Tieing Dark Matter And Energy, And Accelerating Expansion

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=210&#entry338747

A. Wikipedia

"Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter accounts for the vast majority of mass in the observable universe."

"Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe. Assuming the existence of dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for almost three-quarters of the total mass-energy of the universe."

B. Re-repeat old posting

"Singularity and D-final (max expansion/ cosmic energy dilution) are the two cosmic stable states. Their in-between is a metastable state, which is an everyday commonsense observation. Likewise is the observation that the denser the compacting goal of material the more energy is required, and vice versa the more thorough the disintegration of material the higher the amount of energy released. It seems that E=mC^2 is a specific case of the cosmic universal process
E=Total[m(1 + D)]
where D is the Distance from Big Bang point and the sum is of all spatial values of D from D=0 to D=selected value.

Per Newton (1) gravity is decreased when mass is decreased and (2) acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. By plain common sense, best scientific approach, the combination of those two 'laws' may explain the accelerating cosmic expansion of galaxy clusters, based on the above E/ m/ D suggested relationship."

C. Tieing Dark Matter, Energy, And Accelerating Expansion

At genesis, at age 10^-35 seconds, the Universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time, as well as all the matter and energy the Universe will ever hold.

Therefore in E=Total[m(1 + D)] m decreases as D increases since genesis.
What is the implication of the ever decreasing m?

m does not "disappear"; mass is a form of energy, energy being the base element of the cosmos, and the extent of energy and mass of the cosmos are constant.

The right-hand side of the above equation is a measure of the "dilution of universal mass" as the universe expands and its created additional space becomes permeated with yet unknown cosmic energy products. Its implication is that on the route from singularity to a future final D, on the route from maximum cosmic density to maximum cosmic expansion-dilution, there are evolved transient or stable phase forms of mass and energy with which we are not yet familiar.

Dov Henis

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1

Don, you have moved this thread far off topic from the question of whether dark energy exists or is an illusion caused by our being in an unusual region of the universe.

So I propose that you start your own thread in your own blog that addresses your theory, which I may have mischaracterized.

You seem to be saying that the universe has a boundary which has the property of attracting everything inside of it. That attraction causes the accelerating rate of expansion.

This assumption leads to two major questions and some lesser ones.

First, there is the question of a privileged frame of reference. If the boundary is finite, it has a definite center. That creates a privileged frame of reference in violation of one of the cardinal principles of relativity. Furthermore, if the boundary is not spherical, then it also leads to a privileged direction in space, namely its longest axis.

No astronomical or physical measurements have ever shown that such a center exists. It would, for instance, show up as an anisotropy in the red shift between galaxies on our side of the center of the universe and galaxies on the opposite side.

So the first challenge to your theory is to propose a way to find the center of the finite universe and its principal axis if it is non-spherical. All measurements to date support the idea that the universe has no center and no axis. At this point, all the evidence supports the conventional relativistic view.

An aspect of your proposal that you have not discussed are boundary effects. What happens when a particle or quantum of energy reaches that boundary?

We already know by red-shift measurements that the most distant galaxies are moving away from us at large fractions of the speed of light. Do they simply disappear when they reach the edge? If so, what happens to the law of conservation of mass/energy?

Even if the boundary is too far away for us to detect it directly, the boundary conditions would surely produce some effects inside the universe. What observations do you suggest so that we can detect those boundary effects.

Another point that needs to be addressed--it's really a consequence of both the apparent absence of both a center and boundary effects: the universe is nearly 14 billion years old. That is plenty of time for the outer edge to have accumulated a lot of mass while the region nearest the center to have been depopulated. Yet as far as we can tell, the distribution of mass in the universe appears to be quite uniform. (The same kinds of galactic sheets with the same densities everywhere.)

Finally, there is the question of the mathematical nature of the boundary force you describe. It can't follow an inverse square law in a static universe, as an anonymous poster pointed out. So let's flesh out your theory with some details. What force do we feel from the boundary here on Earth, and how will it change as we accelerate closer to the edge? What observable effects will that produce, and why haven't we observed them?

That's quite enough questions for you to address.

I suggest you start with the issue of the center and the boundary effects in a new posting in your own blog.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

There is no mention of an invisible heaven or divine force. The evidence I use is the observation that scientists have recently discovered - that the galaxies are accelerating - just as a body accelerates as it falls toward the earth under the force of gravity.

In the case of the accelerating galaxies - there must be a force that is causing them to accelerate (fall). I say there is a force at the boundary of a finite universe that causes this action.

Again I say - A perpetually expanding universe requires a constant creation of the physical laws of nature. To me this makes no sense at all - nothing in the universe can occur unless there is a "law of nature" to guide it.

Cosmologists contend that the universe is expanding into this lawless void faster then the speed of light - incredible!!

Don Hamilton
http://novan.com/5th-forc.htm Dark Energy or Fifth force?

Hi Fred.

The idea of us being in a less dense "bubble" is not new. David L. Wiltshire (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0702082) has postulated that the apparent accelerating expansion rate is due to the difference in 'cosmic time' in our 'void' relative to the more dense areas around us. I recall that has he has met with some valid criticisms, which obviously does not mean that he is completely wrong.

