Dark energy theory

  • 44 Replies
  • 14556 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Magnus W

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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.
From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. Sherlock Holmes.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (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?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Magnus W

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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!"
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline yamo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 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?
Science is what you want it to be.
                   --Dr. Leo Spaceman--

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Magnus W

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Magnus W

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline bardman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • *****
  • 601
    • 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!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (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?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • 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
  • ******
  • 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
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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)
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #25 on: 16/02/2011 23:35:33 »
It is not really a theory but a possibility coming out from my theory.

The black hole at the center of the Milky Way has already been measured and it is substantially smaller than the Schwarzschild radius. All people who still think that there is a singularity should understand that it is simply impossible, this is a mathematical aberration. It just mean that the solution is not there, it is somewhere else. I just don't understand why some physicists use an impossible solution and perpetuate it...  [::)]

*

Offline kornbredrsqar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 22
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #26 on: 17/02/2011 00:06:02 »
OK hear we go ,i've got some new ideas to through out there and sea how much stink I can rase.
lets start with spasetime, I cannot buy into this because in my mind time is a constent steady flow and is broken up into standard units of measure and these units are not flexable , to say they are is the same as saying that an inch is still an inch when marked on a rubber ruler and stretched to twice its normal length. just because the tool you are using to measure something is flexable does not make the thing you are measuring any longer or shorter, despite what you tell your wife . I know the super accurate clocks in outer spase seam to prove otherwise but i don't think they fully take into account the effect of atmosphere, gravity, and god only knows what other forces are interacting with it, i mean nobody can actualy prove what gravity realy is so how can you say you are 100% sure that its time that is speading up or slowing down and not the clock.

*

Offline bardman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 35
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #27 on: 17/02/2011 00:14:56 »
Not to try and stray too far from the topic at hand, but what are people's thoughts on the universe being a 3-D hypersphere that is expanding in size?

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #28 on: 17/02/2011 09:51:01 »
I'm sure nobody will mind if I move this thread to the "New Theories" section of the board, where people are more free to speculate and discuss new ideas.

*

Offline Magnus W

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 21
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #29 on: 17/02/2011 13:28:55 »
3-d hypersphere, I have not heard about that theory can you explain.


*

Offline bardman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 35
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #30 on: 17/02/2011 18:02:52 »
If you think of a sphere, and the surface of it, you can only travel in two orthogonal directions along it. So, if we lived in a 2 dimensional space, you could picture the universe as a 3-D sphere (A 2-D hypersphere) on which we could only exist on the surface, moving in two distinct directions along it. The concept extends into higher dimensions, we just have no way of representing it in a geometric way that would make sense.

The idea is then if you travel straight out in one direction (which is actually along a slight curve in this higher dimensional representation you cannot picture) you will eventually end up at the same point you started. The universe would then expand by increasing the radius of the hypersphere.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #31 on: 19/02/2011 13:55:36 »
"The black hole at the center of the Milky Way has already been measured and it is substantially smaller than the Schwarzschild radius."

Can you give me a link to that CPT?
Shouldn't it be a Kerr solution too?
As it is spinning, at least I thought it was?
==

The black hole at Sagittarius. 
« Last Edit: 19/02/2011 14:05:13 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #32 on: 20/02/2011 06:17:57 »
see this:

Would a ring shape be more fitted???!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40097454/ns/technology_and_science-space/

I am searching for it but it says the measures were precise enough to think that they haven't look at the right spot. They don't understand why. I just think they look at the right place but they are obsessed with their old black hole's model.

Here is a related article but i haven't found the original yet.

http://thespacewriter.com/wp/365-days-of-astronomy/measuring-the-black-hole/

finally: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/full/nature07245.html

More explanations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
« Last Edit: 20/02/2011 08:53:21 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #33 on: 20/02/2011 11:24:31 »
Well, I looked too?
And I found nothing strange, just a black spinning hole.
Quite big with 'a dense disk of gas (of at least 10,000 Solar-masses) around the central hole in Sagittarius A* apparently counters its tidal forces sufficiently for stars to form. Moreover, local conditions have also favored the formation of a high number (around 100) of very young and massive stars.'

