Dark Energy - A Truly Stupid Question

I admit it. This is probably dumb, but here goes:

I’ve been reading up on dark matter and dark energy lately. It would seem that the universe is mostly made up of stuff we can’t see and don’t understand. One major physicist called ordinary matter “a little pollution.”

Dark matter and energy have been inferred from the math - apparently they have to exist because, among other things, they keep spinning galaxies from flying apart, due to the weakness of gravity given the force at which they spin.

I’m not saying this smacks of the ether. It’s a very different problem. But what I’m wondering is if a fundamental mistake has been made. Is it possible that we don’t see it because it isn’t there? That is, has there been some kind of fundamental and very basic misconception in the modes we’ve chosen to describe the universe?

Much has been made about Einstein thinking simply. When the evidence didn’t agree with accepted wisdom, he simply threw accepted wisdom out in an effort to get to the new reality underneath. His hunches - and much of relativity was little more than a hunch - were eventually verified.

In thinking simply, and being faced with the problem that the math doesn’t add up, we could say that it’s because we can’t see the bulk of things, or we can say simply that the math is wrong. I know that re-working an entire conception of the universe is far from a simple order, but does anyone in the know hold something like that as a possibility?

Hi artizzztik,

I don’t think it is a dumb question at all.

After skimming some of current literature on the subject, and so called “evidence” for dark energy, I think all they really know is that the classical models don’t work well on this scale.

Your observation, in my opinion, is a good one.

This is a very valid question, for example MOND theories or Modified Newtonian Dynamics theories question its existence(they prefer to postulate that the force of gravity may actually not be uniform or exactly somewhat equal to Newtons square inch law at large distances)

There has actually been some tentative evidence of dark matter

chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/

For two colliding galaxies though, so it is atm the most viable theory, but by viable I mean, we really are guessing about the nature of the Universe, and for all we know we’re merely misinterpreting things. Although with science until something better comes along we’re stuck with dark matter and energy, and it may be right? But it’d be a brave scientist who would stick his neck out and say it’s right.

I would personally love to see the math used for these equasions, it would probably be way beyond my level of understanding but it would be very cool to see regardless.

I think your question holds a great deal of validaty, if a mistake was made on a fundimental level one would likely need to entirely reevaluate the fundimentals.

In the context of dark matter one could compare the concept of mass to the modern models of the atom where it is mostly empty space, the two concepts dont really line up so what do we really know?

It gets even worse than that, it would seem. Mass is now held to belong to a particle called the Higgs Boson, a particle that has to be infused through all of space, which has never been detected. Mass is an effect of matter being dragged through a “Higgs ocean,” and different particles are effected by the ocean in different ways, giving them different masses.

Photons supposedly zip through unimpeded. They experience no drag, and it’s for this reason that their speed is always constant regardless of your frame of reference.

But the Higgs Boson is postulated. It’s never been found. So really, as far as fundamentals go, there’s an awful lot most people don’t know we don’t know.

And I wonder about just how large a wholesale revision of our fundamentals would be. It’s entirely possible that it’s beyond human understanding. If our premises are wrong for studying the universe, and dark matter and dark energy are placeholders for real phenomena we haven’t uncovered, it’s possible knowledge may grind to a halt forever. In my heart I feel that it’s impossible, but we don’t know what we don’t know.

It’s been found.

The ‘ether’ is the concept described by the under-acclaimed scientist Wilhelm Reich as ‘orgone (energy)’.

There have been many findings which are kept from public view.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

etc.

!

Yeah there is some tentative evidence of the Higgs Boson, from particle accelerator experiments at LEP. But it’s hardly hidden from the public eye, just go to the CERN web site and look at the evidence for yourself. Scientists are notoriously reserved about saying something is found without being sure, in some cases their professional standing can be destroyed by making rash expositions of tenuous evidence. At the moment, they think they may have seen certain particles that fit the pattern, but they are as yet unsure. Beware of conspiracy theorists though :slight_smile:

exploratorium.edu/origins/ce … higgs.html

hep.lu.se/atlas//thesis/eged … Production
[/quote]

It would be better to be named transparent energy/matter. What is happening is the compression of Bosons and Fermions, which we see as gamma-ray bursts and quasars.
The reason we do not see dark energy/matter is because the light is internally reflected, as it has not yet been compressed.
It is the emergent motion that has yet to manifest itself in our reality.
It is the percolation of reality as we perceive it.

Returning to your original statement that, surely, some fundamental error has been made, I’m sure you are right. I have had the same feeling for some years.

I suspect that the flaw is in the concept of matter. I suspect, to put it simply, that it doesn’t exist; all is energy. Science states that the radius of the nucleus is between 1/10,000th and 1/100,000th the radius of the atom, of which all matter is made. Hence only, maybe, one billionth of what we regard as solid matter is, in fact, solid at all.

We only get our ideas of ‘solids’ from what we perceive. But we now see that to be only an illusion. I suspect that the one billionth that is regarded as solid matter is, in fact, only a particularly dense form of energy. Since we, and our instruments, are all made of the same thing we are measuring, we naturally get consistent answers to our experiments.

We don’t need to change the results of our experiments, all the maths and physics is still relevant, we just need to change our basic concept of matter. The result of one minute ball of energy hitting another will be just the same as one ball of matter hitting another. One form of energy changing to another is, also, less philosophically disturbing than matter changing to energy.

Maybe others will comment.

some comment

The vacuum energy has been implicated strongly by many
scientist in the manifestation of both dark energy and dark matter.
But for the most part we ignore the vacuum energy because
it is the zero point energy for our measuring devices.
Zero degrees K is a theoretical minimum
that can be approached but not attained,
temperatures below the zero point,
about 3 degrees are not measured directly,
but are calculated.

Physicists have determined that even at absolute zero there is a vast well of energy that permeates the universe. This is what they call zero point energy, or dark energy.

The amount of dark energy in your fingernail is more than all the power plants on the planet produce.

I have asked many scientist to prove that even an atom exists, let alone sub atomic particles. No one has done so.

Can anyone prove that such things exist?

Can you prove that you exist?

Good question, but how do they find these numbers to start with and how do they know what equations to use.

There’s no dark matter on your finger nail. (Theoretically), if dark matter and matter collide they somehow cancel eachother out and turn into energy. Dark matter is no more energy-filled than matter.

Cogito ergo sum, btw. But that doesn’t help with proving atoms exist. It seems to me that one can not use science to help explain metaphysics, one can only use deductive logic (not inductive). Problems with epistemology come in, and you can’t be sure of anything.

d

I don’t think we see dark matter because it absorbs light, and is very diffuse, like black smoke casting a shadow.

Sorry to be an arse but…

That’s not dark matter that cancels with matter; its anti-matter that cancels with matter.

Zero point energy isn’t dark energy either. Zero pint energy is the filled energy states that exist below the lowest quantum energy level.

Bell’s theorem has nothing to do with dark matter or energy. It shows that there can’t be any valid local hidden variable theories for quantum mechanics. Why didn’t you link to this ‘orgone energy’ if its relevent?

Ok rant over…

Dark energy? I’ll comment on that when I’ve understood the equations.