An Alternative to Dark Energy

Nateb123 · 2008 September 15th, 04:14

The concept of dark energy has been bugging me for quite some time now so I figured I'd give finding a solution a try. My math background is limited so this is all with no numbers put to it but the reasoning seems sound, which is the problem. Nothing interesting happens when you just reconfirm what you already know, so some critiquing is in order. Anyways, on to the hypothesis:

Rather than having dark energy (a force that is applied in a scalar fashion to all matter that opposes gravity), why not just have gravity pulling from the outside of the known universe? More specifically, make the edge of the known universe VERY far from the edges of what we regard as the universe, but not to the point where it's infinitely far (you'll see why soon). So there is this huge boundary of the universe that we've contrived, now it needs one key quality: mass, and tons of it. Now, there is a gravitational force that is pulling on the known universe, but since it is so far away, it's gravitational effects are seen to be very linear due to the relatively small distance our universe occupies. All we end up seeing is an acceleration of the universe when we look at redshifts. How quick this acceleration occurs would give an indication of the mass and distance we are dealing with.

After writing this I'm getting the sinking feeling my basic math skills relating to asymptotes (like when r goes to infinity for Gm/r^2) is rustier than I thought. Still, can't hurt to post this :)

EDIT: It occurs to me that if space were to exist on a 4 dimensional sphere, the boundary on the edge of the universe could be replaced by a single very dense object on the opposite side of the 4-sphere from where the big band originated. This does seem to be a requirement for this replacement of dark energy idea since gravity would collapse a massive boundary (which it would have to be if the universe is flat) unless it were made of something particularly exotic...and exotic just isn't my thing haha.

RobertR · 2008 September 15th, 06:10

Pick a spot in the known universe. Why would there be more mass to the left of it than to the right?

Nateb123 · 2008 September 15th, 07:15

Not sure how that question was intended so I'm not sure if I'll address it properly, but I'll try.

If you're referring to the idea of having a big mass on the opposite side of the 4-sphere, it's not the same mass as that from the big bang, so it wouldn't be included when saying the universe is homogenous on a large scale since that's due to the big bang. Not assuming I would know where such a mass would come from, but since we don't even know how the mass that makes US up came into existence, it's pretty hard to say much. I do wonder if it could be a result of the shape of spacetime itself. If space is curved even slightly, it would eventually touch itself, but that doesn't mean it would necessarily just make a nice 4-sphere of a universe. It could do god knows what. After all, currently space is likely just expanding into vacuum, not into more space so it certainly begs the question.

If you're referring to something else...please say so, since it's getting me thinking!

iLearn · 2008 September 15th, 09:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nateb123

After all, currently space is likely just expanding into vacuum, not into more space so it certainly begs the question.

When we talk about the expansion of the Universe, we don't mean it's expanding _into_ something, since there might not be anything to expand into (no space, no time ie. not even a void). What is meant by expansion is the kind of stretching you see when you blow air into a balloon.

Edit: My analogy is neither the best nor the only one. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_...nsion_of_space

wound · 2008 September 15th, 19:14

The need for dark matter / dark energy arises from the belief that the universe is expanding and red shift proports distance by the velocity of a stellar object away from the viewer.

If it can be proven that velocity is not fully responsible for the observed red shifts of stellar objects the requirements for dark matter / energy go away.

Indeed all of physics and cosmology would have to be re-written.

Here's a list of papers supporting the argument that cosmological redshifts are not solely a function of velocity.

Observations show high redshift quasars or other active galaxies in front of low redshift galaxies, they also show a correlation between observed quasar fields and galaxy clusters.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/305779

Quasars around the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 3516
The Astrophysical Journal, 500:596–598, 1998 June 20 © 1998. The American Astronomical Society.
DOI: 10.1086/305779

We report redshift measurements of five X-ray–emitting blue stellar objects located less than 12from the X-ray Seyfert galaxy NGC 3516. We find these quasars to be distributed along the minor axis of the galaxy and to show a very good correlation between their redshift and their angular distance from NGC 3516. Moreover, the redshifts of these five quasars are 0.33, 0.69, 0.93, 1.40, and 2.10, which are very near the peaks of the redshift periodicity distribution (i.e., z = 0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, and 1.96). All these observed properties strikingly confirm, around this single example of a Seyfert, the composite picture derived from previous physical associations of quasars with low-redshift active galaxies.

Su Min Tang and Shuang Nan Zhang. (2005) Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data. The Astrophysical Journal 633:1, 41-51
Online publication date: 1-Nov-2005.
Abstract-Full Text-PDF Version (516 kB)

David G. Russell. (2005) Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies. Astrophysics and Space Science 298:4, 577-602
Online publication date: 1-Sep-2005.

E. Zackrisson. (2005) On quasar host galaxies as tests of non-cosmological redshifts. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 359:3, 1193-1200
Online publication date: 1-Jun-2005.

