Forces Outside Our Observable Universe?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of dark energy and the acceleration of the universe's expansion, as highlighted by Krauss in a 2008 article. Some theorists, including David Wiltshire, propose that forces outside our observable universe could be influencing this acceleration, challenging the traditional view of dark energy. While Wiltshire's ideas have not gained widespread acceptance, they suggest that alternative explanations may still be needed to account for cosmic phenomena. Additionally, the cosmological constant and dark energy are also crucial for explaining the spatial flatness of the universe, indicating a complex interplay of factors. The lack of consensus among experts underscores the ongoing mystery surrounding dark energy and cosmic acceleration.
81+
Messages
34
Reaction score
1
Krauss, in his article in the Feb 2008 SciAm magazine stated:

" Two different groups of astronomers traced the expansion of the universe over the past five billion years and found that it appears to be speeding up. The source of this cosmic antigravity is thought to be some new form of “dark energy” associated with empty space. The acceleration of the universe implies that empty space contains almost three times as much energy as all the cosmic structures we observe today: galaxies, clusters and superclusters of galaxies. "

Could it be that forces outside our observable universe are acting on things inside our observable universe in such a way as to cause this acceleration, rather than some expanding "dark energy" inside our observable universe?

Frank
 
Space news on Phys.org
81+ said:
Could it be that forces outside our observable universe are acting on things inside our observable universe in such a way as to cause this acceleration, rather than some expanding "dark energy" inside our observable universe?

David Wiltshire is the main proponent of that view and he has written a number of papers trying to work it out.
Look in arxiv.org under the name Wiltshire, or in slac.stanford database called spires.
I know of it, but am not too familiar with it.

i have the impression it doesn't necessarily work, but is not a bad idea to try out. he ran it up the flagpole a few years ago, if I remember, but not too many people saluted

http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Wiltshire_D/0/1/0/all/0/1

you have to look back down the list to find the first of his papers on this idea

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+A+WILTSHIRE+AND+DATE+%3E+2006&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=citecount%28d%29
=======================

another thing is acceleration is not the only riddle that a cosmological constant can answer, or that dark energy answers

it also supplies the missing stuff that the General Relativity-based model requires for spatial flatness.
there does not seem to be enough dark matter and ordinary matter so as to explain spatial flatness
and yet galaxy redshift surveys and the CMB indicate space is approximately flat

the amount of dark energy you need to explain the acceleration is also the right amount needed to explain flatness.

so just finding an alternative Wiltshire type explanation for acceleration would still not get rid of all the seeming need for dark energy. it is a complex puzzle.

several research journals have recently devoted entire issues to the dark energy problem.
there is actually no standard story, no consensus. experts are puzzled and disagree. if you are puzzled you are in good company
 
Last edited by a moderator:
81+ said:
Krauss, in his article in the Feb 2008 SciAm magazine stated:

" Two different groups of astronomers traced the expansion of the universe over the past five billion years and found that it appears to be speeding up. The source of this cosmic antigravity is thought to be some new form of “dark energy” associated with empty space. The acceleration of the universe implies that empty space contains almost three times as much energy as all the cosmic structures we observe today: galaxies, clusters and superclusters of galaxies. "

Could it be that forces outside our observable universe are acting on things inside our observable universe in such a way as to cause this acceleration, rather than some expanding "dark energy" inside our observable universe?

Frank
This is a suggestive idea. There are models in which our universe is a part of a higher dimensional space-time. If this space-time in turn has some special properties, then the evolution of its intrinsic curvature may act as a kind of dark energy in our four dimensional space-time, accelerating its expansion. If you are interested search for the work of Gia Dvali.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top