It seems to me that discussions of dark energy center on addressing it as some sort of a monolithic entity. I was wondering if there have been any discussions or papers on the possibility that there may be different forms or dark energy, each having a somewhat different function, and perhaps each competing with one another? Also then, has it been considered that some dark energy may not be involved with the expansion of the universe?
‘Dark plasmons’ transmit energy
What is this?: You are going to make a statement like that based ...
Nope: In my high school times I usually slept 7 or less ...
Ashley Charette: Interesting findings! There are other substantial ...
Greg S: I bought some colored lenses through http://www.AC...
Nathaniel Comfort: Useful and interesting data, but the interpretatio...
What is this?: You are going to make a statement like that based ...
Nope: In my high school times I usually slept 7 or less ...
Ashley Charette: Interesting findings! There are other substantial ...
Greg S: I bought some colored lenses through http://www.AC...
Nathaniel Comfort: Useful and interesting data, but the interpretatio...
© 2012 ScienceBlog.com. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress. Designed by 
PDF
Dark Energy would have to push in only one direction in order to speed the expansion of the universe. This does appear reasonable to me for it to so do. I have stated this opinion before but no one has seen fit to challenge me or to show how it does expand the universe in ever increasing speed. I am aware of the raison in bread analogy but it just does not hold water with me. Joe L. Ogan
What is anonymous about Joe L. Ogan? Joe L. Ogan
http://www.gezilecekyerler.net
Don’t u know IT??? Are u joking???
Certainly there could, conceivably, be multiple forms of “Dark Energy”, just as there could be multiple forms of “Dark Matter”. After all, we know very little about either of these two. In fact, about all we know about either is 1) they don’t appear to interact much, if at all, with any other form of matter and/or energy (except gravity); and 2) we really only “know” they’re there by their gravitational interaction, and, in the case of “Dark Energy”, only in the very large scale distortion (acceleration of expansion) of spacetime.
Spacetime appears to be isotropic, for all practical purposes, so whatever these “things” are (“Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy”) they, apparently, must act isotropically, much like other forms of matter and energy.
We are able to seemingly adequately explain the observations with only one form of “Dark Matter” and one form of “Dark Energy” (that, in fact, appears to be adequately explained using the cosmological constant of General Relativity, about the simplest “thing” conceivable). So why complicate the model, at least until it become “necessary”? Occam’s razor, and all that. (An even better “explanation” would be if we could explain the observations without any such “things”, but that hasn’t happened, at least not since the precision of the observations have gotten good enough that they can no longer be simply explained away as “fictitious”. So the “force” of Occam’s razor will always be toward fewer rather than more “things”.)
David