# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?  (Read 9950 times)

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« on: 15/03/2012 21:38:57 »
If you are a mathematical physicist, you might be horrified at my lack of formalism, so instead allow me to pose some questions to the readership at large (but feel free to pipe in of course!).  It might be helpful if you are familiar with some simple calculus and vector analysis.  You can find my derivation at http://vixra.org/abs/1203.0025 [nofollow] (arxiv rejected it).

I have posted my thoughts into another forum, http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/129309-Negative-Mass-Interpretation-of-General-Relativity [nofollow], hoping for some robust criticism of my logic or maths.  It doesn't seem to be forthcoming there, but this may be just due to registration problems.

One of the main downsides to general relativity is the difficulty in grasping what the equations fundamentally mean and their complexity.  In spite of their accuracy, and the vast amount of analysis that has gone into understanding them (the majority of which I am not familiar with), the accelerating expansion in 1998 was completely unpredicted.  If you would, allow for just a moment a simpler (and perhaps naive) take on the Einstein field equation.  While you may not agree, your criticism will help me sort out my thoughts and perhaps we will both learn something new.  Perhaps you can read through http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/ [nofollow]  so as to familiarize yourself with the issues.

So, forgetting what anybody else has told you this equation means, this is my take on:

The left hand side of this equation is pretty well known, and you don't have to be familiar with what it means or does.  The important part here is the right hand side.  The term with the G in it is referred to as Einstein's curvature tensor and the term with is the mysterious cosmological constant.  Firstly, lets dispense with any mystery of what this right hand side means.  G is nothing more than what is called a tensor and is what we can refer to as a constant of integration.  An easy way to think of a tensor is as nothing more than a point with a bunch of arrows pointing out of it.  Being able to include in just means that, taken together, we can make those arrows however we want as long as the come out pointing the right direction and the right length.  Mathematical physicists have known this for a long long time.  But there is a problem.  You can make the exact same arrows with a big or none at all.  This has a fancy name called "gauge invariance" but it can also mean what I like to think of as "Am I measuring what I think I am?"  When Einstein used this equation, he found exactly what he was looking for: An equation where if one throws in the mass-energy of a body it will accurately predict the precession of Mercury's perehilion, magnitudes of gravitational lensing and simplify down to Newton's equation for gravity (among other things).  It didn't exactly make physical sense, and there were some grave conceptual problems, but it sure is accurate.  Everything after this was trivial, until 1998.  After reading that NASA page, you should know there is a problem with our view of the universe.  Whether anyone has told you or not, something is wrong big time with our physics.

Now that we are all comfortable with the quantum vacuum, dark energy , etc. what if we were to instead take that right hand side, assign the cosmological constant as the total value of mass-energy of the vacuum, and subtract off a tensor of remaining mass-energy of the quantum vacuum.  Preposterous you might say!  What a crazy universe that would be!  Really? Hmmm, there is more than one way to make a gradient.  Take a look at the top and bottom of this picture.

The magnitudes are only to help you visualize what I mean, but the individual values aren't important.  The only thing important is the rate of change (derivative).

The top part represents what we think of as the regular Newtonian attractive potential gradient and the bottom as an illustration of how to make an equivalent repulsive gradient.  This gives you an idea of what means.

But that can't be, gravity comes from the presence of mass! Like us!  Read carefully through that NASA page again.  All may not be as it seems.

If you look through my paper, you will see that what we end up with is a repulsive gravity that should look just like Newtonian gravity, but at a certain point (I came up with ) a small 1kg mass would no longer be attracted but would be repulsed away instead.  Therefore, for small distances gravity should look just like we experience it.  For distances past a certain point though, everything would just keep getting pushed away faster and faster.  Kind of like that NASA image.

So, does it match up with the data from the expansion?  Don't know yet, but am looking for any interested scientists or people who just want to know about this crazy universe we live in.

I didn't want to just copy and paste what I had in the other forum into here, but stay tuned and ask questions!  If you have any good constructive criticism, that is always welcome!
« Last Edit: 15/03/2012 22:41:20 by Messenger »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11697
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be?
« Reply #1 on: 15/03/2012 23:12:52 »
You do understand that I, as well as most others, will have to reread this several times :)

Let me see. Einstein once created the cosmological constant to explain why 'gravity', or the mass coupled to 'gravity' didn't fall into itself, right? So what he had in his equation was something, of what magnitude? That if he didn't counteract it, it would make all matter 'meet'.  So he suggested a equivalent counterforce called the cosmological constant to counterbalance it as he believed in a static universe.

