Why Acceleration Of A Universe Might Happen

[Dubbelosix]

me; ''How about this? The universe will tend to expand due to a constant force (cosmological constant), acting like a constant impetus. The result of the constant pressure on spacetime to expand, gravity gets weaker as a result. The constant pressure will expand spacetime, but the presence of a weaker gravitational field as it expands, means the effects of the constant will intensify - giving rise to an acceleration.''

 

(in the conversations below the question posted)

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/469705/friedmann-expansion

[Dubbelosix]

To start out the cosmological constant is not constant, it is increasing, ie the amount of dark energy is increasing.

 

Yes this is true, as Susskind put it more properly though by stating ''the cosmological constant becomes significant when a universe gets large enough,'' in conjunction with the evidence supporting acceleration in the late phase. We do not however know why the cosmological constant becomes significant in later cosmology, but I am proposing this is because gravity is weakening.

[Dubbelosix]

Of course the whole premise of the Hubble constant is that our observation of a redshift can only be due to relative motion.  Something the Steady Staters question--with some reason, such as the observation of Qasars.

 

Yes Quasars are not subjected to red shift -

 

https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.html

[Dubbelosix]

That is not what the link is claiming and Hawkin has not published a paper on this subject as of today.   

"But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth."

 

I beg your pardon, I meant time dilation.

[Moronium]

I am easily confused. 

Do you have a paper supporting this claim other than the pop science link above, which presents no evidence to back up the claim?

 

The paper being referenced is linked right in that "pop science" article, Flum:

 

More information: * On time dilation in quasar light curves, M. R. S. Hawkins, DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16581.x

Via: New Scientist

 

The results of Section 4 provide strong evidence that the effects of time dilation are not seen in quasar light curves. This clearly runs against expectations based on a conventional cosmological viewpoint, and so in this section we examine ways in which the results may be understood.

 

 

 

It looks legit.  It was published by Oxford in the "Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society" which they claim "is one of the world's leading primary research journals in astronomy and astrophysics, as well as one of the longest established."

Edited April 1, 2019 by Moronium

[Dubbelosix]

Most of these kinds of articles will link you to the paper near the end, as Moronium has pointed out. It's a good quick way to make sure the literature can back itself up.

[Dubbelosix]

Actually things can move in a static spacetime and still appear redshifted or blueshifted. And I am not sure why you are tagging the result as dubious, as it only makes the science complicated, there is nothing wrong with their results as far as I can tell.

[Vmedvil2]

I agree with Dubbel as Energy can neither be created nor destroyed the amount of Dark Energy cannot be increasing thus it must be something to do with the elasticity of the universe, the gravitational attraction of the membrane that is time-space must be weakening with attraction to itself over time the same amount of energy is causing more of a stretching over time, unless there is truly more energy being put into the universe over time by some source such as another universe which could mean that Dark Energy from another universe is entering ours if the velocity of expansion is increasing, Acceleration usually means there is a force or work upon the system, Force = Mass * Acceleration or in this case, Force_Membrane = (E_{Dark Energy}/C²)  * Acceleration_Expansion, Thus the Force of  the Universe must be decreasing or the Dark Energy of the system increasing. In an accelerating expansion one of these two conditions must be satisfied in order for the Laws of physics one of the most fundamental, the Newtonian Laws of Motion to be upheld. 

 

See this could be solved for Elasticity of a Spring or string this equation too.

 

F_Membrane = -K_{Membrane Strength} * Δx_{Size of Membrane} 

 

In physics the Force on the membrane should increase due to the increase of Δx if the fabric of Time-space were like a spring or String due to natural expansion the force on time-space would have to be increasing at a rate of F(E²) to continue to accelerate in expansion or the K constant of Compression is decreasing by F(k^1/2) being that there is a exponential weakness or Increase of energy upon the system in a spring/String view. So either Dark Energy Pressure is increasing at an exponential rate upon the universe or the weakness of the universe's binding is increasing at an exponential rate. This also gives the acceleration or Energy a negative value in the equation which is to be expected as Dark Energy should have a negative value of the energy as it causes gravitational expansion and not attraction and should match the decompression of the membrane.

 

You can also find the compressive and decompressive modulus of the universe by solving for Force along with Area of the universe manifold and Radius then Radius after expansion.

 

 

The Real question is does the lend itself to the idea of the Big Rip where the universe finally buckles and breaks under the stress of Dark Energy and Energy.

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Vmedvil2]

Well Time-space I agree could be entanglement bonds here is a Entanglement space. (↑ω₁/dr₁³ )∇(X,Y,Z)- (↓ω₂/dr₂³)∇(X,Y,Z) = 0)

Edited April 4, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[devin553344]

me; ''How about this? The universe will tend to expand due to a constant force (cosmological constant), acting like a constant impetus. The result of the constant pressure on spacetime to expand, gravity gets weaker as a result. The constant pressure will expand spacetime, but the presence of a weaker gravitational field as it expands, means the effects of the constant will intensify - giving rise to an acceleration.''

