Could Reformulating Gravity Solve the Dark Energy Mystery?

[Paul Howard A]

Dark energy is implicated in the accelerated expansion evident on large scales of space. Dark matter is proposed to explain the cohesive properties observed in star clusters on smaller scales. Current theories of gravity have foiled our efforts at unification and the graviton remains elusive.

The situation seems reminiscent of pre Copernican times when ever more complex adjustments were made to the celestial spheres in attempts to keep pace with observations.

Perhaps it would prove useful to consider a reformulation of gravity.

First, let's accept that the cosmos is suffused with dark energy responsible for a repulsive force most evident over great distances. Next, assume that that energy interacts with matter in such a way that some of that energy is absorbed by that matter. Locally, this would create a partial energy shadow in the lee of this body. A second nearby body would experience a diminution of the dark energy force in the direction of the second mass. The two bodies would be drawn towards each other in a manner analogous to what we interpret as gravity. In 3 dimensional space, the observed force would obey an inverse square law.

I believe that bodies immersed in a sea of dark energy of the proper magnitude and, with the partial shielding effect described above, would create a phenomenon indistinguishable from what we call gravity.

This one speculation could explain matter's attractive properties when in close proximity and the repulsive effects observed at great distances.

Perhaps the event horizon of a black hole represents a place where the repulsive force from the direction of the hole has been completely blocked, and thus might give a measure of the strength of the unopposed force?

Please be frank but kind in your critique...I'm just a hack.

 

[Skaffen]

From one hack to another.

I do believe we have yet to define Dark Flow, Energy as the 5th fundamental force. I think because it is effective over such large scales we have trouble resolving it, although as with Copernicus...the tools are coming. Conservation (attraction, offset by repulsion as you suggest) works for me.

I offer a thought adhering to lines of reductionism but my thoughts only. To evolve in any context (including spatial) you must give something up, conservation/equilibrium says half. For that you gain another degree of freedom (rotation through new dimension). If we half a sphere (Gravity 3D) and rotate it in a '4th' dimension the freedom is geometrically a torus, which is the common aspect of Galaxies.
(Similar to the translation from a line to a circle, EMF to Weak)

Perhaps all fundamental forces are equivalent but diluted over different scales of influence? (Strong is nuclear gravity, Gravity is Planetary/Solar system gravity, Dark is Galactic gravity). - I over simplify to illustrate a train of thought only.

The more we look the more there is, it seems we are just beginning to cast our eyes on dark forces.

 

[Vanadium 50]

First, PF does not allow personal theories. Please reread the PF rules, particularly the section on overly speculative posts.

Second, this is hardly an original idea. It goes back to Nicholas Fatio in 1690. It has been known for over a century that all such theories are grossly in conflict with data.