DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

[CJWilli1]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

Are we? We know that energy, length and time vary depending on who measures them. There are "fictional forces" that only appear in certain frames of reference. So in what sense are these properties "true"?

We assign properties such as mass, length, energy in order to create quantitative theories that allow us to make useful predictions about how they behave. That is called science.

The "true cause" is unknowable and is the domain or philosophy or religion. It has nothing to do with science.

But the "underlying cause" of that is that there are pain sensors in your skin that detect the damage.

And the "underlying cause" of that is that the damage causes chemicals to be released that cause an exchange of calcium ions to be propagated along the nerve fibre to your brain.

And the "underlying cause" of that is that chemical interactions are governed by the outer electrons in the atoms that make them up.

And the "underlying cause" of that is the quantum rules that describe spin and charge, etc.

There is no "ultimate underlying cause" just a series of more detailed descriptions.

And so we get to the usual crackpot claim: "no one understands what the world is really like ... except me!!!"

This has nothing do with science.

I believe (w/o evidence) that there is a ultimate underlying cause. That is the quantum flux that I have described. At this point we’re discussing philosophy. I love to discuss philosophy, but let’s not get sidetracked for now. 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

What evidence do you have to support this? How can it be tested?

 

I have one idea. 

We would have to develop an accurate mathematical model of the quantum flux that I have described. Then we would use that model to predict the “uncertain” position of an electron. 

Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

I gotta head to work. I’ll be back on late tonight or tomorrow. 

[Mordred]

8 hours ago, Strange said:

 (I see Mordred, typically, has taken a more generous view!)

Only for the first part of the speculation with regards to the DE portion similarities to a quantum fluctuation process. However once the OP started into trying to connect this to gravity and time, that generosity is lost. Coincidentally Swansont has quoted the relevant section above. Though the OP has several aspects that need correcting in that portion. Anyways parts of that portion can be described by employing the spin 0 propagator Langrangian  however I wouldn't expect the OP to have any ability to know of the formula.  For the first portion of the quoted section by Swansont one can replace any descriptive of VP with the creation and annihilation field operators of QFT. 

[latex]A^\dagger A[/latex] for the creation operator and [latex] B^\dagger B[/latex] for the annihilation operator. However this is far too advanced for the OP. I cannot ignore that there is a reasonable starting point to apply some valid mathematics to that portion of the speculation. Now these operators themselves are not particles, they are employed to define quantized states. They are however employed to correlate when field conditions give rise to particle production. ie they connect to how particles pop in and out of existence due to field conditions. 

For the OP to meet a minimal standard of applying some testable mathematics to support the speculations I would start by first defining your geometry. As a stating point the FLRW metric itself provides a good starting point.

[latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})(d{r^2}+{S,k}{(r)^2}d\Omega^2)[/latex] 

[latex]S\kappa(r)= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}[/latex]

You want to include the Hubble and scale factor relation

[latex]H=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}[/latex]

Then I would look for a good formula that describes a scalar field with the relevant equation of state.

[latex] w=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2-V\phi}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2+V\phi}[/latex] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

the numerator portion correlates to the pressure terms the denominator to the density terms so it matches [latex]w=\frac{P}{\rho}[/latex]

However to match the cosmological constant term you must meet the condition w=-1.

Now thus far we have not identified any process that causes this scalar field however we have defined a scalar spin zero field under an applicable geometry and provided a relevant equation of state that matches observational evidence. Now I myself can readily apply those operators above to develop possible causes of that scalar field, however this has been done in numerous models already in existence so would really be simply looking at different models in existence. For example the universe from nothing model itself is a good example. Or the zero energy universe

 https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063.pdf

To the OP I have provided the above to give you a direction to properly develop your model, and to help meet the minimal standards of model development. How your model deviates from those already out there and previously proposed is up to you however you will require the mathematics in order for any chance of success or testability. The above are relevant formulas to get you started.

The stage of how that scalar field arises will require further mathematics.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Mordred

[swansont]

2 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

I have one idea. 

We would have to develop an accurate mathematical model of the quantum flux that I have described. Then we would use that model to predict the “uncertain” position of an electron. 

Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

!

Moderator Note

When you have a model, then you will have fulfilled the requirement of the speculations forum. You can contact a mod to re-open this thread.

But until you have some substance to discuss, and not just hand-waving conjecture, this is closed.