Skip to content

Could "dark energy" be a sign of Earth's special place in the universe?

May 12, 2008

Fred Bortz's picture

Ever since Copernicus placed the Sun at the center of the universe instead of the Earth, scientific discoveries have been repeatedly making our home planet less special and more ordinary. But could the "principle of mediocrity" turn out to be wrong in one critical recent discovery--dark energy (corrected, thanks to David's comment)--and could that discovery really mean something other than what physicists have suggested?

An article in the current Science News suggests an intriguing alternate interpretation. It begins:

For all the hand wringing among physicists about the nature of dark energy, the invisible stuff that appears to be revving up the rate of cosmic expansion, a nagging possibility remains. Dark energy could be a cosmic mirage — if humans live in a special place in the universe with a peculiar distribution of matter.

If Earth and its environs are centered in a vast, billion-light-year-long bubble, relatively free of matter, in turn surrounded by a massive, dense shell of material, then gravity’s tug would cause galaxies inside the void to hurtle toward the spherical concentration of mass, say theorists Robert Caldwell of Dartmouth College and Albert Stebbins of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill. That process would mimic the action of dark energy — a local observer would be tricked into thinking that the universe’s expansion is accelerating.

The article makes me wonder what Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams, the authors of The View from the Center of the Universe: Discovering Our Extraordinary Place in the Cosmos might have to say about it. Perhaps I should have been less critical in my review of their book.

Comments

Acceleration

August 26, 2008 by Anonymous, 44 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 31635

It seems that we could make an estimate for the rate of acceleration of Galaxies. Having done this we could then calculate how long until the galaxies reach lightspeed. Of course this is theoretically impossible, but as these galaxies get within decimal points of C thier mass should also approach infinite... What would the effect of huge numbers of near infinite masses be? Also where is the energy to accelerate them coming from? It seems alot like 'cooking the books' to add in this dark energy everyone talks about. I posted above, speaking of T+ etc..

I admit I have only got grade 12, but I would truly welcome a chance to discuss my idea with someone more closely connected to the science community; someone who might be able to put math to it. After all, these days if it's not an equation it's nothing.

sincerely Phil C.
sundreamer27@hotmail.com

Quantum Space

August 25, 2008 by Anonymous, 44 weeks 4 days ago
Comment id: 31622

I have an idea which I believe could explain expansion without recourse to 'dark energy'.

I believe that the 3 dimensional universe we see is made up of countless mathematical points; unit dimensions without 'size'... I put the word size in quotations because size, distance, direction etc., are concepts without meaning outside of the 3d world.

I further believe that these unit dimensions, come in three flavours depending upon thier orientation to thier time vector...

If t+ it is force
if t- it is space
if t0 it is non existent as regards the 3d construct.

T+ = giving off a signal
T- = taking in a signal (the opposite of giving off)
T0 = neither giving nor receiving a signal

(the signal I refer to simply causes the unit dimension to flip from T- to T+. As the signal is 'sent' the sender returns to a T- state...

ok so heres the thing... all the empty space we see is T- ; but if there were a statistical chance of a T0 spontaneously becoming T- and becoming space, one might imagine the following scenario:

Just for fun one might say that we could expect one T0 to T- transition to occur in a given volume of space in a certain amount of time... for instance perhaps 1 transition per cubic lightyear per year.

If that were so... then as each transition occurred the distance between bodies would grow and thus the chance that a transition would occur in the intervening space would also rise... so that as bodies get further apart they would seem to accelerate away from one another... yet no momentum would be gained... and no need to resort to dark energy....

BTW this idea also can be used to explain other facts such as why a photon increases frequency with added energy instead of moving faster.

Dark matter and energy, and accelerating expansion

May 29, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 5 weeks ago
Comment id: 30394

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

On Energy, Mass, Gravity, Galaxies Clusters, AND life

April 30, 2009 by Anonymous, 9 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 36453

On Energy, Mass, Gravity, Galaxies Clusters, AND life
A Commonsensible Recapitulation

A. "Heavyweight galaxies in the young universe"
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/42419/title/Heavyweight_galaxies_in_the_young_universe
New observations of full-grown galaxies in the young universe may force astrophysicists to revise their leading theory of galaxy formation, at least as it applies to regions where galaxies congregate into clusters.

