I’ve been AWOL this week from the ole blog as I’ve been busy wrangling fourth graders. When I wasn’t doing that, I was home nursing what appears to be the beginning of another allergy attack/bout of sinusitis. As part of the self improvement program I’ve initiated, I resolved to not kill myself for my hobbies. So I haven’t done much writing to speak of this week. Then I remembered I had some entries done ahead of time for just such an occasion. Better late than never right? We should be back to our regularly scheduled programming next week, hopefully!
Looking up into the night sky is quite relaxing. Seeing the pinpoints of distant stars against the navy blue backdrop of the night sky is a source of solace for some and inspiration for others. Ever since humans began to walk upright, and maybe even before that, we have looked to the skies and wondered what lay in the boundless heavens.
Only in the last hundred years or so has our technology become powerful enough to let us peer into Nature’s innermost secrets. And the more we learn, the stranger things get. For example, here are a whole subset of bizarre, unexplained sounds out there. So far I’ve covered one of the most famous on the blog, the Bloop. But while the Bloop was massive, it is nothing more than a drop in the bucket compared to the Space Roar.
Back in 2009, a NASA team trying to find traces of heat from primordial stars on the far edges of the universe launched an Absolute Radiometer for Cosmology, Astrophysics, and Diffuse Emissions (ARCADE). They were looking for radio transmissions from the oldest stars in the universe. As for why they were looking for radio waves, that is because they are electromagnetic waves. Essentially, radio waves are light. As light travels, its wave length stretches out and its frequency becomes slower. So, what started as, say, infrared energy (heat) 13.7 billion years ago might have stretched out to become a 10cm radio wave by the time it reached Earth.
Now, as you might imagine the researchers were not expecting anything more than faint signals from so far away. Imagine there surprise when they turned in the radiometer and heard a hiss six times louder than anything they expected. No one knows the source–no known cosmic radio sources can come close to accounting for the Space Roar. The only thing that comes close are so-called radio galaxies, and even they are not nearly powerful enough. The roar drowns out any signals from the primordial stars the team was originally trying to study. As science collectively scratches its head and plunges into the data to try and figure out what this thing is, we can only speculate about what mysterious forces are sending their roar through the void of space.
“No one knows the source …” I have TESTABLE hypotheses concerning the source of the space roar. Perhaps the hypotheses are wrong.
The following is an excerpt from
http://vixra.org/pdf/1202.0092v1.pdf
Consider hypotheses (8) through (12):
…
(8) The percentage of dark energy remains constant over cosmological time, but the percentage of dark matter increases over cosmological time as the percentage of ordinary matter decreases.
(9) During each Planck time interval, each universe converts one Fredkin-Wolfram energy unit of real mass-energy into one Fredkin-Wolfram energy unit of virtual mass-energy.
(10) The multiverse recycles according to a fixed recycling time of approximately 81.6 billion years.
(11) When an expanding universe becomes cold enough, then it undergoes an instantaneous (i.e., one Planck time interval) collapse into a big bang.
(12) Virtual mass-energy remains spread over alternate universes, but the Wolframian automaton localizes real mass-energy in the particular universe that contains the explicit or implicit observation of the real mass-energy. Real mass-energy obeys the equivalence principle. Dark matter is virtual mass-energy that has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Dark energy is virtual mass-energy that has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy.
How might the preceding speculative hypotheses be confirmed or refuted? The hypotheses suggest the following:
(A) The % of dark matter + the % of standard matter remains constant over spans of cosmological time. Let (20 + A) % denote this constant %.
(B) The % of dark energy remains constant over spans of cosmological time. Let (70 + B) % denote this constant %.
(C) The % of standard matter decreases over spans of cosmological time according to the formula: % of standard matter at time T = (20 + A) * (1 – (T/ (81.6 billion years))) %, where T is the age of the universe and T is less than 80 billion years.
(D) The % of dark matter increases over spans of cosmological time according to the formula: % of dark matter at time T = (20 + A) * (T/(81.6 billion years)) %, where T is the age of the universe and T is less than 80 billion years.
Precise astronomical data allows the approximate calculation of the constants A, B.
.0456 ± .0015 is the % of baryon density.
.228 ± .013 is the % of dark matter. By addition, we see that
.2736 ± .0145 is the supposedly constant % hypothesized. (That is, A = 7.36, where A + B = 10.)
Observe that 6 times (.0456 ± .0015) equals .2736 ± .009 — thus indicating to 2 decimal places of accuracy that the preceding hypotheses (1) through (12) together explain space roar. The % of dark matter was much lower in the very early universe so naturally there was a greatly increased % of electromagnetic noise — in fact about 6 times as much noise. However, much more might be true. Consider the following:
SPACE ROAR PROFILE PREDICTION: For cosmological radio emissions in the centimeter range, if T represents the age in billions of years of the universe at the time of the radio emission and if T < 6.5 billion years, then space roar increases as T decreases according to the formula:
Space_roar(T) = (% of standard matter at time T)/(% of standard matter now) = (27.36 * (1 – (T/(81.6 billion years))))/(4.56).
What if the preceding prediction is wrong? Because of mathematical facts, are there only 2 plausible possibilities for a multiverse model: (1) M-theory with the infinite nature hypothesis or (2) M-theory with the finite nature hypothesis? What should M-theory explain? …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_CDM_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_roar
Interesting. I guess time will tell if the data bear this out, huh? It’s possible that one or more parts are wrong. I don’t know enough about physics or cosmology to comment about that. But it will be interesting to see what the future holds with instrumentation getting better and all the discoveries we are making these days. Thanks! Definitely food for thought.