Alternative hypotheses regarding dark energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around alternative hypotheses regarding dark energy, specifically exploring whether physical or exotic mechanisms, such as particles or spatial structures, could explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. Participants examine the viability of these alternatives compared to established theories like the cosmological constant and scalar fields.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the physicality of field-based explanations for dark energy, suggesting a preference for more tangible mechanisms like particles or spatial structures.
  • Others argue that fields are fundamental to physics, with particles being excitations of these fields, and reference the Higgs discovery as evidence of viable scalar fields.
  • A participant expresses skepticism about the viability of alternative hypotheses, suggesting a trend towards modifying gravity and revising general relativity (GR).
  • There is speculation about the need to quantize spacetime, with references to physicists like Nima Arkani and Leonard Susskind, who propose that spacetime could be emergent rather than fundamental.
  • Some participants acknowledge that the idea of quantized spacetime is still a hypothesis and not universally accepted, emphasizing the speculative nature of current discussions.
  • One participant suggests that a geometric explanation, such as AdS in a D-brane context, could eliminate the need for exotic negative energy models like dark energy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of dark energy and the mechanisms behind it, with no consensus reached on the viability of alternative hypotheses or the necessity of quantizing spacetime.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects varying assumptions about the nature of spacetime and dark energy, with some participants acknowledging the speculative status of their claims and the lack of experimental backing for certain hypotheses.

R. E. Nettleton
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Currently, the favoured explanations for the accelerating expansion of the universe are the cosmological constant, and various scalar fields, most notably quintessence. All of these are mechanisms dependent on mathematical field properties.

My question is: do any alternative hypotheses exist which use more physical / exotic mechanisms, such as particles or spatial structures? How seriously are such propositions taken?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Why do you think fields are unphysical? It is what we use to describe everything else in physics. Particles are really not anything else than the quanta of excitations of different fields.

Until recently you might have argued that we have observed no fundamental scalar fields, but this is no longer true with the discovery of the Higgs (assuming that it is not composite).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think there's any that are viable. A lot of folks tend to want to modify gravity, since space time needs to be quantized anyway, everyone to me seems to be leaning towards a revision of GR.

You might want to check out this paper thought
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/3/2/2/

which I personally thought sounds like a good hypothesis to Dark Energy, and Dark Matter, If you interested in the discussion you can check out this thread
also :
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/zipfs-law-and-darkmatter.837875/
 
Justice Hunter said:
... since space time needs to be quantized anyway ...
Why?
 
phinds said:
Why?

I mean, I'm not sure why, i would imagine that those infinities we ignore that arise out of non-quantized systems are going to get overhauled eventually by some more profound field theory right?

Nima arkani, and Susskind, the two physicists i like to listen to the most, think space-time should be overhauled. more specifically Nima says that it could be an emergent thing rather then an actual thing. Dark energy being emergent as well just makes sense to me also. But that's speculation.
 
Justice Hunter said:
I mean, I'm not sure why, i would imagine that those infinities we ignore that arise out of non-quantized systems are going to get overhauled eventually by some more profound field theory right?

Nima arkani, and Susskind, the two physicists i like to listen to the most, think space-time should be overhauled. more specifically Nima says that it could be an emergent thing rather then an actual thing. Dark energy being emergent as well just makes sense to me also. But that's speculation.
Yes, it is speculation. It could well be that space-time is quantized but I'm not aware of any theory as yet that shows that it has to be so your categorical statement was too strong.
 
phinds said:
Yes, it is speculation. It could well be that space-time is quantized but I'm not aware of any theory as yet that shows that it has to be so your categorical statement was too strong.

I stand corrected then, because I've always thought the goal to unite QM and GR was to quantize gravity.
 
Justice Hunter said:
i've always thought the goal to unite QM and GR was to quantize gravity

That is probably the most popular opinion among physicists, yes. But it's not the only possibility. Until we actually have a theory backed up by experiments in this area, the hypothesis that spacetime itself is quantized, however attractive it seems to many physicists, is still only a hypothesis.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MacRudi
PeterDonis said:
That is probably the most popular opinion among physicists, yes. But it's not the only possibility. Until we actually have a theory backed up by experiments in this area, the hypothesis that spacetime itself is quantized, however attractive it seems to many physicists, is still only a hypothesis.

True. It is all hypothesis only. And mostly viewed only from the QT view. But maybe we find a geoemtric explanation such as a AdS in a D Brane. Then we don't need any exotic negative energy (dark energy) as a modern Aethertheory (Scalarfield). We have right now no answers, only speculations
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
12K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 153 ·
6
Replies
153
Views
14K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K