A Great Leap In Our Understanding Of The Universe

Right Click To Download as PDF

A Great Leap In Our Understanding Of The Universe

October 1992, September 1996, February 2011

From Report of the Dark Energy Task Force:

Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible.

Ever since the Hubble observations of 1988, and the subsequent naming of ‘Dark Energy’, focus has remained on the cosmos. The Hubble description of Dark energy, states:

Since space is everywhere, this dark energy force is everywhere, and its effects increase as space expands. In contrast, gravity’s force is stronger when things are close together and weaker when they are far apart. Because gravity is weakening with the expansion of space, dark energy now makes up over 2/3 of all the energy in the universe.

It sounds rather strange that we have no firm idea about what makes up 74% of the universe. It’s as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean. But now that we’ve caught sight of the waves, we want to know what this huge, strange, powerful entity really is.

The strangeness of dark energy is thrilling.

It shows scientists that there is a gap in our knowledge that needs to be filled, beckoning the way toward an unexplored realm of physics. We have before us the evidence that the cosmos may be configured vastly differently than we imagine. Dark energy both signals that we still have a great deal to learn, and shows us that we stand poised for another great leap in our understanding of the universe.

Main points of current understanding:

  1. A ‘dark energy force’ is everywhere
  2. Dark energy now makes up over 2/3 of all the energy in the universe
  3. We have no firm idea about what makes up 74% of the universe
  4. There is a gap in our knowledge that needs to be filled
  5. The cosmos may be configured vastly differently than we imagine
  6. We stand poised for another great leap in our understanding of the universe

Challenging the logic:

  1. If a ‘dark energy force’ is everywhere, why is contemplation restricted to ‘out there’?
      Of course the effects of such a mysterious energy field have been observed at great distances, but does that mean research into its existence must take place at great distances? No, it does not. The basic concept of ‘everywhere’ requires the contemplation that ‘everywhere’ is also ‘right here’.
  2. If Dark energy now makes up over 2/3 of all the energy in the universe, how is it related to electromagnetism?
      Imagine the Universe as a Lemon Pie. The whole is the pie, which is greater than the sum of its parts. The ingredients are forces. But when you cut a 4% slice from a lemon pie you do not remove the ingredient that is just 4% of the all of the ingredients. You remove 4% of the whole pie. Isn’t it just as intuitive to assume that the Universe is made up of 100% Dark Energy and the energy we live in (electromagnetic) is an ingredient, that when mixed, somehow, with Dark Energy results in the pie being a pie, a whole greater than its parts? And that Dark ‘matter’ is not ‘matter’ at all, but rather another resulting ingredient of the mixture of Dark Energy and the 4%? Sure it is, but it won’t be intuitive.
  3. If we have no idea AT ALL about what makes up 74% of the universe, could it be the number is just plain wrong?
      Could our perspective of observation be clouding the reality we see? If Dark Energy is ‘everywhere’, then it is also within the smallest as well as the largest and the farthest away. The current perspective would make a cook shake in amazement. A pie may be made up of 74% of one ingredient, 4% of another and 22% of yet some other unknown missing mass ingredient, but the pie itself, is 100% the result of all three and when cutting a piece from it, it is impossible to remove only the 4% ingredient. It would no longer be a pie. We may be determined to retain the long held belief that what we know is all there is to know, but sooner or later realizing that we do not know it all, will take opening the mind to evaluation of memory based assumptions.
  4. If there is a gap in our knowledge that needs to be filled, how do we expect to fill it?
      If the answer to that question is through known means then we’ve missed the entire point of a “revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics”. It is normal for people to base observations upon what they have already observed, but when faced with an awakening of such magnitude as the little tiny piece of the Universe we live in, is NOT all there is; doesn’t it seem just a tad indicative of the answer not coming from the normal sources, and the normal methods? The more you know something, the more you know that you know something, the more something else is not only unknown, but if contradictory to what you do know that you know, it is flat out wrong. But that is wrong.
  5. If the cosmos may be configured vastly differently than we imagine, why do we fail to expand the contemplation?
      Simple. We are not expanding our minds. If you remember back to your elementary education (not elementary school, not that far back) and the ‘red room’ story? A child grew up inside of a ‘red room’ where everything was red and when the door finally opened and the young person was faced with everything else, the person recoiled and returned to the red room, as even though, in reality not everything is red, the long standing and heavily supported memory of the person was normal. Its own reality. In order to comprehend how the entire Universe is explainable, one has to leave the red room and stay out. It means accepting that not everything we know is all there is to know and what we do know might very well be just like the awakening of a different force, might not be right at all.
  6. If we stand poised for another great leap in our understanding of the universe, where is that expected to come from?
      If you ask the normal everyday person where they would expect such a breakthrough to occur, the first thing to come to their minds will be the University they have heard the most about. That ignores what it is that is the vehicle of great leaps. It is not the place where research rehashes known things seeking to find an explanation of something foreign to fit its mold. It is from the outside looking in.
  7. See What Is Dark Energy for a more detailed challenge and deduction.

