# Could dark energy be an illusion?

## Recommended Posts

I'll try explain this as best i can without sounding too simple. Essentially we're saying that after 7 billion years this "dark energy" has started to expand the universe at some exponential rate (cant remember the exact exponent).

Anyway as a parallel, if we take a normal explosion for example and scale down the time into nanoseconds (or some other minute time variable) then we would be able to see the initial reaction happen such that the chemicals react (with one another or heat etc) we would see the actual chain reaction in nano seconds so initially we're seeing one chemical react with the next creating a larger and larger force as it goes. If it took say 7 nanoseconds for the entire reaction to happen, then we would have seen only a small amount of energy exerted up until that point and then after that there would be the entire force acting equally in each direction at an exponential rate until the energy was completely transformed so that the heat and expanding force have no energy left. Presuming that the exponential force, heat and whatever gasses are made is 10 times longer in nanoseconds then the total reaction took 77 nanoseconds, 7 of which were the initial chain reaction of atoms and the other 70 the actual force emitted (im guessing that the reaction will slow down as less energy is available so that initially for the first 35 nano seconds the force is exponential and then the other 35 the force slows down until its reached its limit).

So using this analogy, could we not say that its possible that the time frame in which were measuring the universe in, is infact relative to some conditions required of the universe for it to start "chain reacting", 1 possible condition (which i mentioned in my other post) could be that there needs to be so many supernova's before theres enough black holes to start pumping out huge jets of energy at close to the speed of light, forcing galaxies away from each other at the rate the solar systems are being sucked in by the the black hole.

Or alternatively, rather than superimposing a hypothetical chain reaction, just equate the chemical explosion to this "dark energy" and say that the chain reaction is some unknown variable, (such that the amount of time is long enough that the amount transformation of matter into EMW has decreased the overall mass enough for gravity to weaken, and perhaps the effect of the transformation of matter into EMW also acts as a tiny force. Like a rowing boat of sorts, except the paddles are the amount of matter turned into gamma rays which exerts a tiny a force in the opposite direction (but there would be ALOT of these transformations), This is another hypothetical but i simply mean that there are some pre-disposed variables for the amount of time its taken, the 7 billion or so years for this dark energy to start becoming a expanding force.

Which could then imply that the "dark energy" is simply an expansion force based on some pre-defined variables and that it only has a limited amount of energy (which would certainly be true if the black hole hypothesis were true because essentially were all just waiting to get sucked into a black hole and become energy of some description, but once the matter runs out, so does the "fuel" for dark energy.)

Anyway thought i'd throw it out there. Mainly because im not keen on creating random names for forces that have probable cause and might just be an illusion relative to how we perceive time.

One final note, if dark energy is essentially doing the inverse of gravity but exponentially so, wouldnt that infer that we wouldnt actually collide with the andromeda galaxy, or are we too close in terms of time relative to the force of dark energy?

Regards.

##### Share on other sites

The universe has always been expanding post Big Bang.

We believe it expanded exponentially ( inflation ) in the brief instant following the Big Band, and then 'settled down' into a nice leisurely, close to linear expansion.

Lately in the last several Bil yrs, the expansion seems to be accelerating again ( not as extremely as inflation, however ), indicating that whatever effect drives expansion, it has changed.

This change is labelled dark energy.

##### Share on other sites

I understand that, but im trying to say is the label and possibly the effects are illusions, Yes they are happening but for a reason.

Okay if i amend my analogy slightly to incorporate inflation (which is general consensus, best idea we have) and say that this specific chemical reaction took 1 nano second for the chain reaction to take place, then 1 nanosecond later it released all its energy, but after 5 more nanoseconds another explosion was due as a secondary reaction to first (took 5 nano seconds for the chemicals to reform with the gasses released).

Then you can have the secondary explosion be a very slow reacting one, it takes 2.5 nanosecond for each part of the chain to hit the next and the chain is 4 chemical links away. so over the next 10 nanoseconds the explosion slowly builds up (17 nanoseconds in) at which point it uses all its energy in 1 nanosecond and the reaction is over.