B. Some brief notes in "Light On Dark Matter?", at
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=22994&st=0&#entry373127

- "Galaxy Clusters Evolved By Dispersion, Not By Conglomeration"
- Introduction of E=Total[m(1 + D)]
- "Dark Energy And Matter And The Emperor's New Clothes"
- "Evolutionary Cosmology: Ordained Or Random"
- "“Movie” Of Microwave Pulse Transitioning From Quantum To Classical Physics"
- "Broken Symmetry" Is Physics' Term Of Biology's "Evolution"
- "A Glimpse Of Forces-Matter-Life Unified Theory"

C. Commonsensible conception of gravity

1. According to the standard model, which describes all the forces in nature except gravity, all elementary particles were born massless. Interactions with the proposed Higgs field would slow down some of the particles and endow them with mass. Finding the Higgs — or proving it does not exist — has therefore become one of the most important quests in particle physics.

However, for a commonsensible primitive mind with a commonsensible universe represented by
E=Total[m(1 + D)], this conceptual equation describes gravity. It does not explain gravity. It describes it. It applies to the whole universe and to every and all specific cases, regardless of size.

2. Thus gravity is simply another face of the total cosmic energy. Thus gravity is THE cosmic parent of phenomena such as black holes and life. It is the display of THE all-pervasive-embracive strained space texture, laid down by the expanding galactic clusters, also noticed in the expanding energy backlashes into various constructs of temporary constrained energy packages.

3. "Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time to the early hot dense "Big Bang" phase, using general relativity, yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. 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."

At D=0, E was = m and both E and m were, together, all the energy and matter the Universe will ever hold. Since the onset of the cataclysm E remains constant and m diminishes as D increases.
The increase of D is the inflation, followed by expansion, of what became the galactic clusters.

At 10^-35 seconds, D in E=Total[m(1 + D)] was already a fraction of a second above zero. This is when gravity started. This is what started gravity. At this instance starts the space texture, starts the straining of the space texture, and starts the "space texture memory", gravity, that may eventually overcome expansion and initiate re-impansion back to singularity.

D. Commonsensible conception of the forces other than gravity

The forces other than gravity are, commonsensibly, forces involved in conjunction with evolution:
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=4770

The farthest we go in reductionism in Everything, including in Life, we shall still end up with wholism, until we arrive at energy. Energy is the base element of everything and of all in the universe. At the beginning was the energy singularity, at the end will be near zero mass and an infinite dispersion of the beginning energy, and in-between, the universe undergoes continuous evolution consisting of myriad energy-to-energy and energy-to-mass-to-energy transformations.

The universe, and everything in it, are continuously evolving, and all the evolutions are intertwined.

E. PS: On Cosmic Energy And Mass Evolutions

As mass is just another face of energy it is commonsensible to regard not only life, but mass in general, as a format of temporarily constrained energy.

It therefore ensues that whereas the expanding cosmic constructs, the galaxies clusters, are - overall - continuously converting "their" original pre-inflation mass back to energy, the overall evolution WITHIN them, within the clusters, is in the opposite direction, temporarily constrained energy packages such as black holes and biospheres and other energy-storing mass-formats are precariuosly forming and "doing best" to survive as long as "possible"...

Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Life's Manifest
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/112.page#578
EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=405&#entry396201
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/100/122.page#1407

=======================================
Gravity Limits Link Ultracold And Superhot,
Our Inability To Create Singularity

A. From "Strings Link the Ultracold with the Superhot"
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/42632/title/Strings_Link_the_Ultracold_with_the_Superhot
Perfect liquids suggest theory’s math mirrors something real
"When the universe was very young, and still superhot from the aftermath of the Big Bang, plasma should have been the only state of matter around. And that’s what scientists at Brookhaven expected to see when they smashed gold ions together at 99.99 percent of the speed of light using a machine called RHIC (for Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider). RHIC physicists thought the ion collisions would melt the gold’s protons and neutrons into a hot plasma of quarks and gluons at a temperature of a trillion kelvins, replicating conditions similar to those a microsecond after the birth of the universe. But instead of a gaslike plasma, the physicists reported in 2005, RHIC served up a hot quark soup, behaving more like a liquid than a plasma or gas."

B. The expectation of Brookhaven scientists was a bit unrealistic
The "aftermath of the Big Bang" lasted much less than 10^-35 seconds. This is evidenced by the fact that "Gravity Is THE Manifestation Of The Onset Of Cosmic Inflation Cataclysm" :
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/184.page#1950
and
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/184.page#1982
With all respect due to the scientists at Brookhaven it is very difficult to expect that they can recreate the state of pre big-bang energy-mass singularity.
Commonsense is still the best scientific approach.

Respectfully suggesting,
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=405&#entry396201
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/100/122.page#1407
============================
Commonsensible PS To
Gravity Limits Link Ultracold And Superhot,
Our Inability To Create Singularity

A. From "Strings Link the Ultracold with the Superhot"
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/42632/title/Strings_Link_the_Ultracold_with_the_Superhot

A new truth always has to contend with many difficulties,” the German physicist Max Planck said decades ago. “If it were not so, it would have been discovered much sooner.”

B. IMO gravity is attempted reversal of inflation

To me, a simple uninformed one, E=mc^2 is a derived formula, whereas E=Total[m(1 + D)] is a commonsensical descriptive concept.

I intuitively regard both the ultracold and superhot liquids as being in a confined space and "striving but unable" to overcome D, to render D=0.

I also intuitively regard our accelerated collisions smashups as attempted "reverse inflations" in the sense that Newton's law of universal gravitation seems to me as "reverse inflation".

Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)

???

August 25, 2008 by Anonymous, 44 weeks 4 days ago
Comment id: 31628

whuffa??

No need for Dark Energy!

May 12, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 7 weeks ago
Comment id: 29787

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

The issue is acceleration, not expansion

May 12, 2008 by Fred Bortz, 1 year 7 weeks ago
Comment id: 29789

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)

Acceleration and gravitation and inflation

April 30, 2009 by Anonymous, 9 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 36454

See the above posting by Dov Henis.

Gravitation is the reverse of Inflation. Ponder the implications of Newton's laws plus the relationship E=Total[m(1 + D)]. This explains the source of acceleration.

Best scientific approach is commonsense.

Dov Henis

Fred - I'm sorry to say you got it all wrong again!

May 14, 2008 by donzzz, 1 year 7 weeks ago
Comment id: 29833

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?

A suggested new thread for Don

May 15, 2008 by Fred Bortz, 1 year 7 weeks ago
Comment id: 29839

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)

more garbage

May 12, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 7 weeks ago
Comment id: 29785

more garbage

How very useful those "garbage" comments are -- NOT

May 12, 2008 by Fred Bortz, 1 year 7 weeks ago
Comment id: 29786

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)

Nonsense

May 12, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 7 weeks ago
Comment id: 29778

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.

Reply to David, who caught a typo, and Anonymous (Nonsense)

May 12, 2008 by Fred Bortz, 1 year 7 weeks ago
Comment id: 29779

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)

Reply to myself :)

May 12, 2008 by Fred Bortz, 1 year 7 weeks ago
Comment id: 29780

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)

Dark Energy and Voids

May 13, 2008 by Burt, 1 year 7 weeks ago
Comment id: 29802

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)

Alternate view, simplified.

May 12, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 7 weeks ago
Comment id: 29775

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...

A test

May 12, 2008 by Halliday, 1 year 7 weeks ago
Comment id: 29774

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, more mysteries

May 12, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 7 weeks ago
Comment id: 29772

more garbage



About us

Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.