As difficult as 'dark energy' is to cope with, it is still the only hypothesis that fits the majority of observations rather well. Despite this, I'm one of the many hoping that a hypothesis with a 'better fit' will appear on the scene. I'm however not very optimistic about the 'shell theorem'.

Regards,

Burt Jordaan (www.Relativity-4-Engineers.com)

Don, you have talked about the idea of a outward force to produce the expansion of the universe on your own blog, and I'll leave it to others who want to pick up that discussion there. I argue that you have fallen into an Aristotelian trap. As I recall your description on your blog, you seem to be envisioning an invisible heaven to which all normal matter is drawn by a divine force.

As Galileo correctly asserted and Newton formalized in his first law, there is no need for any outside force to cause the outward motion of the galaxies (though neither knew about galaxies in particular). Inertia is sufficient, assuming that the Big Bang theory is a valid initial event. I discuss this a bit in the cosmology sections of Physics Decade by Decade.

The issue here is the apparent acceleration of the expansion, rather than the deceleration that would be expected due to gravitational attraction among the galaxies.

The article cited argues that the acceleration may be an illusion due to our being in an unusually galactically-sparse region of the universe. The authors claim, as you do, that there is no need for dark energy. But they claim it is because there is no acceleration.

Another (and more common) explanation for the acceleration is the Cosmological Constant of General Relativity.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

Instead of the perpetual expansion of universal space, to explain the receding galaxies, the galaxies are simply falling toward the outer boundary of a FINITE NON-EXPANDING UNIVERSE.

Some sort of force is causing the galaxies to accelerate outward. There is an attractive superforce at the boundary of the universe that is causing the galaxies to fall toward it.

A perpetually expanding universe requires a constant expansion (creation) of the physical laws of nature. To me this makes no sense at all - nothing in the universe can occur unless there is a law of nature to guide it.

Don Hamilton

Anonymous, if you have a complaint about my "garbage," please offer some specifics and identify yourself.

Otherwise, please stop wasting everyone's time.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

more garbage

As I said, there must be another part of the analysis that we are missing.

The explanation I gave works for a static shell, but we live in an expanding universe. If the shell is expanding uniformly, and assuming the gravitational force is mediated by gravitons that travel at the speed of light, the nearby part of the shell would be moving away less rapidly that the opposite side, which would lead to the effect described.

David, Burt, Scruffy, or others well-versed in this, am I on the right track here?

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

David,

You caught my inadvertent slip, and it is now repaired. I also edited the piece to use blockquotes, which I had removed during the first go round, when I saw they were working again.

Anonymous, I think you're onto something. But how could Science News and Physical Review Letters have missed that? There must be something else. I'll have to look into it.

For those who are not tuned into such things, if the spherical shell is truly uniform, the net gravitational field at all points inside is zero. If you don't think things through, it is easy to jump to the incorrect conclusion that a test mass will be attracted gravitationally to the closest point on the shell. But if you draw a pair of lines through that point and rotate them to scribe out circles on the spherical shell, there is more mass within the opposite side circle than within the near side circle. Given the inverse square nature of the force, you find that the masses opposite each other differ by the same factor as the inverse square of their distances from the point in question. Hence, no net gravitational pull.

As I said, there must be another part of the analysis that we are missing.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

This is ridiculous. If an object is inside a shell of material, it is NOT accelerated to the outside. The gravitational attraction from the different parts of the shell cancel out and there is NO EFFECT on the internal object. This is physics 101 stuff.

I suppose it should have been obvious from the put-down phrasing in the beginning about "hand wringing" that this proposal would have been nonsense.

There is an alternate explanation that I've read, and will badly over simplify here. That is, the very fact that we can see distant objects at all demands that photons from said objects traveled through mostly empty space. If that was not the case the photons would have been absorbed, never reaching us.

While this "mostly empty space" is clearly not as devoid of gravitational influence as the "billion-light-year-long bubble" described in the article, the distance traveled can be far greater than a billion light years. Instead of having one large adjustment we have many small adjustments throughout the photon's journey accounting for the Dark Energy Mirage...

Fred:

Of course they also state:

“Although the Copernican principle may be widely accepted by fiat, it is imperative that such a foundational principle be proven,” Caldwell and Stebbins assert in an upcoming Physical Review Letters. The researchers suggest a concrete way to check once and for all whether our neck of the cosmic woods is different from other parts of the universe. Their test relies on observations of the cosmic microwave background, the leftover radiation from the Big Bang that bathes all parts of the universe.

Thus what they are "really" saying is that once again we have a "tacit" assumption that should, and can, be made subject to experimental verification or falsification!

This is also to say nothing of there being at least some evidence that the Universe is not accelerating, and, hence, there need be no "dark energy".

David

P.S. You used the term "dark matter" in the body of your post where you should have used "dark energy". I trust this was simply a tiny lapse. :-)

P.P.S What?!? Now Blockquotes do nothing?!?

more garbage