glass absorption and such)
For example to measure the suns total output. You can take a 1x1m 1 cm thick sheet of ice, see how long it takes to melt it in the sun..then calculate how much energy it would take to melt a hollow sphere of ice 1cm thick, the diameter of that sheets distance to the sun, to figure out its total output.
The massive amount of particles each star/cluster/energy source in the universe puts out would need to be done this way to get the true level of energy currently in the universe?, would it not? and since matter and energy are interchangeable for calculations, couldn't this account for some of the 'missing' amount?
Or am I waay off base and just assuming since I cant find anything about how they measure the universal energy, that they already do this.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zmed
Posts: 9234
Location: Orbanistan
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 22:55 Post subject: |
|
|
Wel, let me see if I got the just of your postl.
Objects rotate. Even if we can only see a tiny fraction at one time, their rotation gives us a complete picture over time. So if it gives off a constant stream of energy when it's pointing towards us, there is no point in assuming that it suddenly shoots up when it's not (well, apart from pulsars, but that's a whole other story).
Also, keep in mind that the amount of dark energy needed to account for the observation of the accelerating universe, that energy would need to be 70~% of the energy/matter ratio of the entire universe. Looking for tiny discrepancies in star energy outputs are FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from adequately accounting for this tremendous amount of force.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 23:02 Post subject: |
|
|
Not the difference in the output, I was talking about the total output not directed at us thats 'invisible' to us so to speak.
like the lightbulb above you, its outputting energy in every direction..if you was in a endless room, you would not be able to tell or detect any energy other than what hits you. the rest radiates off in every direction that never interacts, is readable, or measurable by you.
For example the sun emits 2 billion times the energy than hits the earth that we can physically measure. (calculating the m squared of the earth facing the sun, vs how many m squared there are around the sun at that distance.
Like here:
The Earth is about 93,000,000 miles from the Sun. The cross-section of the Earth is approximately circular, with a radius about 3950 miles, so the cross-sectional area of the Earth is about pi * 3950^2, or 49,016,699 square miles.
The area of a sphere with the radius of 1 Astronomical Unit is 93,000,000^2*4*pi or 108,686,539,000,000,000 square miles. (Approximately!) Let's assume that the Sun radiates equally in all directions.
So, 49,016,699 square miles of Earth / 108,686,539,000,000,000 square miles of the orbital shell = .000000045% of its total energy reaches us. So, at a close approximation, "Very little".
So to get the total energy the sun puts out in every direction, you have to do the math calculating what the other 99.99999955% would be to get the total.
So are they doing that for every star (or a ratio calculation of total what we can measure, vs total emitted)
Make more sense now what I was curious about? Do they take that 'misdirected unmeasurable' energy from every other energy source into account? And even if they do, couldn't it be WILDLY off, since to calculate it, you need to know the distance to the energy source to make that 'shell sphere' your gauging total off of. and many objects we don't know the distance to do that(or take educated guesses at best). unless we catch the 'mile marker' a1 supernova near it to figure distance.
Not saying they are doing it wrong, Why I was asking. I have no idea or find any sources of how they do it. My idea could be totally wrong.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zmed
Posts: 9234
Location: Orbanistan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 23:23 Post subject: |
|
|
Yea, I put most that in my edit above 
I was pretty sure someone would have taken it into account, we was just on a discussion of the dark matter/energy concept.
And how it seems a 'band-aid' of sorts for filling in the gaps. Sort of like space 'aether' back in the day as a fix for the misunderstanding that space needed a medium for waves to travel in. The idea that its used as a way to fix what we understand incorrectly, and not so much to define what we cant see yet.
Which I mean in some sort of way, its the actual definition of it anyway. I think its the idea they gave it a name, which makes it seem more like something new and tagible we haven't discovered yet. Not so much what it really is "it could be something we already know, but just doing wrong because of missing variables in already known space"
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zmed
Posts: 9234
Location: Orbanistan
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 23:30 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, they have to call it something.  Since it's just a placeholder name, it could be anything. both something new, or something old that we miscalculated. Both of these ideas have proponents, but nobody managed to come up with anything useful yet.
Well, there is a new announcement that should come out soon about dark matter, but I don't hold my breath. We know how the media likes to twist the scientists' words. 
However the difference between dark energy and the aether is that we can actually see the effects of it. We can see that the universe is accelerating in its expansion. We just don't know why.
It's like gravity. Newton saw that things fell and made very nice equations to measure it, but he still didn't know what was the cause of it. then Einstein came along and now we have a decent idea why things fall. Now just how, but why. I guess we are in the Newton-era of dark matter/energy. We can see it, we can calculate its effects, just don't know what's causing it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 10:38 Post subject: |
|
|
Take the picture above. Make it 3d and start continuously to rotate it around the earth. Suddenly you have a nice spherical shell which shines on the earth. Ofcause all this energy does not come from the start in the picture but that doesn't matter since we assume the universe to be isotropic. Why don't we see all this radiation? We do it is the background radiation and it's quite cold. Make an estimate of the size of the universe and fill it with background raditation( + massive stuff) and you'll find you miss a lot of energy.
