# QuestionIs “dark energy” (Λ) a reaction term?

#### PBWilson

In the Standard Model, action and reaction were left out, to make the math manageable. Try solving Einstein’s tensor-matrix-calculus, and you’ll see why. Star and galaxy formation constitute the main “action” in the cosmos. Such action—collapse—cannot occur without reaction—expansion. Core-collapse supernovae being the most dramatic examples of this principle.

Quantifying reaction in the cosmos requires at least two factors, eta (η) and R_i. Eta is the efficiency with which collapse is coupled to expansion (0 < η < 1); R_i is the distance over which this coupling occurs. See link, below, for a complete description of η and R_i.

It is suggested that:

Λ = η/(R_i)^2

This equation, using known factors, yields the observed value of lambda, or dark energy. Mystery solved?

An equation is considered the “gold standard” in physics. The video explains the equation, in layman’s terms. It is NOT commercial spam. It is educational, shedding much light on dark energy. The question is valid, and warrants an answer. Let those who are curious have at it.

Thank you.

Dark Energy Dialogue:
View: https://youtu.be/4goInwbOix4

Last edited by a moderator:

#### AirDiamond19834

According to one idea, dark energy is a fifth and previously unknown type of fundamental force called quintessence, which fills the universe like a fluid. According to Einstein, the constant would be a repulsive force that counteracts gravity, keeping the universe from collapsing in on itself.

#### Helio

The big science today on DE will likely come from HETDEX. They are doing fantastic observations into much farther regions. They use about 35k fiber optics to observed a relatively large area of the sky, given the scopes giant aperture (~ 22 sq. arcminutes).

There will no doubt be many stories coming here at Space.com on the many results to come.

Also, McDonald Obs. is one of the few that are operating during the pandemic, which should get them even more attention than normal. They, wisely, elected to go with automation so that often only one person is needed on site.

One comment from the lead scientist is that we don't know if Dark Energy is dark and we don't know if it is energy. It is simply a term that arose to address the accelerating rate observed for the expansion of galaxies away from one another.

Last edited:

#### voidpotentialenergy

An interesting look at expansion over different location objects.
Expansion in perspective might prove out that dark energy is just an illusion of perspective.
Dark matter is a different story but i suspect dark matter is temp quantum particle creation in the great E balance of quantum fluctuation.
Dark matter effect exists but dark matter as an item only exists from that instant before particle annihilation.
A steady state of mass that exists as random temp gravity with a + effect on the universe but no mass location.

As for expansion dark energy breaks a few energy rules trying to speed the universe expansion.
Other external universes gravity i think is a far more elegant solution to a faster expanding universe ( if it is even expanding faster)

#### PBWilson

Thanks, all.

I guess that answers my question. The dark energy enigma stems from sloppy science, not nature hiding anything. Interesting...

#### Helio

I guess that answers my question. The dark energy enigma stems from sloppy science, not nature hiding anything. Interesting...
Are you being facetious?

Well, sloppy implies that they made guesses that were obviously erroneous from the start. Sloppy science would be like all those who claimed Galileo's optics on all those early telescopes were at fault when observing those orbiting bright lights around Jupiter.

DE is just a label we give the acceleration component of the expansion so we have something to define. Once we define something -- thanks to extensive observations -- we can make wise guesses and begin testing those ideas. Some DE theories (non-sloppy) have already been falsified, so I'm told, but dozens more remain.

The new HETDEX efforts are just beginning to help us with the definition of what DE might be. It could easily not be energy or dark, thus labels aren't always what they should be. Ask astronomy teachers how much they like the name for our 7th planet -- Uranus?

#### voidpotentialenergy

Thanks, all.

I guess that answers my question. The dark energy enigma stems from sloppy science, not nature hiding anything. Interesting...
Yep dark flow has a totally different opinion about dark energy.
Got to wonder how dark energy could have different properties in different locations depending on what you look at.
And then the energy creation properties of dark energy doom it.
Dark energy could exist but IMO as temp particle creation energy of fluctuation.
IMO dark energy was needed to explain the accelerating universe.
I think other universes do a far better job of pulling the universe apart with no mystery energy creation process of dark energy.
1 universe in an endless sea and dark flow math works.

Last edited:

#### PBWilson

Helio: No. I am not being facetious.

My thesis, in short, is that the scientific authorities have erred: they added a supernatural force to the model, Λ, before accounting for the natural forces, η and R_i.

Their work is not sloppy. Pardon me. The historic path to the present conundrum took a long, winding trajectory, and each step was taken with the utmost care. But human endeavor is not infallible. Like children in a house-of-mirrors, they have gotten turned around, without realizing it. They added an unknown to the model, Λ, before accounting for the known, η and R_i, and see nothing wrong with that.