Changing The Logic:

The Universe is NOT split into different energies. It is one primary energy, we have just (loosely speaking) identified, with one secondary energy that encapsulates it only in 4% of its existence.

All of our collective knowledge has included only that 4%. Now that we are forced to deal with the rest of the Universe, being all outside of our box of knowledge, and somehow make sense of it, we simply must stop thinking within our box.

The best way to prove that – is to look deeper inside what we know and demonstrate ‘dark energy is everywhere’: is literal.

The Proof:

If the reader is a computer programmer you should be familiar with the term information hiding. “The term encapsulation is often used interchangeably with information hiding.” To encapsulate means: “…the inclusion of one thing within another thing so that the included thing is not apparent. Decapsulation is the removal or the making apparent a thing previously encapsulated.” Releasing Dark Energy from its encapsulation is the proof.

Popping the Pimple:

Sounds disgusting, but it is basically the process. Squeeze the encapsulation, to emit what has been encapsulated.

Through the use of a simple NPN transistor and basic battery (small enough in voltage not to burst the transistor) the ‘pimple’ of electricity, is squeezed to near neutral state. The result is the release, or decapsulation of what is inside of it, the Dark Energy field.

In the demonstration video, just such a device is connected to a Volt-Ohm meter. The device uses a CdS cell* (cadmium sulfide): “A photoresistor, light dependent resistor (LDR) or cadmium sulfide (CdS) cell is a resistor whose resistance decreases with increasing incident light intensity. It can also be referred to as a photoconductor.” The CdS cell acts as a resistor on the negative side of the battery to regulate the voltage present upon measurement. The more light applied to it, the higher the voltage measured, as the resistance is less.

Typical readings of the testing device when performed in a polarity method; show the battery terminals measure the voltage of the battery (and the corresponding negative voltage), the typical electrical connection of ground to ground and positive to the output terminal results in -0- voltage (and 0 negative voltage), while positive to positive and the negative connected to the output, result in the released or decapsulated field signal (and its corresponding negative voltage.) The paper available at NTC from Texas A&M, Dr. Ronald Spencer evaluates the testing device in various connection schemes and using both NPN and PNP transistors and concludes, “[it] …demonstrates that a single NPN bipolar transistor (and collections thereof) in series with a photodiode and 9V battery produces an output voltage that correlates with the intensity of light impinging on the photodiode without drawing current from the battery. The NDS was a major finding due to several reasons, one being the efficiency with which a light intensity can be transformed to an electrical signal responding also at the speed of light**. In light of these findings, it is expected that this circuit will play a key role in the design of massively parallel, synchronous intelligent machines.”

The field signal detected in the demonstration device is not electricity. It is not electromagnetic. The connection process, detailed in Spencer’s paper, and readily duplicated by anyone with a few dollars, a handy Radio Shack and some solder, proves the existence of a field inside the electromagnetic spectrum. A wholly different spectrum.

