Dark Energy Changing Into Dark Matter.

[hankaaron]

If our regular Energy can spontaneously turn into matter (for instance an electron and a positron pair OR, more rarely two electrons pair) why can't Dark Energy turn into Dark Matter particles?

If that's what actually happens then wouldn't the universe eventually decelerate expansion. Shouldn't it at least call into question the common consensus that the universe will expand into cold freeze?

 

[Matterwave]

Aside from their names being similar, dark energy and dark matter are not related, as far as we know.

 

[Nabeshin]

OR, more rarely two electrons pair)

Not just rare, this is forbidden and does not happen a) within the standard model or any extensions I know of and b) in any experiment performed to date.

As matterwave says, DM and DE are quite distinct concepts apart from their names. A quick perusing of the wiki. articles of each should give you some more info to see how they are not (at least in any trivial way) related to one another.

 

[Chronos]

DM could easily have been termed 'Zwicky' matter and DE termed 'Einstein' energy. That would have averted many of the illusionary issues invoked by the more romantic prefix 'dark'. Fortunately, the term dark cosmic microwave background radiation never caught on.

 

[Drakkith]

Fortunately, the term dark cosmic microwave background radiation never caught on.

I'm sure it was just an oversite Chronos. I'll send in the paperwork to copyright "Dark CMBR" asap.

 

[hankaaron]

Not just rare, this is forbidden and does not happen a) within the standard model or any extensions I know of and b) in any experiment performed to date.

Electron pair, rather than, electron-positron pair is an acceptable hypothesis to explain why our universe is filled with matter instead of anti-matter.

 

[George Jones]

Electron pair, rather than, electron-positron pair is an acceptable hypothesis to explain why our universe is filled with matter instead of anti-matter.

You need to back this up with acceptable references.

Physics Forums rules, to which everyone agrees when they register,

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380,

in part, state

Overly Speculative Posts: One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted.

 

[IsometricPion]

Electron pair, rather than, electron-positron pair is an acceptable hypothesis

If all it says is that electron pairs and electron-positron pairs are produced it isn't really a hypothesis, it is more like a restriction on types of hypotheses you find plausible, i.e., it is an idea rather than a hypothesis (scientific hypotheses must provide quantitative predictions). The problem is, charge conservation is a well-tested idea that is mutually exclusive with yours. (Your idea implies non-conservation of charge because any process that starts with a certain amount of charge and can end with either an electron-electron pair or an electron-positron pair would end with a different amount of charge than it started with for one of the two results.)

Furthermore, the ratio of positive to negative charge in large objects is known indistinguishable from 1 (to extremely high precision). So, even if charge conservation were violated it could not explain the existence of the overwhelming majority of matter (note that dark matter and dark energy are known to effectively not have any charge associated with them since they have not been observed to interact with electric and magnetic fields in the form of light).

 

[hankaaron]

You need to back this up with acceptable references.

Okay. http://www.space.com/8441-exist-matter-wins-battle-antimatter.html

I can find more, but I'm really surprised to get so much push-back on matter-antimatter symmetry violation.

 

[Nabeshin]

Okay. http://www.space.com/8441-exist-matter-wins-battle-antimatter.html

I can find more, but I'm really surprised to get so much push-back on matter-antimatter symmetry violation.

It looks like you didn't even read the article you are citing. Quote:

Specifically, physicists discovered a 1 percent difference between pairs of muons and antimuons that arise from the decay of particles known as B mesons.

This does NOT imply charge conservation is broken, which you seem to suggest. In each given decay, charge is conserved. What is being discussed in the article, and in general, is that the two processes, the original X and the one containing antiparticles X' occur at slightly different rates, leading to an asymmetry in antimatter and matter.

Nobody is disputing this asymmetry, although the details of how this arose are not known (i.e. processes like the one mentioned in your article are not sufficient to explain it). The fact is that charge conservation is a very sacred conservation law, and we have no reason to doubt it.