Read my link above, it's the best I could find on this subject.

Peering into the heart of darkness. 
« Last Edit: 20/02/2011 11:33:35 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #34 on: 21/02/2011 05:55:07 »
thx, still very nice...

look page 6, right column: "Upper limits upon Ra/D are found directly via the radio
VLBI observations collected in Table 1. These are
shown in Fig. 5, with their 3–σ upper bounds (again
denoted by the hatched regions) together with the combined
infrared limit. The recent 1.3mm detection is the
strongest, and excludes Ra/D > 27 μas at the 3–σ level."

My prediction is half Schwarzchild radius ~26 μas

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0903/0903.1105v1.pdf

page 7, right column: "As a consequence, we
cannot yet say that Sgr A* is described by a GR black
hole despite being able to conclude that a horizon must
exist."
« Last Edit: 21/02/2011 06:03:22 by CPT ArkAngel »

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #35 on: 21/02/2011 11:25:42 »
Nothing wrong with predicting. We'll see what the astronomers think themselves finding out as time moves on. Myself I still expect it to be a normal Black Hole, well as normal as any Black Hole can be? There is no gold standard to them yet, the definitions we have gets influenced by the regions in where we think ourselves to see them as i understands it. And they are quite a bit from us, hopefully :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #36 on: 22/02/2011 22:25:23 »
I disagree with this theory on several grounds. First of all, a "suction" is nothing but a reduced pressure. When a gas expands into a region of lower pressure, it its pushed by the higher pressure; the lower pressure simply doesn't push back as hard. The ancient philosophers were right; there can be no action at a distance without an intermediate particle or medium of transmission. If galaxies are accelerating into a void, it's because something is pushing them away from each other harder than their mutual gravity is pulling them together. For lack of a more descriptive title, that "something" has been named "dark energy".

My second objection is that I prefer to believe in an infinite, homogeneous, isotropic universe. Obviously, we can't prove what lies beyond our Hubble limit; but we can have models which only work because we make assumptions about what lies beyond. I have my own model which I believe works pretty well, though I lack the math skills to prove it.

Thirdly, I have my own understanding of exactly what dark energy is, where it comes from and what else it does beside driving the expansion of space. It is better described as a push than a pull.

I'm new, here. I'll make a point to post my model in this section ASAP. I don't consider my model to be a "theory", but it does contain a number of new theories.
« Last Edit: 23/02/2011 03:46:15 by Phractality »
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #37 on: 23/02/2011 11:25:11 »
Phractality - nice post and welcome.  With regard to your first paragraph (and I think I side with you on this, but just for the sake of argument...)  could you not posit a region in which the vacuum energy exists and another in which it doesn't?  If space doesn't exist then you have no problems with uncertainty principle requiring fluctuations in vacuum and causing a background energy.  And like the Casimir effect, would this not create a zone of negative pressure (for want of a better phrase). 

I am not convinced that the universe is infinite - but I think your second point stands nonetheless.  My favourite concept of dark energy is neither a push or a pull, but rather a change in background - if you and your friend were standing on a paved floor and each stone increased in size by 10% (or an extra stone was added for every 10 - same thing) - would you be pushed apart or pulled apart, or just notice that the distance has increased without feeling a particular force.  this very simple hand-wavy view also covers the fact that someone 100 paving stones away 'moves slower' than someone 1000 stones distant.

If you post you post the model expect some criticism and mad questions, and if it has no maths I am afraid it is difficult to take too seriously; heuristic solutions are nice but don't really add much unless the maths can be easily added
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #38 on: 23/02/2011 13:19:49 »
...could you not posit a region in which the vacuum energy exists and another in which it doesn't? 

I really don't know how to fit vacuum energy into my model. After all, the experts on it are about 128 orders of magnitude apart on how much energy they're talking about. If vacuum energy and dark energy are the same thing, then I tend to agree with the higher estimate of 10^113 J/m³, and it has to be fairly uniform thruout our visible universe, and probably millions of Hubble limits beyond that.