M. B. Bell. (2004) Distances of Quasars and Quasar-like Galaxies: Further Evidence That Quasi-stellar Objects May Be Ejected from Active Galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal 616:2, 738-744
Online publication date: 1-Dec-2004.
Abstract-Full Text-PDF Version (209 kB)

Piotr Popowski, Wolfgang Weinzierl. (2004) A test for the origin of quasar redshifts. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 348:1, 235-240
Online publication date: 1-Mar-2004.

C.F. Gallo. (2004) Redshifts of cosmological neutrinos as definitive experimental test of doppler versus non-Doppler redshifts. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 31:6, 1230-1231
Online publication date: 1-Jan-2004.

G. Burbidge. (2003) NGC 6212, 3C 345, and Other Quasi-stellar Objects Associated with Them. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 586:2, L119-L122
Online publication date: 1-Apr-2003.
Abstract-Full Text-PDF Version (127 kB)

G. R. Burbidge. (2003) The Sources of Gamma-Ray Bursts and Their Connections with QSOs and Active Galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal 585:1, 112-120
Online publication date: 1-Mar-2003.
Abstract-Full Text-PDF Version (187 kB)

M. B. Bell. (2002) On Quasar Distances and Lifetimes in a Local Model. The Astrophysical Journal 567:2, 801-810
Online publication date: 10-Mar-2002.
Abstract-Full Text-PDF Version (272 kB)

M. B. Bell. (2002) Further Evidence for Large Intrinsic Redshifts. The Astrophysical Journal 566:2, 705-711
Online publication date: 20-Feb-2002.
Abstract-Full Text-PDF Version (115 kB)

E. M. Burbidge and G. Burbidge. (2002) QSOs in the Field of the Seyfert 1 Galaxy NGC 5548. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 114:792, 253-256
Online publication date: 1-Feb-2002.
Abstract-Full Text-PDF Version (75 kB)

Geoffrey Burbidge. (2001) Noncosmological Redshifts. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 113:786, 899-902
Online publication date: 1-Aug-2001.
Citation-Full Text-PDF Version (44 kB)

Halton Arp. (2001) The Surroundings of Disturbed, Active Galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal 549:2, 780-801
Online publication date: 10-Mar-2001.
Abstract-Full Text-PDF Version (1768 kB)

Halton Arp and David Russell. (2001) A Possible Relationship between Quasars and Clusters of Galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal 549:2, 802-819
Online publication date: 10-Mar-2001.
Abstract-Full Text-PDF Version (2220 kB)

Xingfen Zhu, Yaoquan Chu, Jianyan Wei, Haotong Zhang, Jingyao Hu. (2000) A quasar possibly ejected from NGC4579. Chinese Science Bulletin 45:10, 886-888
Online publication date: 1-Jun-2000.

Halton Arp. (1999) The Distribution of High-Redshift

Quasars near Active Galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal 525:2, 594-602
Online publication date: 10-Nov-1999.
Abstract-Full Text-PDF Version (377 kB)

Geoffrey Burbidge, Fred Hoyle, Jayant V. Narlikar. (1999) A Different Approach to Cosmology. Physics Today 52:4, 38
Online publication date: 1-Feb-1999.

E. M. Burbidge. (1999) A Group of Quasi-stellar Objects Closely Associated with NGC 1068. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 511:1, L9-L11
Online publication date: 20-Jan-1999.
Abstract-Full Text-PDF Version (49 kB)

iLearn · 2008 September 16th, 08:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by wound

The need for dark matter / dark energy arises from the belief that the universe is expanding and red shift proports distance by the velocity of a stellar object away from the viewer.

If it can be proven that velocity is not fully responsible for the observed red shifts of stellar objects the requirements for dark matter / energy go away.

What's the big innovation here? Correct me if I'm wrong, but redshift due to the velocity of a stellar object would just be the Doppler effect, which was deemed and inadequate explanation for the cosmic redshift in the early 20th century.

Or do you here just mean the growth of distances when you use the word "velocity"? Remember that expansion leads to redshift even if the velocities (edit: defined as the rate of change of position) are zero.

editor · 2008 September 15th, 07:39

There's no edge. Also probably no outside.

Nateb123 · 2008 September 15th, 08:14

I was hoping for a bit more of an in-depth critique. Anywhere you could steer me to support these points? I don't mean that in the "prove it" sort of way. After all, I am just putting forward an imagined idea that could offer a more elegant solution than the current conjuration. I'm just a very curious person.

To say there is no outside seems a bit sillly. Outside the universe may be an empty void, but that doesn't mean there's no outside. It would just be a rather boring place.

To say there's no edge seems more possible since the universe may be flat and go on forever or it may just form a 4-sphere. But the lack of an edge is required for the idea to work to avoid a total crushing of the universe so I'm not sure what the point of this assertion is.