It can be reworded in many ways but the primary point is that what were calling "dark energy" obviously has a cause, in my analogy you wouldnt could the second reaction "dark energy" because you know its a secondary reaction from the first, so what im eluding to is the fact theres a logical conclusion and this "energy" might not be energy at all.

Imagine spacetime, atomic clocks tick faster the higher up in altitude you go, so arguably gravity and time are relative, the more gravity, the slower time becomes. Therefore you could say its taken 7 billion years for gravity to disband far enough from each other such that the time in-between galaxies is now getting faster and faster and some minuscule changes in one galaxy (such as billions of gamma rays firing from all the suns of the solar systems) is having a larger impact because the time inbetween galaxies is going so fast, and this cycle is perpetuating. (Obviously this isnt true, but if it were, then "dark energy" would be an illusion)

And i think there will be some fundamental cause to why it suddenly started expanding, at which point dark energy will be seen as placeholder for the actual cause, which will probably some equation relative to distance, spacetime and gravity (and possibly black holes, antimatter, a whole plethora of things)

I think i mentioned in my other OP it could be something as simple as requiring x amount of supernova's so that gravity is decreased enough for expansion to start picking up pace.

in such a case "dark energy" is nothing more than a time variable relative to the amount of matter that has been converted into other energies like gamma and light. It wouldnt even be a form of energy in such a case.

Sorry if i seem a little OTT here, im just trying to convey that i perfectly well understand what "dark energy" stands for, but i also think there's a logical reason behind it, and that the whole thing has the possibility of being an illusion.

##### Share on other sites

People are wondering if dark energy could be removed by more sophisticated cosmological models not based on FRW cosmologies. Basically, the idea is that dark energy is an artefact of fixing the observations to the lambda CDM model and that an inhomogeneous cosmology could remove the need for dark energy. Most cosmologists I think are not as of yet taking this idea too seriously, for one they violate the cosmological principle.

##### Share on other sites

The universe has always been expanding post Big Bang.

We believe it expanded exponentially ( inflation ) in the brief instant following the Big Band, and then 'settled down' into a nice leisurely, close to linear expansion.

Lately in the last several Bil yrs, the expansion seems to be accelerating again ( not as extremely as inflation, however ), indicating that whatever effect drives expansion, it has changed.

This change is labelled dark energy.

I'm not a physicist though I'm somewhat aware of why inflation is assumed. However, I always assumed that accelerated expansion was constant through time. Are you saying that galaxies beyond some number of light years distance are not accelerating away from us while closer galaxies are?

Wouldn't that imply that dark energy would need to be introduced into the universe at some point?

Edit to add: Now I'm wondering if this could this be some kind of exponential decay relationship that transitioned past the knee of the curve perhaps it's a net mass to energy conversion over time as heavier elements are created that might account for this? Just speculating...

Or maybe mass to energy conversion as mass gets sucked up by black holes? Though, That would seem to imply that galaxies should be losing their integrity as well.

Edited by TakenItEasy
##### Share on other sites

Wouldn't that imply that dark energy would need to be introduced into the universe at some point?

It is generally thought that dark energy has always had a constant effect but at some point this became stronger than the effects of gravity (as things got further apart).

##### Share on other sites

It is generally thought that dark energy has always had a constant effect but at some point this became stronger than the effects of gravity (as things got further apart).

Ok, thanks!

I was just starting to reach that same kind of a conclusion as a decreasing concentration about some hypothetical universal center of gravity.

I'm sure it's all been well thought out before, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I just can't stop myself once I start thinking down a certain path.

Here's an idea that might not have been explored. As a poker player in a poker tournament, we experience this thing called ICM, where player action destroys monetary value locally and instantaneously distributes that value to the entire field. This is caused by the effect that chip value is dynamic and relativistic due to money awarded to players when they go broke as opposed to cashing out.