If you believe consensus science to be infallible, then my assertion is going to look wrong. My equation, my video, my adjectives: all will appear incredulous, at best. Yet when you take off the goggles of infallibility, and look at the subject with a critical eye, suddenly it all makes sense. The known factors, η and R_i, have to be taken into account before adding an unknown factor, Λ.

rabsal

#### Wolf28

So - dark matter really isn't anything tangible at all. We can see its effect, but we cannot see IT. It's like gravity, a force we can't see, and appears to correlate with the mass of an object so we assign that mystery to "an attractive force produced in proportion and relation to an object's mass". But that's really no explanation of what gravity is at all. It's kind of like not knowing what causes cars to move down the road and just saying, "ok, anything with wheels can move down the road". Yes! But what causes the movement??? With dark matter, we can't even point to the matter that's causing the gravity! It's missing. But stubbornly, instead of revisiting the theory, we just presume the matter has to be there. So instead of seeing this "dark matter" as a clue to gravity, we're going to give "dark energy" the mysterious property of invisibility instead. Creating an entirely new, yet invisible form of matter no one's ever seen.

And we do the same thing with the energy of the universe. Once we can't account for "the rest of it", once we can't form a theory that explains the entirety of it, we simply say - the rest of the 67% of the universe is made up of "dark energy".

And I can understand it - we have to name these things something. But if you can't form a theory that describes the Universe as it's observed or deduced, then your theory is wrong. You can't say it's right but, oh yeah, I'm not going to account for 67% of it. Known Baryonic matter 5%. Dark matter 28%. Dark energy 67%. So we know nothing about 95% of the universe's makeup yet we wonder why we can't understand gravity.

Take it from me, yes, a layman; there is no dark energy, there is no dark matter, there aren't even any "black holes", lol - there is just missing science. But scientists don't like incomplete theories - so they fill them in with creative placeholders so that the rest of us won't notice the holes. And these are gaping holes not even a child should miss.

I'm not calling into question the science we know, nor our scientific method. Eventually, I believe science will get us there. I whole-heartedly believe in "the science". I'm just sayin... for those who think we are so advanced, I beg to differ. We are babes in the woods. That's why we can fly in Earth's atmosphere relatively easy now - it's a well-known science - relatively speaking. But to go into Earth orbit and beyond, we're still using brute force methods to get there.

To me, our spacecraft are like the old wooden ships from centuries past. Fragile and inefficient. We don't understand gravity, therefore we use brute-force to defeat it instead of using it to our advantage, like we did with aerodynamics. The fuel for the space shuttle weighed 20 times more than the shuttle itself! Imagine if we had to do that for aircraft? A 747 will hold 322,650 lbs of jet fuel, and the aircraft weight empty is 403,500 lbs. We're never going to be able to get to space with less fuel than ship until we understand gravity. And we'll never be a space-faring civilization without understanding it either. IMO, gravity is key to all of it. And dark matter and energy are the clues.

Last edited:

#### Helio

[sorry I didn't see this post till now.]
My thesis, in short, is that the scientific authorities have erred: they added a supernatural force to the model, Λ, before accounting for the natural forces, η and R_i.
They did not add a "supernatural" force unless you simply mean a force that they have yet to identify, which all expect to be a natural one. Supernatural implies non-testable things (ie spiritual).

Like children in a house-of-mirrors, they have gotten turned around, without realizing it. They added an unknown to the model, Λ, before accounting for the known, η and R_i, and see nothing wrong with that.
Science often takes baby first steps to new phenomena, but that's not an indication they are babies.

If you believe consensus science to be infallible, then my assertion is going to look wrong.
Consensus science isn't science at all. It can help sway people, usually for the good. I keep mentioning the story of Einstein when 100 leading philosophers, authors and a few scientists claimed his Relativity was wrong. Einstein responded saying only one was needed, not 100.

#### Helio

So - dark matter really isn't anything tangible at all. We can see its effect, but we cannot see IT. It's like gravity, a force we can't see, and appears to correlate with the mass of an object so we assign that mystery to "an attractive force produced in proportion and relation to an object's mass". But that's really no explanation of what gravity is at all. It's kind of like not knowing what causes cars to move down the road and just saying, "ok, anything with wheels can move down the road". Yes! But what causes the movement???
Yes, we understand the effects of gravity extremely well but we don't clearly know what it actually or how it does what it does.

With dark energy, we can't even point to the matter that's causing the gravity! It's missing.
Although gravity is associated with matter, it is expected that DE will not be associated with matter but with or within spacetime itself.

DM (Dark Matter) is some sort of matter that behaves very similar to normal matter but we haven't been able to get our hands on it, so to speak.

And I can understand it - we have to name these things something. But if you can't form a theory that describes the Universe as it's observed or deduced, then your theory is wrong.
There are perhaps two dozen theories for DE. Science is about taking hard evidence, using ideas as to what may explain what is observed, formulating hypotheses or theories, then go about trying to falsify (not proof) the claims within the hypothesis or theory.