As we found an accelerating expansion of the universe instead 1998 theorists "By bracketing the expansion history of the universe between today and when the universe was only approximately 380,000 years old, the astronomers were able to place limits on the nature of the dark energy that is causing the expansion to speed up. (The measurement for the far, early universe is derived from fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, as resolved by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, WMAP, in 2003.)

Their result is consistent with the simplest interpretation of dark energy: that it is mathematically equivalent to Albert Einstein's hypothesized cosmological constant, introduced a century ago to push on the fabric of space and prevent the universe from collapsing under the pull of gravity. (Einstein, however, removed the constant once the expansion of the universe was discovered by Edwin Hubble.)"

So from a undefined 'equivalence' to a defined 'magnitude', if i get it right, but with the same name 'The cosmological constant'? and it is this defined amount you use? or is it a undefined 'equivalence'?

"assign the cosmological constant as the total value of mass-energy of the vacuum, and subtract off a tensor of remaining mass-energy of the quantum vacuum. "

Why do you subtract the 'remaining mass-energy of the quantum vacuum.' Isn't the quantum vacuum and the mass-energy of a vacuum the same thing? I am most certainly missing something here?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11697
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #2 on: 15/03/2012 23:23:47 »
I will have to read that pdf you wrote for sure, and get some sleep first.
==

Don't get me wrong here, I like the idea, it would be a nice solution, although rather mind boggling as you introduce a gravity that is both 'attractive' as well as repulsive at long distances, but that is good :) Keeps ones mind working.

But I'm still trying to see how you came up with it.
« Last Edit: 15/03/2012 23:38:04 by yor_on »

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #3 on: 15/03/2012 23:24:16 »
This is good, as it sometimes what is in my head doesn't quite make it to the page.  What I mean is that if you were to take the total quantized energy of the vacuum (flat space-time for a certain volume) with no matter or energy in it and assign that to , then subtract off the mass-energy of a certain body, say the Sun, then assign that smaller value to a tensor (still extremely HUGE, I call ), it is still formulaically equivalent to Einstein's energy-momentum tensor BUT if we calculate how gravity works with this alternate tensor, we see something I think spectacular.  It appears not that there is negative pressure, but that WE are a reduction in mass-energy compared to the vacuum.

« Last Edit: 15/03/2012 23:28:46 by Messenger »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11697
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #4 on: 15/03/2012 23:41:35 »
Heh, sweet, that one I think I can follow :)
And welcome to TNS btw..

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11697
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #5 on: 15/03/2012 23:48:18 »
And that was mind boggling Messenger. A reduction?
Now that makes my night :)

It's a 'good hypothesis' as you get so many 'answers' from it.
Some of them should be testable, hopefully.

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #6 on: 16/03/2012 03:52:53 »
Here are some aids in visualizing this (and remember, as hard as this is all to believe, it is all derived from the fundamental theorem of calculus, general relativity and the accelerating expansion):

All gravity is repulsive, but when two bodies come within a certain range near each other, the repulsion between them decreases.  Looking at the repulsive Newtonian equation,

the second term on the right hand side is dominant when r is small.  This would be how we experience Newtonian gravity.  As a test body goes away from the main mass, r gets bigger , and the last term decreases.  This means that the repulsion between the two bodies increases, but the repulsion on all other sides is constant.  At some value for r, the two terms on the right hand side are equivalent, and the repulsion on that test body is equivalent on all sides. As that test body goes even farther though, the repulsion gets even larger between the two bodies.  From our point of view it would appear that the attractive gravity has decreased to zero and started becoming repulsive.

Another way to think of it is if you were looking at a large mass some distance away from you, say a sun, and for whatever reason the mass of that sun grows, the second term decreases.  The repulsion between you and the sun also decreases.

A body alone in the universe must require a certain amount of vacuum mass-energy to exist, and lower the mass-energy of the vacuum around them. Provided that two bodies have their required amount, the space between them is repulsive.  When they come within the mass-energy range of each other, though, that energy reduction is additive and is greatest in the line between them.

A good way to think of it is that we experience the world as a vivid color image, but our physics works in the negative of the picture.

The easiest way to derive this back to the Einstein field equation is to look at those gradients and understand them well.  Then go back through Einstein's derivation that I have listed in the references.  What you end up finding is that if the EFE holds true, then this equation should very accurately predict the expansion of the universe.  If you goto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime_symmetries [nofollow], you will see that it accomplishes the three relativistic preserving properties.