So, I understand that black holes go through some kind of slow decay of mass over time. Since energy can't escape, perhaps it's just instantaneously distributed to the rest of the universe somehow as dark energy? This would convert a localized gravity effect to a universal acceleration effect perhaps? To explain the acceleration as opposed to deceleration that gravity alone could account for.

Edited by TakenItEasy
##### Share on other sites

So, I understand that black holes go through some kind of slow decay of mass over time. Since energy can't escape, perhaps it's just instantaneously distributed to the rest of the universe somehow as dark energy?

The only (known) mechanism for black holes to lose mass is via Hawking radiation. This is thermal radiation. But, for any realistic sized black hole, this is insignificant and far less than the amount of mass and energy that the black hole gains.

##### Share on other sites

The only (known) mechanism for black holes to lose mass is via Hawking radiation. This is thermal radiation. But, for any realistic sized black hole, this is insignificant and far less than the amount of mass and energy that the black hole gains.

I see. That's too bad, because I was thinking that black holes might not be bound by the speed of light for energy distribution. Perhaps the gravitational effects are expressed locally but maybe singularities were all extra dimensionally close so energy could be distributed across the universe through something like a singularity net. Kind of like how chips on a poker table all still exist locally but their value is dynamically fluctuating universally.

##### Share on other sites

There's no reason to think they are (bound by SOL), I'm not sure anyone knows what happens in them as obviously they suck in all energy and light etc. I'm sure they redistribute the energy in some other form, i imagine matter completely dissipates and perhaps sub atomic particles are stripped down further than we currently have knowledge of. Strange how supernova either give us gold or black holes.

As for the dark energy i assume it's related to time, loss of matter and gravity and possibly something regarding black hole interaction.

I always wondered if once we got the furthest reaches of the universe in which we would expand (excluding the big freeze and perceptual "dark energy"), if time would go back on itself, and just rewind all the way to the big bang.

##### Share on other sites

It seemed to me that the 4x gravity over our own spacetime mass and the ~4x energy over that total implied a new particle model that provided multipliers over distance, but not so locally. That seemed to require some extradimensional space framework.

This is as opposed to finding independant sources that we can't detect seeming so unlikely for something so much bigger than all known matter.

Before dark matter was known, I'd always thought that a particle wave model must be represented by a point on a rolling wheel that would define a wave and a particle just like three points define a plane. However, I could never imagine how a single particle could move in that revolving motion so it required a second particle. At that time I thought it would double our gravity which I thought was a detractor for this model, until dark matter made it a supporter of this model.

since we also needed a second perpendicular wave to complete our model, it seemed a little too convenient that doubling the pairs accounted for all the extra gravity needed. I would imagine it required some extradimensional forces to bind this model together, though I had no idea if electromagnetic forces would still work extra-dimensionally.

The other thing I liked about this model would be that gravity wells would only be expressed in their own particular dimensional space times but since the particles were bound to each other, then the long distance attractions would be accumulative for 4x the force.

I never got as far as trying to adapt it for dark energy and I'm just spitballing ideas but what if for every particle that gets merged into a singularity the other 3/4 dark matter gets converted into energy.

could using E=3MCC for all BH masses create enough energy despite black holes making up for such a small percentage of known matter?

IDK, I'm only trying to account for the fact that DM needs to act at 4X over galactic distances yet not do nothing extra to force collapsing stars. Same thing with DE, when they only count to accelerate galaxies, while not blowing them apart.

I'm pretty decent at creating logical constructs, but I don't really understand the math behind the science so I was wondering if it was a viable construct based on what we know.

##### Share on other sites

It seems I am censored differently than everyone. This is not mainstream, but uses my keen common sense.

If you assume there is no preferred reference in the universe, than one cannot do a universal energy balance. Conservation of energy requires a preferred reference and reference hierarchy, so energy be properly added.

