Universe's energy density (split from new mass creation)

[EdEarl]

In any case, as it is stated:

 

 

 

If that is correct;

What could be the source for this extra Dark Energy?

Is it due to a new energy creation?

If yes, than it could violet the Energy Conservation.

In order to keep the Energy Conservation, this extra dark energy should comes out of the total available energy in the Universe.

So, does it mean that some of the dark mass or ordinary mass have been transformed to Dark Energy?

 

The energy density is thought to remain constant as the Universe expands. I don't know why, but I'll share a speculation of mine, never before shared. It is (italics) as follows:

 

This speculation is partly based on things in my post above (#32). Assuming real particles are created by vacuum energy, and those particles are protons and electrons that combine to make hydrogen. Furthermore, assume enough are created to offset the matter density decrease caused by the Universe expanding. Then, the Universe would be forever expanding, yet appear more or less as it does today, with stars and galaxies forever being created by newly created matter. The mass outside the Universal Event Horizon is extremely large. In fact, in every direction would be as much mass or more than exists within the Event Horizon. The gravity of that extrauniversal mass would cause our visible universe to expand and would be the source of Dark Energy as we know it. However, this speculation doesn't explain anything, really. I'm pretty sure there is evidence to refute this speculation.

 

Wikipedia

Cosmologists estimate that the acceleration began roughly 5 billion years ago. Before that, it is thought that the expansion was decelerating, due to the attractive influence of dark matter and baryons. The density of dark matter in an expanding universe decreases more quickly than dark energy, and eventually the dark energy dominates. Specifically, when the volume of the universe doubles, the density of dark matter is halved, but the density of dark energy is nearly unchanged (it is exactly constant in the case of a cosmological constant).

[David Levy]

 

The energy density is thought to remain constant as the Universe expands. I don't know why, but I'll share a speculation of mine, never before shared. It is (italics) as follows:

 

This speculation is partly based on things in my post above (#32). Assuming real particles are created by vacuum energy, and those particles are protons and electrons that combine to make hydrogen. Furthermore, assume enough are created to offset the matter density decrease caused by the Universe expanding. Then, the Universe would be forever expanding, yet appear more or less as it does today, with stars and galaxies forever being created by newly created matter. The mass outside the Universal Event Horizon is extremely large. In fact, in every direction would be as much mass or more than exists within the Event Horizon. The gravity of that extrauniversal mass would cause our visible universe to expand and would be the source of Dark Energy as we know it. However, this speculation doesn't explain anything, really. I'm pretty sure there is evidence to refute this speculation.

 

Wikipedia

 

Thanks

With this speculation, you try to explain how we can overcome the paradox which is:

1. The cosmologic constant must be constant

2. The Total Energy of the Universe must be constant

However, I assume that it isn't expected to discuss about speculations in this tread

In any case, I would like to focus on the paradox itself.

Normally, paradox is a clear indication for an error.

So, is there any chance that we have made an error in our equations, calculations, assumptions, constants, initial conditions..?

Do we consider to renavigate our path?

 

Edited February 26, 2016 by David Levy

[swansont]

 

I'll share a speculation of mine

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Any post that includes this should be in its own thread in speculation. Not as a response to someone else's thread, especially in a mainstream section. Therefore I have split this off for its own discussion.