The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Dark energy theory  (Read 14304 times)

Offline Magnus W

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« on: 11/02/2011 15:17:11 »
Dark energy theory

Hello guys,

I don’t know if anyone have thought of this before or if it's a ridiculous idea, but here is an outside the box theory  :)

We think of dark energy as a force that accelerates the expansion of the universe. As a property of space that constantly pushes the universe outward in to the nothingness beyond it.

Is it possible that it is actually “free faling” in to this nothingness. So rather than being pushed from the inside and out, the universe Is being pulled outward in to the nothingness outside our universe

I think this would be consistent of what we “know” about dark energy that it has been acting like a cosmological constant for a very long time and have not been diluted as the universe has expanded because the dark energy is is not actually inside our universe.

If the universe is constantly being pulled out in to the nothingness, “free falling in to it” In the beginning it would have been held back by the matter density (gravity) and as the matter density decreases it would accelerate faster like we also observe.

So dark energy is not a force pushing the universe outward from the inside.
It is something pulling it outward from the outside.

 The universe is expanding and it must be expanding into something, what if this something is actually pulling it outward and we interpret this as dark energy.

I´d love to hear what you think


 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #1 on: 11/02/2011 17:23:32 »
I think the Universe was made of a compressed electric field and that expanding field is the culprit. If gravity is related an to electric field, and I believe it to be, then it would also compress that field which could explain the rotation curve of galaxies.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #2 on: 12/02/2011 20:40:05 »
That one was fun, I will need some time to get my head around it though.
"So rather than being pushed from the inside and out, the universe Is being pulled outward in to the nothingness outside our universe."

How do you mean there?
 

Offline Magnus W

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #3 on: 14/02/2011 14:56:59 »
well... maybe its crazy to even talk about "something outside the universe" but I figured if the universe is expanding it must be expanding into something, and maybe this void of nothingness outside our universe is actually pulling us outward giving us the impression of being pushed outward. I would like to hear why this could not be the case.

I realize that it would be impossible to prove that there is some force outside the universe other than to prove that it is not inside.

Anyway science have had big problems finding out what dark energy is, the vacuum energy turned out to be wrong and the LHC does not seem to find particles the can explain this force either, and yet our universe is supposed to be mostly dark energy, it should be everywhere. maybe the reason we don’t find it is because the dark energy is really not in our universe at all.

Also I think I heard a theory about bubble universes with our universe being just one of many universes. If that is the case maybe the void in between these universes acts like a vacuum sucking our universe in to it.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #4 on: 14/02/2011 16:19:45 »
Anyway science have had big problems finding out what dark energy is, the vacuum energy turned out to be wrong and the LHC does not seem to find particles the can explain this force either, and yet our universe is supposed to be mostly dark energy, it should be everywhere. maybe the reason we don’t find it is because the dark energy is really not in our universe at all.

Got a link/citation for the "vacuum energy being wrong"? - I thought that the cosmological constant argument for the continued expansion was still good, ie not agreed but also not disproven.  Not sure that the LHC was looking for any particular particles to prove dark energy - the higg's boson is the great challenge.  The energies at the LHC haven't hit the sweet spot where we can hope to find evidence of the higg's boson. 

In a very non-exact manner - Dark energy is everywhere, but it is only in the vacuum that we can hope to see it, everywhere else is too full of real matter and real energy.  Your argument of an outside element fails for me personally on two points. There is no outside - there are areas that are outside of our lightcone, and times before which we cannot probe; but there is no outside. And it is a counsel of despair - it cannot be investigated, or be experimented upon, or provide predictions; all it does is throw up one's hands and say "we can never know!"
 

Offline yamo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #5 on: 14/02/2011 17:40:07 »
What if the observable mass in the universe is being pulled to a massive shell outside of our light cone?  We live in an egg and we are the yolk.  Can this hypothesis be disproved?
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #6 on: 15/02/2011 11:00:30 »
What if the observable mass in the universe is being pulled to a massive shell outside of our light cone?  We live in an egg and we are the yolk.  Can this hypothesis be disproved?

well the most obvious answer is that the net force of gravitational attraction within a uniform shell is zero.  For a force to exist the shell must be non-uniform, yet the expansion we can measure is all pretty homogenous and isotropic
 

Offline Magnus W

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #7 on: 15/02/2011 14:35:45 »
What if the observable mass in the universe is being pulled to a massive shell outside of our light cone?  We live in an egg and we are the yolk.  Can this hypothesis be disproved?

Yeah something like that :-)


The vacuum energy was found by someone to be 120 times to large to explain dark energy, I think I actually heard that on the naked astronomy podcast but I have no links to the source.