As an example, say we have two rockets ships in space, one with mass M and the other with mass 2M. They are in relative motion with a velocity V. Looking out the window at each other, we cannot tell who is in motion; no preferred reference. If we do an energy balance, if M was in motion the kinetic energy will equal 1/2MV2, while if ship 2M is in motion the kinetic energy will be twice that or MV2. If we assume no preferred reference, we cannot guarantee an accurate energy balance.

Dark energy might be an artifact of assuming ship M is in motion, when in fact ship 2M has the motion. This makes us underestimate energy by 1/2. There is a preferred reference in terms of an energy balance. Since in this example, we have under estimated the total energy of the universe, we may need to postulate another source of energy, to account for observations beyond our relative energy balance; dark energy.

If I was on a train in motion, I may think I am stationary and the mountain range in the background is moving at V. That is a lot of extra kinetic energy that is now added to my energy balance. Since this is not real, eventually other observations will appear that show we have too much energy. We may then need to postulate an energy leak to other dimensions.

Edited by puppypower
##### Share on other sites

If you assume there is no preferred reference in the universe, than one cannot do a universal energy balance. Conservation of energy requires a preferred reference and reference hierarchy, so energy be properly added.

I think you are trying to say that energy is not absolute, but is observer dependent. This is correct but your description is rather unclear (to say the least).

##### Share on other sites

No Strange, I believe the answer is staring him in the face, but he is still trying to do energy conservation across frames.

##### Share on other sites

It seems I am censored differently than everyone. This is not mainstream, but uses my keen common sense.

!

Moderator Note

Your keen common sense should direct you to follow the rules of the forum. That is, you respond with mainstream science rather than your own pet theories. The only place to discuss personal theories is in their own thread in speculations.

You are not being held to a higher standard than anyone else is.

It seemed to me that

!

Moderator Note

The above applies to you, too. If you have some alternate explanation to explore, please do it in speculations.

##### Share on other sites

It seems I am censored differently than everyone. This is not mainstream, but uses my keen common sense.

If you assume there is no preferred reference in the universe, than one cannot do a universal energy balance. Conservation of energy requires a preferred reference and reference hierarchy, so energy be properly added.

As an example, say we have two rockets ships in space, one with mass M and the other with mass 2M. They are in relative motion with a velocity V. Looking out the window at each other, we cannot tell who is in motion; no preferred reference. If we do an energy balance, if M was in motion the kinetic energy will equal 1/2MV2, while if ship 2M is in motion the kinetic energy will be twice that or MV2. If we assume no preferred reference, we cannot guarantee an accurate energy balance.

Dark energy might be an artifact of assuming ship M is in motion, when in fact ship 2M has the motion. This makes us underestimate energy by 1/2. There is a preferred reference in terms of an energy balance. Since in this example, we have under estimated the total energy of the universe, we may need to postulate another source of energy, to account for observations beyond our relative energy balance; dark energy.

If I was on a train in motion, I may think I am stationary and the mountain range in the background is moving at V. That is a lot of extra kinetic energy that is now added to my energy balance. Since this is not real, eventually other observations will appear that show we have too much energy. We may then need to postulate an energy leak to other dimensions.

I've briefly heard of entropy balance being a process of gravity. Not sure if that relates to your "universal energy balance"?

In regards to your preferential reference being a process of "dark energy", i think the reference is universal in so much as we see that galaxies are expanding away from each other relative to each other, not to us.

I recently watched a documentary that said the sporadic creation and annihilation of matter and anti matter particles that happen all the time might be a partial cause to this "dark energy" .

!

Moderator Note

Your keen common sense should direct you to follow the rules of the forum. That is, you respond with mainstream science rather than your own pet theories. The only place to discuss personal theories is in their own thread in speculations.

You are not being held to a higher standard than anyone else is.

!

Moderator Note

The above applies to you, too. If you have some alternate explanation to explore, please do it in speculations.

I think i've done quite well not to be pushed into speculation already, i suppose dark energy isn't actually understood though so im not contradicting science that already exists. I'm surprised there's not many people that have idea's regarding the logical cause of this phenomenon. It's quite open for interpretation.

Edited by DevilSolution
##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account