If the universe on the other hand is warmer other places than in the earths vicinity due to stars shining "the wrong way" the isotropy assumption is ruined and dark energy is probably the least of your concerns.
I am not astrophysicist but this is how I imagine these sort of calculations.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 11:03 Post subject: |
|
|
Yes they measure it all. Science is called Radiometry.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 13:59 Post subject: |
|
|
Ah thanks Bear, gives me a direction to poke into
And yea zmed, the whole newton-era thing I think is right. Why I so wanted to be a astrophysicist growing up, and think I would have drove myself mad by now looking back on it.
The whole aspect of discovering something isn't right, but not able to figure out what it is after decades would keep me up at nights.
Exciting to find out something that no one ever knew before, and the frustration of having it pointing in your face that you cant figure it out.
Even now just as a hobby I will spend nights in that going to bed and thinking stage, trying to sort it out..and getting annoyed 
I do that now coding for work or for minecraft plugins. If I'm making some code, and it doesn't work how I want (or at all) I will stay up until dead tired the next day going "son of bitch, everything looks right but its not.. I KNOW there is a problem here to figure out.. I cant walk away until its found"
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 21:50 Post subject: |
|
|
This is too advanced for my brain.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 22:00 Post subject: |
|
|
| Atropa wrote: | Take the picture above. Make it 3d and start continuously to rotate it around the earth. Suddenly you have a nice spherical shell which shines on the earth. Ofcause all this energy does not come from the start in the picture but that doesn't matter since we assume the universe to be isotropic. Why don't we see all this radiation? We do it is the background radiation and it's quite cold. Make an estimate of the size of the universe and fill it with background raditation( + massive stuff) and you'll find you miss a lot of energy.
If the universe on the other hand is warmer other places than in the earths vicinity due to stars shining "the wrong way" the isotropy assumption is ruined and dark energy is probably the least of your concerns.
I am not astrophysicist but this is how I imagine these sort of calculations. |
There was an article recently released that could potentially imply that the assumption that the universe is homogenous and isotropic is an erroneous presupposition.
EDIT: A structure in the early Universe at z ∼ 1.3 that exceeds the homogeneity scale of the R-W concordance cosmology
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 22:02 Post subject: |
|
|
| Nhiumewyn wrote: | | Atropa wrote: | Take the picture above. Make it 3d and start continuously to rotate it around the earth. Suddenly you have a nice spherical shell which shines on the earth. Ofcause all this energy does not come from the start in the picture but that doesn't matter since we assume the universe to be isotropic. Why don't we see all this radiation? We do it is the background radiation and it's quite cold. Make an estimate of the size of the universe and fill it with background raditation( + massive stuff) and you'll find you miss a lot of energy.
If the universe on the other hand is warmer other places than in the earths vicinity due to stars shining "the wrong way" the isotropy assumption is ruined and dark energy is probably the least of your concerns.
I am not astrophysicist but this is how I imagine these sort of calculations. |
There was an article recently released that could potentially imply that the assumption that the universe is homogenous and isotropic is an erroneous presupposition. |
yeah and maybe possibly almost that is in fact a probability ...
...
see, i can do that, too.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zmed
Posts: 9234
Location: Orbanistan
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 22:58 Post subject: |
|
|
| TSR69 wrote: | If I may ask zmed, are you by any chance a physicist? Just curious though, you helped me in the past to see some of my own flaws. That thread got deleted though.  I think it was at the same time that narcissism was maxed out in me.
Edit: I am also curious about Atropa btw. |
Flattering, but no.
I just watch tonns of astronomy shows and read a few for-the-layman books about astronomy, mostly from Hawking, Neil Tyson, etc. I also listen to a few podcasts, like the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe (it's just general skepticism, but astronomy news sometimes come up), Astronomy Cast (highly recommended, even if the syrupy niceness of the hosts is sickening at times, but it's great at describing all the things there are to know about astronomy), etc.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 24th Feb 2013 11:50 Post subject: |
|
|
Due to a sleight hangover I am not going to read it now. From a quick look it seems to be somewhat specialized so might not even understand it. Both homogenity and isotropy is challenged rather often. Both fractal structures and even more complicated stuff is looked into in many articles. To change the overall cosmology one will have to find som pretty conclusive data since homogenity and isotropy has worked remarkably good. Looking around my desk I am definetly inclined to believe that the universe is not isotropic.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 24th Feb 2013 13:09 Post subject: |
|
|
Fractal universe, as I have read it, is disregarded as false.
http://www.space.com/17234-universe-fractal-large-scale-theory.html
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