The fact of the matter is that we really don’t know what is beyond our observable universe, and you are right imfataal we can never find out, And I also realize that a theory like this that can not be proven or disproven has little value but I think its an interesting idea to keep in mind, that our efforts to look for dark energy may be futile since it might not be within our observeble universe.

We think that the universe is finite, so something must lay beyond, And we don´t know what that is, but just maybe its pulling us in to it and we interpret this as dark energy.   

 

Offline Magnus W

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #8 on: 15/02/2011 14:45:45 »
What if the observable mass in the universe is being pulled to a massive shell outside of our light cone?  We live in an egg and we are the yolk.  Can this hypothesis be disproved?

well the most obvious answer is that the net force of gravitational attraction within a uniform shell is zero.  For a force to exist the shell must be non-uniform, yet the expansion we can measure is all pretty homogenous and isotropic

would that not be in support of my theory that the force is coming from  "the outside" I hope so :-)
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #9 on: 15/02/2011 17:18:49 »
No - I don't think so.  If the universe is encased in a shell (which I think is NOT true) then there are two options:
1.  The shell is uniform; in which case no force will be felt within the sphere
2.  The shell is not uniform; in which case force will be non-uniform and motion will vary (which is not the case.

If you can think of a third option let me know and we can discuss it.

On the dark energy being disproved - yep I recognize that figure of 120 times too big, but that's not really what I was getting at.  I think that more demonstrates that our ideas are badly formulated rather than wrong
 

Offline Magnus W

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #10 on: 15/02/2011 18:23:29 »
I agree i don´t think there is a shell around the universe. But I belief there is a point where our universe ends, where there is no more matter and perhaps no more spacetime. A finite amount of matter was created in the big bang and the matter has only spread so far, 20 billion lightyears or something. Beyond that there is something else, And maybe our universe (all the matter etc) is being sucked in to this something, like a low pressure sucking in air.

I also like the theory of vacuum energy, Maybe we just dont understand yet how it works on extremely large scales
 

Offline bardman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #11 on: 15/02/2011 18:25:14 »
1.  The shell is uniform; in which case no force will be felt within the sphere

This would be true if the shell were infinitely large beyond our visible universe. If we were encased in a finitely thick, uniform shell, we would only experience no force at the center and all points equidistant from the center would feel an equal pull in their respective directions.

Any point away from the center would feel a more strong attraction toward the side they were closer to. For the pull to be significant, you would need to be sufficiently far from the center and the shell would need to be sufficiently thick though.
 

Offline Magnus W

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #12 on: 15/02/2011 18:48:20 »
another way of thinking of it is: if there is absolutely nothing outside our universe the entropy there would be zero, right? inside our universe it is very high, And as we know from I think its the third law of thermodynamics every system wants to increase its entropy. So our universe is sucked out (expanded) to equalize this differens in entropy by "filling the void" Did that make sense?  :-)
 

Offline bardman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #13 on: 15/02/2011 19:10:34 »
I do not think that saying if there is absolutely nothing outside our universe implies that there is zero entropy. Nothing is hard to imagine, no matter or energy (which is where entropy comes from), it just is not there. There would be no vacuum seething with particle-antiparticle creations, no virtual particles, just nothing. It is actually very impossible to picture there just not being anything out there, it completely goes against any observations you can make.
I do however enjoy the fact that you brought entropy into this. At some point, a non-growing universe would start to become saturated with entropy, though I am not sure if it would be able to reach a maximum or not in a finite space. It would seem the best option to continue increasing entropy relatively easily would be for the universe to grow.
 

Offline Magnus W

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #14 on: 15/02/2011 19:22:27 »
I agree bardman, nothingness is impossible to imagine, I don't even know what to call it.

"It would seem the best option to continue increasing entropy relatively easily would be for the universe to grow." -Yes, and maybe this is the force we already experience as dark energy although our universe is far from maximum entropy within.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #15 on: 15/02/2011 19:26:56 »
1.  The shell is uniform; in which case no force will be felt within the sphere

This would be true if the shell were infinitely large beyond our visible universe. If we were encased in a finitely thick, uniform shell, we would only experience no force at the center and all points equidistant from the center would feel an equal pull in their respective directions.

Any point away from the center would feel a more strong attraction toward the side they were closer to. For the pull to be significant, you would need to be sufficiently far from the center and the shell would need to be sufficiently thick though.