 

(in the conversations below the question posted)

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/469705/friedmann-expansion

 

If space-time expanded I would think the planets would just slide and stay in their original positions, seeing that space is without friction. In order for your idea to work, distance itself would have to expand between systems. And I don't think that is possible without some ambient dark energy. Even an either would still be without friction. In other words it would take a tremendous amount of energy to push against the systems within the universe. Where's the energy in your idea without dark energy?

[Dubbelosix]

I think I may have misunderstood your grammar here I think you meant gravity between galaxies is weakening, and not gravity within galaxies is weakening. Am I correct?

 

Yes, whatever drives expansion, you can call it a cosmological constant -  instead of believing it is changing, the constant remains the same and it is in fact the gravitational interaction between galaxies that is weakening. Since the cosmological constant, is a constant, working against gravity and if gravity gets weaker, the cosmological constant only appears to change, when really it hasn't.

[devin553344]

The problem with dark energy is that it would be a continuous energy density. Therefore it would exert an acceleration equally in all directions. And no expansion is then possible. So technically the idea is garbage.

[Dubbelosix]

The problem with dark energy is that it would be a continuous energy density. Therefore it would exert an acceleration equally in all directions. And no expansion is then possible. So technically the idea is garbage.

 

No, the cosmological repulsive energy only needs to be stronger than its own gravitational binding to expand. It's the fact that gravity weakens as it expands and so this constant energy is being literally intensified giving us the impression the cosmological constant is somehow changing.

[Dubbelosix]

Susskind was right in my opinion... the cosmological constant does get significant on larger scales, at least gravity will provide us with an answer why.

[devin553344]

No, the cosmological repulsive energy only needs to be stronger than its own gravitational binding to expand. It's the fact that gravity weakens as it expands and so this constant energy is being literally intensified giving us the impression the cosmological constant is somehow changing.

 

Can you provide what physics principle dark energy relates to? I understand gravitation is a curvature of space-time. And what I stated is true for curvatures. Dark energy as a curvature of space-time can provide no expansion. In fact the statement is usually made that dark energy is not understandable to support it's inclusion in physics. And a leading physicist professor at Oxford seems to explain how dark energy need not exist at all: https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/dark-energy-biggest-mystery-cosmology-it-may-not-exist-all-leading-physicist.html

Edited April 5, 2019 by devin553344

[Moronium]

That link is inconclusive, the prof is simply questioning the validity of the results. 

 

Yeah, he doesn't exactly "explain" anything, eh?  There are many different theories which dispense with dark energy.  For example, here's an excerpt from a paper authored by 5-6 physicists, which appears to be well researched.

 

We use the Szekeres inhomogeneous relativistic models in order to fit supernova combined datasets. We show that with a choice of the spatial curvature function that is guided by current observations, the models fit the supernova data almost as well as the LCDM model without requiring a dark energy component.

 

In this paper, we present a first analysis of apparent acceleration using the appealing Szekeres inhomogeneous models [25, 26]; see also [27] and references therein for a review of the models...The models have been investigated analytically by several authors [28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38] and are regarded as the best exact solution candidates to represent the true lumpy universe we live in....In this scenario, apparent acceleration is due to the fact that we happen to live in one of the many underdense regions of the universe.

.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2943.pdf

 

The general idea is that the expansion is merely apparent, not real. If that's the case, that's one less reason to question and try to modify GR, I guess.

 

Another (of many) theories I've seen claims that the appearance of expansion is caused by difficulties created by SR,  with its postulation of relative simultaneity, and could be eliminated by adopting a preferred frame theory of relative motion.  I've long been highly critical of SR, and it wouldn't surprise if this is at least part of the explanation.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Moronium

[devin553344]

That link is inconclusive, the prof is simply questioning the validity of the results. It seems the astronomical observations don't require as much verification as particle or quantum observations. According to the prof dark energy may not exist, dark energy or the cosmological constant being einsteins biggest blunder, I wonder if the prof might be making a blunder, or just calling for more evidence of cosmological claims.

 

Well they hid the results for years and years. Why? And I myself have examined experiment results and found them to be much less precise then what they claim. For instance the Planck constant is only good up to 6.62607'ish, but they give a value of 6.62607001. And that is just crazy talk. I find the same discrepancies in the electron mass, and other constants. Maybe there is something to the professors claim? I kinda think there is. It's an interesting topic, thanks for responding! :)

Edited April 6, 2019 by devin553344