For the expansion of the universe, imagine that you cast a handful of flour onto a smooth tile floor.  Every flour particle repulses each in the vicinity, but that repulsion is reduced if it is in a certain range.  It would appear as attractive gravity and they would start randomly moving towards each other.  After awhile there would be clusters and an average distance between them.  When that average distance goes past that tipping point calculated from each cluster then there should be a switch over to all the clusters moving apart faster and faster.

Although I don't agree with negative mass particles, a good visualization can be found by Hyoyoung Choi at
Think of the pink particles as us (pits in the energy of vacuum mass-energy), and the negative particles as the Lorentzian aether.

Anybody know how to increase tex size?
« Last Edit: 16/03/2012 04:36:26 by Messenger »

#### MikeS

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1044
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #7 on: 16/03/2012 08:36:31 »
I'm no mathematicial but I did learn Calculus 50 odd years ago.  50 years with no use of calculus and it is all but forgotten.  So I have no idea as to the mathematics behind Messengers idea but it does have a certain appeal.

We normally consider gravity to be an attractive 'force'.  Please forgive the term force.  Perhaps it would be equally valid to think of gravity as being due to the effect of space-time being squeezed.  Where there is considerable gravity as in a super-cluster then mass is squeezed into a smaller volume at the expense of time which dilates.

In the intergalactic voids between super-clusters there is little gravity to squeeze time so space (measured distance) increases as time contracts.

Looked at this way the effect of gravity appears to be attractive at short distance as matter is being pushed together but repulsive at very great distance as space is stretched (being pushed apart) or being created.

If we think of gravity as squeezing space time and all that it contains then it can be both attractive at short distance and repulsive at great distance.

Energy creates matter, creates gravity causing entropy to increase.  This is what happens at short distance.  At great distance where relatively free from the restrictions of gravity, energy dissipates creating space whilst increasing entropy.
« Last Edit: 16/03/2012 08:54:38 by MikeS »

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #8 on: 16/03/2012 12:41:06 »
Here is what is bothering me in the back of my mind.  General relativity works great for systems such as our solar system.  If it doesn't work well at large scales though, but this reversal works well for both, why should we think any calculations for very small scales, such as the Large Hadron Collider, are in any way representative of reality?  If a black hole were possible, it doesn't suck anything in, there is pressure in towards a very large decrease in mass-energy.  I have no way to know if particle collision experiments are safe, but I see no reason to trust the judgement of CERN.  Am I over reacting?

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #9 on: 16/03/2012 12:52:00 »
Interesting analysis Mike.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11697
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #10 on: 16/03/2012 13:04:00 »
Yes Messenger, you put your thumb on a thing that is bothering me too.
I'm getting more and more interested in what 'scales' do with 'reality'.

Scales and probability goes together in my mind.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11697
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #11 on: 16/03/2012 13:17:54 »
As for Cern?

Depends on if you're right, right :)
And even if you are, you can't 'know' for sure.
What about the hard radiation they use as a proof for black holes being unable to form?

I'm still trying to see this one :)
You've had some time working it through, I need it too ::))

And thinking of it, if you are right we should find black holes rather alone?
Or put it as this, if they gets created in a system of a lot of stars the 'force' is attractive.
But if we find one alone, then maybe?

They should be very 'small' if so as they will repulse before attract?
But I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea, and it would most probably not constitute a 'proof'

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #12 on: 16/03/2012 13:33:11 »
I have read the arguments that far worse collisions happen all the time, but if you have any links you would like to post that would be great too.  You are correct though, I have no way to know.  It is actually far more likely that I have gotten something wrong here :).
As I read somewhere, proofs exist in math but not in physics.  Only a consensus.

As for Cern?

Depends on if you're right, right :)
And even if you are, you can't 'know' for sure.
What about the hard radiation they use as a proof for black holes being unable to form?

I'm still trying to see this one :)
You've had some time working it through, I need it too ::))

And thinking of it, if you are right we should find black holes rather alone?
Or put it as this, if they gets created in a system of a lot of stars the 'force' is attractive.
But if we find one alone, then maybe?

They should be very 'small' if so as they will repulse before attract?
But I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea, and it would most probably not constitute a 'proof'

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11697
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #13 on: 16/03/2012 13:55:00 »
Yep, it would be cool to get your math examined, I'm definitely not certified for that though :)
But your ideas and conclusions are still very interesting, as well as your descriptions of how you see the math.

