Debunking Dark Energy: Where Does Energy Go in the Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nottheone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
AI Thread Summary
Dark energy is distinct from regular energy, as it drives the universe's accelerated expansion beyond what would be expected from energy dissipating in space. Energy is never lost but converted into forms that become less useful, typically increasing in entropy. The concept of dark energy is not merely a reclassification of energy but represents a unique phenomenon in cosmology. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding basic physics principles before theorizing about complex concepts like dark energy. Ultimately, the claim that energy simply dissipates into space does not hold up against established scientific understanding.
nottheone
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
A friend of mine thinks he is a physicist (he's not). He told me he thinks dark energy is nothing more than the regular energy of the universe being dissipated in space. Is that possible? Where DOES energy go? For every force there must be a reaction so it almost seems reasonable, energy has to go somewhere. Give me some ammo to tell him he is wrong.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Since he is the one making the claim, the burden of proof falls not to you. Let him try and develop his theory; his inevitable failure will save you a lot of grief.

Also, suggest that he should learn the basic principles of physics before beginning to theorize on the fundamental nature of "Dark Energy". :wink:
 
Energy is never created or destroyed, only converted into different forms (although one of the forms it can be converted into is matter).

If you're trying to figure out where energy "goes" once it is "used", it is converted into forms which are not reusable. The canonical answer for where the energy "goes" that I usually hear is that it becomes "heat". Probably a better answer is that the energy doesn't "go" anywhere, it is just continually converted from lower-entropy to higher-entropy forms ("higher-entropy" effectively meaning "less useful").

Dark Energy is, by definition, the expansion above and beyond what would be caused by the actual "regular energy of the universe being dissipated in space". If it were regular energy dissipated in space it wouldn't be Dark Energy, it would just be Energy. Right? You don't even have to explain what Dark Energy is to say that much, it's just the semantics of the thing.

If you can explain what dark energy is they'll probably give you a nobel prize.
 
Sorry to be thick but I am not clear on how your answers refute his theory or what basic principles you are talking about. First, it is only 'dark' energy because that's what we call it. Second, if energy goes to higher entropy forms why couldn't the highest entropy be that space absorbs the energy and expands.

Would it be reasonable to say that the universe's rate of energy conversion to higher entropy is getting faster? That would fit the theory that the expansion is accelerating and if it isn't that would refute him.
 
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