How Dark Energy Suggests the Universe Evolved Spontaneous creation by accident is absurd. There had to be a set of processes that enabled energy and matter to organize and become more complex as sort of an “evolution”. I would love to see members of the science discipline spend as much time contemplating the big picture as they do buried in the details of an experiment. Many features of our universe have an opposite. Lightning striking, atomic nuclei, magnetic poles, matter and antimatter - it makes you think of the universe as binary. I would like to explore what it would mean if dark matter were the opposite to dark energy. Let's assume dark matter and dark energy are the same "level or type of matter or energy" except that one repels and one attracts. If for every amount of dark matter formed there was an equal amount of dark energy, there should have been equal amounts of dark matter and dark energy in the universe at one point. If this is true, what happened? Why is there much less dark matter in the universe now? Why is there 73% dark energy and only 23% dark matter? As one who expects to find that the universe "evolved", it makes sense to me that dark matter and dark energy could very well be a more “primitive” form of matter/energy than the 4% of visible matter we can see today. Let's speculate for a moment that dark matter is the basic “building material” of visible matter. If have of your building blocks repel, they are never going to come together and form something more complex. Only those building blocks that attract have any chance of forming a more complex particle. Perhaps this can be tested by seeing if dark matter and visible matter is equal dark energy in terms of raw energy. Perhaps there is 50% dark energy and 50% dark matter and visible universe matter. We could also test this theory by seeing if the percentage of dark energy in the universe increases over time, although I predict changes would by too small to observe over such a short amount of time. If it is true that matter is made from dark matter, then it would prove that gravity is not a feature of spacetime as Einstein said, but instead is a feature of each particle itself. Why doesn’t dark matter behave with the same gravitational behavior as visible matter? The universe would fly apart if gravity was too weak and collapse if it were too strong. What if dark matter were both? Weak dark matter would appear slow to react. Strong dark matter would be stuck right to the visible matter giving dark matter properties that were hard to explain. Perhaps this explains the “sticky” effect it has been described to have. Dark energy has been pushing the universe apart larger and larger and faster and faster. Scientists have reasoned that because the universe is getting larger, it must have been right on top of itself at one point - the big bang. But the big is still just a theory. If the universe is expanding faster now, and it continues to expand even faster, than that would obviously mean that it was expanding more slowly in the beginning. With slower and slower expansion as we go further back to the beginning, does this not substantially challenge the idea of a big bang? Perhaps we had more of a quiet subtle beginning where energy was allowed time to “evolve”. Expansion rate should be exponential, not the current rapid expansion followed by slow expansion that slowly increased again. This would then suggest that the universe is far older than 13.7 billion years old. This could be calculated by mapping the current exponential expansion rate backward.
Mark: Your intuitive observations have merit. It is possible that 'dark energy' represents Einstein's hypothetical "cosmological constant" and is responsible for driving the expansion of the universe. I have discoursed this interpretation elsewhere on various Sciforums threads . . . and have generally gotten much derogatory 'flak' from the SM's (Standard Modelers). Keep on thinking!!
Wlminex, it is great to hear you say that, and that after all these realizations I have had recently, I am finding there is whole movement dedicated to the realization that the Universe Evolved: I just discovered tonight that I am not the first person to suggest that the Universe Evolved. 33 top scientists signed an open letter to the science community in 2004 claiming the Big Bang Theory had some major flaws and that "Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end." The letter goes on to say "Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding." Consider this: Dark Energy is causing the universe to expand faster and faster. Its rate is exponential. So if we go backward in time, the expansion rate should get exponentially slower. I haven't done the math, but I assume it gets extremely slow. Too slow to account for the rapid expansion rate of the big bang. See the full article by googling: big bang 33 scientists rense
No, the best observations we have say that it started out very, very fast indeed, and then slowed steadily until the density of gravitationally producing elements became low enough that the expansion force became greater than gravity and the expansion accelerated (this happened at about 7 billion years after the initial expansion... http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1314 ) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
