Recent content by JinChang

I guess you're referring to Dark Energy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Chalnoth, I think you're correct. Physics can be so confusing at times. Following is an interesting link that answers this and many of OP's questions: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575

Based on my limited knowledge... It's is thought that since the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe initially decelerated, but have recently (few billion years ago) accelerated for some unknown reason. Hence the theory of Dark Energy. No, since the inflation during the early times...

That's an interesting way of putting it, Phrak. I'm going to spill the bean and ask the real question that I wanted to ask, but have been avoiding due to my lack of various concepts. It may appear amateurish, but please bear with me and cut me some slack. :wink: Few years ago, I was...

Thanks, Chalnoth. While I need to study upon some of your explanation, it's certainly a great place to start.

Can someone provide an analogy of scalar versus tensor (fields)? I've read through the wikipedia, but it's difficult to visualize. Some examples of each that could be used to differentiate the two would be great. Thanks in advance.

Certainly makes sense when discussing GR, but what about other theories and researches going on related to gravity? For example, if GR is the true representation of gravity, then are the concept/search for graviton and/or Higgs (God) particle futile? Another related question might be: if...

I understand that it's a geometric mode, but does that really mean no forces are involved? Maybe it is since the objects in a gravitational "field" simply takes the geodesic path.

That is absolutely correct, sort of like the Ying-and-Yang where one cannot exist without the other. If so, I'm wondering if the current model of gravity (GR) takes this into account. Is it a "pull" model or a "push" model? Are there differences between the two in terms of how the gravity is...

Thanks for the link, Ich. If I read it correctly, it seems that Wheeler's concept of Geon tries to break down the elementary particles into smaller constituents -- mainly, Geons ("gravitational electromagnetic entity"). If so, it still attributes Mass as the source of gravity (which in all...

I'm in no way suggesting that Matter has nothing to do with gravity. Instead, I'm trying to grasp the relationship between gravity and matter where one could be explained using the other. Isn't it equally valid to say that gravity realizes matter as we know it versus matter causing gravity...

I probably did, and I'm sure it won't be the last time... :redface: That said, what other phenomenon could these Dark Energy and Dark Matter be instrumental in explaining?

I agree with TalonD that it would require enough potential energy differences in a relatively close proximity in order to harness enough meaningful energy from DE. I suppose in theory it could be done, but probably not practical. We could probably harness more energy from temperature...

It appears that the Dark Energy concept was born out of a need to explain the two major observational phenomenons (increasing rate of expansion of the Universe and the faster-than-expectated-rotation of the galactic outer-rim). If I'm not mistaken, this also has to do with gravity seemingly...

This is very interesting topic since it's similar to one of my past post where I asked if gravity can exist without mass. If the cause of the gravity is stress-energy-tensor, then would it not imply that gravity should be "relative" to the stress-energy-tensor of its surroundings (i.e...