It is A Great Leap In Our Understanding Of The Universe. It opens the ability for cosmology to measure the field it cannot see. It opens the ability to understand what the Universe is actually made of.

Readers are welcome to view the contents presented. Access to the business plan and the ReCall Find Engine (developed using the algorithm) are provided only by request or invitation. This paper is also published at http://neutronicstechnologies.com

Understanding Dark Energy

We start with Dark Matter:

In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is matter of unknown composition that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. Observational evidence of the early universe and the big bang theory require that this matter have energy and mass, but is not composed of either elementary fermions (as above) OR gauge bosons. The commonly accepted view is that most of the dark-matter is non-baryonic in nature. As such, it is composed of particles as yet unobserved in the laboratory. Perhaps they are supersymmetric particles, which are not Standard Model particles, but relics formed at very high energies in the early phase of the universe and still floating about.

That definition is from the perspective of the electromagnetic spectrum. The term ‘Dark Matter’ is actually not at all applicable.

In 1933, at the California Institute of Technology, the Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky was the first to theorize dark matter after he observed that there was 400 times the mass in the Coma cluster of galaxies than there ‘should’ have been or that he had expected there to be. According to Zwicky, there must have been something that couldn’t be seen that accounted for the rest of this mass. Furthermore, he came to the conclusion by looking at groups of galaxies tens of millions of light-years away from one another. Zwicky observed that their relative speeds were much too great for them to be held together by the gravitational attraction of the visible matter alone, and that therefore, there must have been something else holding them together. He called this something else ‘invisible matter’ or ‘dark matter’.

In actuality, the error made by Zwicky was to assume that matter holds matter together. Gravity is not matter, no matter how one defines gravity. Matter has gravity.

In 1950, a woman named Vera Rubin made another startling discovery. Newton’s laws predicted that bodies orbiting around a center move more slowly the farther they are from that center. (This has to do with the strength of gravitational attraction being stronger when it is farther away. An example of this is the longer orbits of Pluto compared with Mars: one is much closer to the sun than the other.) Instead, Rubin’s conclusions contradicted Newtonian laws. She built on the theories of Zwicky to discover that galaxies showed an ‘extra motion’: by examining galactic light signatures, she found that bodies orbiting around the outskirts of galaxies traveled at approximately the same speed as the bodies orbiting near the center of a galaxy, therefore some other matter had to exist in the outskirts, some matter that we couldn’t see, that was acting upon the visible bodies. Can you guess the punch line? It was dark matter.

The error is compounded. Matter is not gravity. By saying that matter IS gravity, both researchers missed the point that gravity is a result.

Matter is energy. Gravity is a result of energy. ‘Dark Energy’ completes the equation of the elements that make up the gravitational effect.

Over the last half of the 20th Century many other important contributions to theories of dark matter have been made by the like of Mordehai Milgrom and Yakov Zel’dovich. However, the most important thing to remember in learning about the history of dark matter theories is that there is always room for improvement, always a new way to think about things, always a new way to open our minds to crucial questions about the universe. It is explicable, as is dark matter. Anyone could pioneer the next dark matter breakthrough, even you.

Even the presentation you are reading.

Remember that just because something cannot be seen doesn’t mean it’s not there. Dark matter is all around us in the universe, and there may even be dark matter passing through your body this second! We know that dark matter exists because we can observe its effects on other things in the universe; for example, by studying how fast galaxies orbit around each other, we can estimate how much extra dark matter there must be in the system in addition to all of the visible matter we can see.

Then What is Dark Energy?

Scientists now have evidence that dark energy has been around for most of the universe’s history. Using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope, researchers measured the expansion of the universe 9 billion years ago based on 23 of the most distant supernovae ever detected. As theoretically expected, they found that the mysterious antigravity force, apparently pushing galaxies outward at an accelerating pace, was acting on the ancient universe much like the present. All supernovas of a certain variety, called Type-1a, burn with the same brightness, so scientists can calculate relative distances in the universe based on how dim or bright these exploding stars get. In the late 1990’s it was realized that these standard candles were dimmer than expected and that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. Scientists blamed the acceleration on an inexplicable repulsive force, dark energy.