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #14 on: 16/03/2012 16:36:32 »
One more analogy, Lorentzian invariance of space-time. Note that these are only 3 dimensional analogies, 4 dimensional motion is harder to imagine but I am working on that.

You may have read that the metric is a property of space-time and it has negative pressure.  If you view space-time as a jello, and we are decreases in density in it, then you get a natural Lorentz invariance where a negative energy density is proportional to a positive pressure.  This would be where comes from.

#### Ęthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 358
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #15 on: 17/03/2012 02:32:43 »
So many scientists today appreciate dark energy as a must. They are wrong. In fact, the root of the problem is the Big Bang. There are in fact atleast 15 major problems with the BB. In fact, the static universe can answer for more than what the 15 major problems of BB can account for. I will find you a link.

#### Ęthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 358
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #16 on: 17/03/2012 02:34:22 »
In fact after a quick read, there are at least 30 problems with the BB. Here, you will find the top ten http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

enjoy.

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #17 on: 17/03/2012 02:38:10 »
Heh. The list is from 1997, so the first one seems to be out
Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.

but I think you would find the simulations listed by Icarus2 on bautforum.com in the ATM threads very interesting.

#### Ęthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 358
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #18 on: 17/03/2012 02:40:38 »
All I need to know is that the BB is faulty premise. Even the reminent BB hypothesis of an leftover of radiation is in fact the average temperature radiated by star systems. The BB is wrong.

So wrong in fact, it does not apply to a correct model. The fact we have not unified it yet is an evidence this is the wrong approach.

#### Ęthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 358
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #19 on: 17/03/2012 02:42:36 »
You must read these implications. Scientists alike have been deluded by this ''phenomenon''. Even by someone like me, who supported such a method for years to come... till now. I've realized myself the implications of these mistakes. They are evident. Some scientists would rather bury their heads in the quantum sand.

#### Ęthelwulf

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 358
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #20 on: 17/03/2012 02:44:34 »
''Icarus2 on bautforum.com in the ATM threads very interesting.''
I know him, and have seen his speculations. No harm to the man, but he is wrong, atleast in representing his work in some scientific format, like a rigourous math. So no, I would not be interested, no real disrespect to him though.

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #21 on: 17/03/2012 03:04:21 »
I see from one of your posts that you believe in a static universe.   Does that mean you don't trust the interpretation that distances are increasing between galaxies?

#### MikeS

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1044
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #22 on: 17/03/2012 05:53:52 »
I see from one of your posts that you believe in a static universe.   Does that mean you don't trust the interpretation that distances are increasing between galaxies?

Messenger I don't  know what posts you have read on this forum but I suspect that the Hubble red shift as an interpretation of distance and age of the universe may be wrong.  I believe you can get the same effect from time contraction (speeding up) over cosmological time.  There have been heated arguments over this but as far as I am aware there is very little evidence to confirm the interpretation of the Hubble red shift as being correct.  The cosmological red shift may be due to a mixture of expansion and time contraction.

#### Messenger

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 27
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #23 on: 17/03/2012 06:13:20 »
Well, I am open to any explanation as long as it helps explain certain phenomena and I can logically/mathematically follow it, even with some effort.  Have any links I can read up on it?

#### MikeS

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1044
##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #24 on: 17/03/2012 06:35:55 »
Messenger

Hypothesis # 1
According to GR gravity is warped space time due to mass and energy.
What if the 'energy' component of that is negative? (Energy dissipates, entropy)
Gravity would be attractive where there is mass and repulsive where there is no mass (energy being everywhere but it's repulsive gravity being overwhelmed by the attractive gravity of mass).
This equates to gravity being attractive at short range and repulsive at long range which is what we see.

Hypothesis # 2
Even if 'energy' has attractive (or no) gravity it's effect may be overwhelmed by energies tendency to disperse.  Possibly when dispersing free from the influence of gravity it 'creates' space.
If this is correct then it's the same outcome as above.
Gravity would (seem to) be attractive where there is mass and repulsive where there is no mass (energy being everywhere).
This again equates to gravity being attractive at short range and repulsive at long range which is what we see.

[In answer to you request for links, a search for Hubble red-shift, cosmological red-shift, cosmological time should produce many links.]
« Last Edit: 17/03/2012 06:37:28 by MikeS »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?
« Reply #24 on: 17/03/2012 06:35:55 »