Take it from me, yes, a layman; there is no dark energy, there is no dark matter, there aren't even any "black holes", lol - there is just missing science. But scientists don't like incomplete theories - so they fill them in with creative placeholders so that the rest of us won't notice the holes. And these are gaping holes not even a child should miss.
What would be the better explanation for all the evidence found that support the concept of dark matter, or what is constantly observed around black holes. The LIGO observations do a great job arguing for their collisions, as opposed to any other explanation.

DM and blackholes aren't in lala land, but DE kinda is since we only have one line of evidence (from many observations) that the universe is accelerating in its expansion rate. Something is responsible for this and DE is the label given to it.

IMO, gravity is key to all of it. And dark matter and energy are the clues.

That could be right.

Wolf28

#### voidpotentialenergy

So - dark matter really isn't anything tangible at all. We can see its effect, but we cannot see IT. It's like gravity, a force we can't see, and appears to correlate with the mass of an object so we assign that mystery to "an attractive force produced in proportion and relation to an object's mass". But that's really no explanation of what gravity is at all. It's kind of like not knowing what causes cars to move down the road and just saying, "ok, anything with wheels can move down the road". Yes! But what causes the movement??? With dark energy, we can't even point to the matter that's causing the gravity! It's missing. But stubbornly, instead of revisiting the theory, we just presume matter has to be there. So instead of seeing this "dark matter" as a clue to gravity, we're going to give "dark energy" the mysterious property of invisibility instead. Creating an entirely new, yet invisible form of matter no one's ever seen.

And we do the same thing with the energy of the universe. Once we can't account for "the rest of it", once we can't form a theory that explains the entirety of it, we simply say - the rest of the 67% of the universe is made up of "dark energy".

And I can understand it - we have to name these things something. But if you can't form a theory that describes the Universe as it's observed or deduced, then your theory is wrong. You can't say it's right but, oh yeah, I'm not going to account for 67% of it. Known Baryonic matter 5%. Dark matter 28%. Dark energy 67%. So we know nothing about 95% of the universe's makeup yet we wonder why we can't understand gravity.

Take it from me, yes, a layman; there is no dark energy, there is no dark matter, there aren't even any "black holes", lol - there is just missing science. But scientists don't like incomplete theories - so they fill them in with creative placeholders so that the rest of us won't notice the holes. And these are gaping holes not even a child should miss.

I'm not calling into question the science we know, nor our scientific method. Eventually, I believe science will get us there. I whole-heartedly believe in "the science". I'm just sayin... for those who think we are so advanced, I beg to differ. We are babes in the woods. That's why we can fly in Earth's atmosphere relatively easy now - it's a well-known science - relatively speaking. But to go into Earth orbit and beyond, we're still using brute force methods to get there.

To me, our spacecraft are like the old wooden ships from centuries past. Fragile and inefficient. We don't understand gravity, therefore we use brute-force to defeat it instead of using it to our advantage, like we did with aerodynamics. The fuel for the space shuttle weighed 20 times more than the shuttle itself! Imagine if we had to do that for aircraft? A 747 will hold 322,650 lbs of jet fuel, and the aircraft weight empty is 403,500 lbs. We're never going to be able to get to space with less fuel than ship until we understand gravity. And we'll never be a space-faring civilization without understanding it either. IMO, gravity is key to all of it. And dark matter and energy are the clues.

If the big bang is the universe then creating a start point for it is impossible.
The big bang as just an event in the universe that is all quantum fluctuation forever filled with many other big bangs and we have a plausible start point for a big bang as fluctuation created permanent particles until it balances energy.
Dark matter/energy could simply be properties or temp creation/destruction of matter/energy in a balance act of quantum fluctuation.
Gravity simply a compression of it.

JMO though, but a start point to a plausible big bang reason is an attractive starting place to look at the probable reality of the universe that has no start or end and we are just 1 of an infinite big bangs in a forever of fluctuation.
.

#### Wolf28

Although gravity is associated with matter, it is expected that DE will not be associated with matter but with or within spacetime itself.
I edited my OP. My intention was to say dark "matter" there and just had a senior moment. Thanks for not beating me up to bad over it. My apologies.

#### voidpotentialenergy

I edited my OP. My intention was to say dark "matter" there and just had a senior moment. Thanks for not beating me up to bad over it. My apologies.
Yep as temp matter from fluctuation energy balance.
X big bang universe X distance X temp particle creation of energy balance of QF = temp dark matter.
Easy math and fits missing mass.

#### PBWilson

Regarding the video, Ivan wrote, “I expected very little. This was actually very, very good!”

You can lead a horse to water; you can’t make it drink. A coherent accounting of the accelerating expansion is there, for anyone who thirsts for understanding.