Quote
If space doesn't exist then you have no problems with uncertainty principle requiring fluctuations in vacuum and causing a background energy. 

In my model, space not only exists in the form of an ether foam, but it is quite tangible. A cubic meter of ether consists of literally googols of sub-universe galaxies; and for all I know, a sub-universe galaxy may have as much inertial mass as one of our own galaxies. Besides, we're probably moving thru the ether at about 627 km/s. I don't see the uncertainty principle applying to the ether, at all. It may, however, apply to the exchange of momentum between regular energy (shear waves) and dark energy (pressure waves).

Quote
And like the Casimir effect, would this not create a zone of negative pressure (for want of a better phrase). 

I don't understand the Casimir effect well enough to comment. 

Quote
My favourite concept of dark energy is neither a push or a pull, but rather a change in background - if you and your friend were standing on a paved floor and each stone increased in size by 10% (or an extra stone was added for every 10 - same thing) - would you be pushed apart or pulled apart, or just notice that the distance has increased without feeling a particular force. 

That is very similar to the way I explain how space expands. Instead of adding paving stones, I am "un-popping" ether-foam bubbles. This is explained in my own thread on my model. I postulate that volume of space can be measured in ether-foam bubbles, so for space to expand, the number of bubbles in a region must increase. That is accomplished by adding new bubble walls. When a bubble wall pops, two bubbles merge into one, which is a decrease in the number of bubbles. To resolve this apparent paradox, I conclude that the arrow of time reverses between alternate universes. As our universe gets older, the sub-universe and super-universe are getting younger.

The role of dark energy in the expansion of space has to do with the fact that foams fizz. When you pour a glass of beer, you can hear the pressure waves that are generated by popping bubbles. From a sub-universe perspective, the pressure waves radiate from a popping bubble. From our perspective they converge to a point where a bubble un-pops.

One unpopping bubble adds about a Planck volume (10^-105 m³) to our universe. That must occur about 10^88 times per second per cubic meter, to account for the Hubble constant.

Quote
If you post you post the model expect some criticism and mad questions, and if it has no maths I am afraid it is difficult to take too seriously; heuristic solutions are nice but don't really add much unless the maths can be easily added

I have posted the model, and I welcome even angry, viscious questions. That would be a nice change from the silence that has greeted everywhere else that I have posted it. What I really need is a dialog, so I can argue with someone other than myself. There are unresolved questions, and I'm going bonkers trying to argue both sides of every issue.
« Last Edit: 23/02/2011 13:52:57 by Phractality »
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline SOEDan137

  • First timers
  • *
  • 5
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #39 on: 28/02/2011 16:36:09 »