Nicholas Cage · 2008 September 15th, 08:29

By considering our universe to be contracting in size rather than expanding, and that every system within the universe is contracting in size rather than expanding, then it can logically be deduced that 99.9999% of all systems within the universe would be redshifted relative to each other (appearing to be moving away from one another). Fact: 99.9999% of all systems within the universe are redshifted relative to us, the observers. By considering this you can also completely sidestep the necessity of a dark energy to constantly accelerating expansion mysteriously, because systems would naturally accelerate in their own respective collapses over time as more mass becomes added to the system. I originally wrote about 15-20 times more on this then is posted here, but when I went to post I was no longer logged in and it was lost. If anyone is interested in this you can e-mail me at bdavis2347@gmail.com and I can explain in a lot further detail as well as other implications as a result of it.

editor · 2008 September 15th, 22:53

Nateb you have to realise that you are a beginner in cosmology and others have spent a lifetime studying. There is no outside because time and space started with the Big Bang and is confined within the universe.. The universe has no edge because whichever direction you go, you eventually come back to where you started. This is caused by the curvature of spacetime.
Speculation about other universes has no proof at all.
Start here: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Nateb123 · 2008 September 15th, 23:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by editor

Nateb you have to realise that you are a beginner in cosmology and others have spent a lifetime studying. There is no outside because time and space started with the Big Bang and is confined within the universe.. The universe has no edge because whichever direction you go, you eventually come back to where you started. This is caused by the curvature of spacetime.
Speculation about other universes has no proof at all.

Yes, I'm a beginner. So I'll have to gain more and more knowledge to temper my imagination's wildest ideas. And that's what I'm doing by asking questions and having an intellectual discussion. Give me information and some time, and I'll be less of a beginner.

Did you come out of the womb and already know about cosmology allowing you to skip the state of beginner somehow? Because you act like it and it's only making you come off as an arrogant ass.

iLearn · 2008 September 16th, 09:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nateb123

Yes, I'm a beginner. So I'll have to gain more and more knowledge to temper my imagination's wildest ideas. And that's what I'm doing by asking questions and having an intellectual discussion. Give me information and some time, and I'll be less of a beginner.

I'll just expand a bit on what editor said. There's nothing wrong with coming up with ideas, but the thing is people who work with these things for a living have had decades to think about these things on a whole bunch of different levels. They've studied the field extensively and have the mathematical (and at least some experimental) tools to test their ideas and set them against previous and already tested ideas. In other words it is very unlikely a beginner would come up with an original idea that would be both consistent with what we know and an improvement on previous theories.

However, this is no reason to stop coming up with ideas. Just read up on the subject and you'll start to see which ideas are plausible and which are not on a more informed and complex level. I don't know the level you are at, but "Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics" by Bergström and Goobar and "Spacetime and Geometry" by Carroll (or the lecture notes found at http://preposterousuniverse.com/grnotes/) might prove helpful on your quest for a better understanding.

Nateb123 · 2008 September 16th, 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by iLearn

I'll just expand a bit on what editor said. There's nothing wrong with coming up with ideas, but the thing is people who work with these things for a living have had decades to think about these things on a whole bunch of different levels. They've studied the field extensively and have the mathematical (and at least some experimental) tools to test their ideas and set them against previous and already tested ideas. In other words it is very unlikely a beginner would come up with an original idea that would be both consistent with what we know and an improvement on previous theories.

However, this is no reason to stop coming up with ideas. Just read up on the subject and you'll start to see which ideas are plausible and which are not on a more informed and complex level. I don't know the level you are at, but "Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics" by Bergström and Goobar and "Spacetime and Geometry" by Carroll (or the lecture notes found at http://preposterousuniverse.com/grnotes/) might prove helpful on your quest for a better understanding.

Thanks for the resources. It's much appreciated. For the record, my issue was never with being called a beginner but with the "hush you're JUST a beginner" tone that editor was oozing.

Now to get reading!

editor · 2008 September 16th, 08:37

You can't insult me, I've been insulted by experts. I've also been doing physics for over 50 years.

RobertR · 2008 September 18th, 05:49

Nateb123

Some 50 years ago when I first became interested in physics, I had a lot of ideas. When I went to college I discovered that the professors had already thought through most of them and knew more about them than I did.

However, in some areas which I only guessed at, I found that I had the right idea, although I did not know how to prove it.

We all have hunches, and sometimes when dealing with reality one tenth of 1% of them are actually right. It is that small percent of the time that our hunches pay off that keeps us looking down the trail.

There is nothing wrong with ideas, but we must be able to bring them back into the realm of logical reason.

The best advice I have received from one of my professors, is to follow your nose, and be cautiously open minded.

I have learned that most new ideas concerning the reality of existence are wrong. We live in a strange universe. If it were not so, progress would not have taken thousands of years, finding the answers would be easy.

It is not easy, which is why people like Newton and Einstein become icons.

No one sticks with physics very long who doesn't enjoy the challenge, and have an appreciation for the light bulb in their head turning on when you get it.