“Although dark energy accounts for more than 70 percent of the energy of the universe, we know very little about it, so each clue is precious,” said Adam Riess, a professor at Johns Hopkins University who was involved in the initial discoveries back in the ’90s. “Our latest clue is that the stuff we call dark energy was present as long as 9 billion years ago, when it was starting to make its presence felt.” The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The researchers believe that although this new observation is a significant clue in the quest to understand what is probably, in Riess’s words “one of the most, if not the most, pressing question in physics,” it’s far from the proof to what dark energy actually is.

This latest finding is consistent with Einstein’s explanation for what dark energy is, the researchers noted. Einstein’s “cosmological constant” idea, which he called his biggest blunder and later rejected, turned out to be the same thing that scientist now see as the repulsive form of gravity called dark energy. These findings were published in the Feb. 10 2006 issue of Astrophysical Journal.

What Dark energy actually is, (Neutricity Field) is what the Universe is made of. A fluid field. See the Powerpoint Presentation in this site for graphics depicting the two forms of deduction possible from the calculations of energy in the Universe. Dark Matter is not ‘particle’ matter, it is the result of the interaction between the electomagnetic spectrum and the Dark Energy field., It, like gravity is a result.

How Does Neutricity Match the Definition of Energy?

The definition of ‘energy‘ is actually rather hilarious. If it was not:

Energy is defined as the ability to do work. There are two basic types of energy, kinetic energy and potential energy. Kinetic energy is energy in motion. Potential energy is stored energy.

… then many things would make much more sense. If we applied that definition to anything else, we could have a ‘car’ defined as the abilility to travel. There are two basic types of travel, kinetic travel and potential travel. Kinetic travel is when the car is moving. Potential travel is when the car is parked. The accepted definition of energy is based on what it DOES and is then split into the types of what is DONE and NOT done. That is the kind of barbaric ignorant assumption that kept people convinced the Moon and Sun were gods.

Neutricity defines ‘energy’ by what it is, not by what it does. Energy is a vibrant field. Period. Vibrant, in that is has the ability to shake, to move to and fro, which would fall under the sub heading of potential, until it does move to and fro; and under the sub heading of kinetic (characterized by movement) when it is moving to and fro. Electromagnetic ‘energy’ has the ability to do work. It’s opposite, Neutricity, also has the ability to do work, but it is not the same vibrant field.

Does Neutricity Violate The First law of thermodynamics?

The first law of thermodynamics is an expression of the principle of conservation of energy.

The law expresses that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created nor destroyed. It is usually formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work performed by the system on its surroundings.

In one respect, no, it does not. In another respect, the law does not apply:

This is not creating an energy, the energy already exists, this is simply acquiring it for use.

Heat is not applicable as this is cold energy.

Does Neutricity Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature. The second law declares the impossibility of machines that generate usable energy from the abundant internal energy of nature by processes called perpetual motion of the second kind.

The second law may be expressed in many specific ways, but the first formulation is credited to the German scientist Rudolf Clausius. The law is usually stated in physical terms of impossible processes. In classical thermodynamics, the second law is a basic postulate applicable to any system involving measurable heat transfer, while in statistical thermodynamics, the second law is a consequence of unitarity in quantum theory. In classical thermodynamics, the second law defines the concept of thermodynamic entropy, while in statistical mechanics entropy is defined from information theory, known as the Shannon entropy.

Where Neutricity does not violate this law in regards to the impossibility of machines that are called perpetual motion, the second prong involving heat transfer does not apply. Neutricity is cold energy.

* – You may replace the CdS cell with a diode to maintain a constant voltage. The CdS cell is only used for the demonstration of variable voltage.

** – plus