BLACK HOLES, EXPANSION, AND DARK ENERGY

In the continuum of space and time, exists the dichotomy of matter and energy. All things exist as both matter and energy, but are experienced as one or the other.
As energy, all things exist as wave patterns. Most wave patterns are interferences of simpler wave patterns. The simplest wave forms are those that do not interfere with other waves. These simplest wave forms hold their shape as they propagate. There are three such wave forms.
The first such wave form is seen in three dimensions as the spherical expansion wave of a bomb blast, and in two dimensions as the circular wave of expansion on the water where a rock was tossed in. The second wave form is seen in three dimensions as the cone of sonic boom following an aircraft traveling faster than sound, and in two dimensions as the V-wake on the water where the boat is traveling faster than the water wave. The third wave form is seen in three dimensions as the propagation torus of a smoke ring and is seen in two dimensions as the double vortexes of an oar stroke on the water.
The Torus is a particle of discrete exchange, from one point to another. The object exchanges position and momentum. While the spherical wave shows position, and the conic wave shows momentum, the torus shows both at the same time, and has a dynamic finite unbounded reality. The volumes of the cone, sphere, and torus are mathematically related as static objects.
The Universe is a local density fluctuation. (a wave pulse) On this local density fluctuation wave, lesser wave forms may exist. All simple wave forms are also local density fluctuations, and as such are indeed universes in their own right, where other waves may exist.
Consider the torus as a universe. Einstein said that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. There is both linear acceleration and angular acceleration. Although the torus as a whole travels in a straight line, every local point on the torus travels in a circle and experiences angular acceleration.
The rubber sheet model of gravity and curved space translates directly to the propagating torus with angular acceleration. Acceleration is downward on the rubber sheet and outward on the torus. The tension field that separates the inside of the torus from the outside holds its shape as a simple two dimensional field of space and time just as the rubber sheet does.
Experimentally verifiable is that a big fat slow smoke ring generated in a room with very still air will eventually possess a bulge that travels in a circle on the surface of the smoke ring. This bulge, being a gravitational depression, gathers more of the energy of the field toward itself. Finally the bulge gathers enough material to collapse the field and eject a new, smaller smoke ring out in the same direction as the first torus. This collapse is a black hole to the first torus, and a white hole to the second torus, where the axes of space and time in that second torus have reversed.
While gravity tends to draw depressions together locally on a dynamic torus, even to the point of field collapse, other areas on a torus expand and contract globally as the torus propagates along without regard to local phenomenon on the surface. This is quintessence. The inertia of the torus to propagate is its dark energy. This is a two-dimensional example of the process that we  experience in three dimensions.

From structureofexistence.com by Dan Echegoyen 951-204-0201

--

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #40 on: 28/02/2011 18:41:09 »
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

Several people, here, seem to be confusing an empty shell with a solid ball. The gravity of an empty shell is zero inside the shell, but outside the shell the gravity is equal to that of the mass of the shell concentrated at its center.

Consider a uniform finite solid ball of radius R (floating in space or in freefall). The gravity at the surface of an imaginary shell at radius r ≤ R (concentric to the ball) is proportional to the mass contained inside that shell. The mass outside of radius r contributes nothing to the gravity at radius r, because that mass is a uniform shell.

The key word, above, is finite. If the ball's radius is infinite, then the gravity at any point in the ball is zero. That's because every point is the center, and there is no gravitational potential difference between one center and any other center. Big bang advocates overlook this fact when arguing that their formulas prove the universe is finite. Their formula is based on total mass, irrespective of radius, but the formula is not valid if the radius is infinte. So they are tacitly assuming a finite radius in order to prove a finite radius.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #41 on: 28/02/2011 18:45:01 »
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.

I think that was 120 orders of magnitude too large. Slight difference!

I am working on an explanation of the difference at the thread about my own model.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline yamo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 78
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #42 on: 21/04/2011 07:35:11 »
What if we are being flooded with space?  Maybe the space is coming from somewhere.  Mass inhibits the flooding so we see what we think is expansion in the relatively massless inter-galactic areas.  The galaxies are not moving away but more space is entering the universe from somewhere.  Is Space conserved like energy?  Where might space come from?
« Last Edit: 21/04/2011 16:54:52 by yamo »
Science is what you want it to be.
                   --Dr. Leo Spaceman--

*

Offline mpc755

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 43
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #43 on: 21/04/2011 11:58:24 »
'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html [nofollow]

'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet:

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html [nofollow]

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.

The following is an image analogous of the Universe, or the local Universe, we exist in:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/planetarium/graphics/st_images/BlackHole.jpg [nofollow]

Paths of light lead back to the Universal jet emission point or 'over the waterfall' towards the Rindler Horizon. This is what is defined as the CMBR.

Dark energy is the change in state of the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.
« Last Edit: 21/04/2011 12:04:25 by mpc755 »

*

Offline yamo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 78
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #44 on: 16/09/2011 07:49:33 »
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

what about this?  http://atramateria.com/the-end-of-the-cosmological-principle/ [nofollow]

http://io9.com/5838273/the-universe-might-not-be-the-same-all-over [nofollow]
Science is what you want it to be.
                   --Dr. Leo Spaceman--