Sorry Bardman - but that's simply not true.  Look up the Shell Theorem - it's got proofs by both Newton and Gauss (both are quite involved).  Any point within a uniform spherical shell experiences zero gravitational net force.  And if its not uniform we could tell via observation - the universe on a large enough scale is homogeneous and isotropic
 

Offline bardman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #16 on: 15/02/2011 19:58:47 »
I apologize, what you are saying is true. I had forgot to consider that the amount of mass creating gravitation is greater on the side opposite the side you are closer to.
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #17 on: 15/02/2011 20:56:14 »
Exactly, a sphere shell has an area of 4πR^2, gravity and electrical force are proportional to 1/R^2. The net force is always zero inside the shell.

What happen if it is a ring and not a shell...? This is my theory...
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #18 on: 15/02/2011 22:06:48 »
If you're talking about Newtons shells its 'gravity' equals out in all directions except towards its center which, if so, should present us with a gravitational direction in a 'free fall geodesic' it seems? What Newtons shells assume is that you always will find a center, to the middle of a sphere, wherefrom you can define the gravity to 'emanate' from, as I understands it?

So that should be testable if so.
==

Hmm, At least I think that is what it assumes :)
Been some time since I thought of that one..

Yep, I think I got it right "Combining the two results, we see that, at a point inside a symmetric distribution of mass, only the mass closer to the centre contributes to the gravitational field."
From Newtons shells.

« Last Edit: 15/02/2011 22:20:45 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #19 on: 16/02/2011 07:42:02 »


Anyway science have had big problems finding out what dark energy is, the vacuum energy turned out to be wrong and the LHC does not seem to find particles the can explain this force either, and yet our universe is supposed to be mostly dark energy, it should be everywhere. maybe the reason we don’t find it is because the dark energy is really not in our universe at all.

Also I think I heard a theory about bubble universes with our universe being just one of many universes. If that is the case maybe the void in between these universes acts like a vacuum sucking our universe in to it.

Well, I think i saw somewhere that LHC will need to collect data about five years, maybe it was more? Before being able to prove the Higgs boson theory, one way or another, in a statistically significant manner? They can't see it directly, only indirectly, by its interactions and it will be very elusive to them. If I remember right that is.

I don't think they are looking for dark energy though?
Maybe they do?

As for bubble universes :)
Maybe, but how would a vacuum suck another vacuum?
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #20 on: 16/02/2011 08:57:01 »
Our "universe" is inside a black hole. A black hole is a particle with a size increasing with its mass. It has a ring or a toroidal shape. I thought you had read my Theory Yor_on...? I can explain why inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent according to Einstein. This will be my next post.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34413.0
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #21 on: 16/02/2011 12:31:35 »
If you're talking about Newtons shells its 'gravity' equals out in all directions except towards its center which, if so, should present us with a gravitational direction in a 'free fall geodesic' it seems? What Newtons shells assume is that you always will find a center, to the middle of a sphere, wherefrom you can define the gravity to 'emanate' from, as I understands it?

So that should be testable if so.
==

Hmm, At least I think that is what it assumes :)
Been some time since I thought of that one..

Yep, I think I got it right "Combining the two results, we see that, at a point inside a symmetric distribution of mass, only the mass closer to the centre contributes to the gravitational field."
From Newtons shells.


I think you have it - Newtons Shell Theorem tells us many things, as we referred to above the net gravitational attraction from within the shell is zero at all points (including the centre and near to it) that from the gravitational attraction can be calculated as all being concentrated at the centre of mass.   

These and the fact that on large scales the matter of the universe is uniformly distributed (homogeneity) and the universe is the same in every direction (isotropic) allow most of the work in cosmology; ie a group of stars can be viewed as a uniform ball, with a single gravitational attraction to its centre and no net force to the stars forming any outer shell
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #22 on: 16/02/2011 13:10:21 »
"Is it possible that it is actually “free faling” in to this nothingness. So rather than being pushed from the inside and out, the universe Is being pulled outward in to the nothingness outside our universe"

I think the theory sucks :-)
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #23 on: 16/02/2011 13:22:06 »
More seriously, when spacetime expands it really expands into nothing (i.e. no spacetime). It is not usually postulated that the universe has an outside. But even if this were so, why would it be an easier concept to think of something drawing out the universe. Even by analogy with everyday physics, if we put a balloon in a vaccuum and the balloon expands, it is the pressure inside that causes the expansion not any force in the vacuum itself. I think the idea, in itself, is possible as a thought experiment but I don't think it fits well with what is known or is a good use of the Occam's razor principle.

However, it is good to think of new ways to look at problems. If this did not happen we would probably all be back in the stone age.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #24 on: 16/02/2011 15:43:36 »
It struggles as well on providing anything we can use to argue for its validity - ie its an exterior force that we can never probe nor measure.  Until there is a test that could disprove it - its only a nice idea (and it is definitely that)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Dark energy theory
« Reply #24 on: 16/02/2011 15:43:36 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums