(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); DO WE ALREADY HAVE EVIDENCE OF DARK ENERGY - OUR MANIFOLD?

IfLIGO Iwith it’s 10^-21 sensitivity,VIRGOetc. don’t detect gravity waves, might this then be interpreted as indicating that C_R pseudo-Riemanian spacetime continuum (i.e. manifold’s) stiffness is not INsignificant; rather than the assumption that g.w.s propagate long distance, and that it just requires a more sensitive detector? Statistically LIGO I seems to have a large enough volume and sample size for inclusion of compact objects in NS and BH binary systems in tight orbits at least, even if not catching any coalescing events. However even for binary coalescence of BHs, might generated {g.w.} decay very rapidly? So resistance to deformation (normal stress: extension and compression, and even any shear stress) might not be insignificant. Might suchstiffness (resistance to deformation/distortion)be considered as likeinertia of C_R manifold? That is, {g.w.} have non-localized energy, but such energy is associated with deformation of manifold. Hence such {g.w.} energy might be considered as trying to overcome resistance to deformation (i.e. stiffness) of C_R manifold. Hence suchinertia of manifold (resistance to deformation) would seem to represent a contribution to stress energy momentum tensor and it’s matrix representation; thus contributing not insignificantly to overall curvature?So if long range g.w.s are not detected, then might LIGO I actually be exploring a qualitative assessment (not limits) as to stiffness of C_R manifold? Thus might C_R manifold be quite robust to perturbation? Any such robustness would seem consistent with such manifold not breaking up (i.e. so no ‘foam’?) for near to, and at C_p Planck scale; hence also consistent with no quantization of manifold C_R? Also then less likely to have leakage of g.w.s propagating out of a manifold into another dimension i.e. brane? Also wouldn’t any such significant stiffness of C_R manifold be less consistent with deformations associated with superstrings? Also if the concept of inertia of manifold is descriptive, then any entertained recent new acceleration (i.e. resulting then in a strain or elasticity of manifold) of such C_R manifold would seem less likely. Might energy associated with resistance to deformation of manifold represent a significant portion of energy required to approach flatness? That is, rather than a quest for so-calledDARK ENERGY, perhaps an additional significant contribution is right before us, in the form ofENERGY of manifold C_R; suchstiffness of C_R manifold contributing to stress energy momentum tensor, and hence to curvature.How would one further explore such latter conjecture, other than any qualitative finding of no long range g.w. propagation? Perhaps one could consider all alternative possibilities of sources of energy sufficient for approach to flatness. Then to the extent that they can be found to be less probable and/or no supportive evidence, then the last standing definitive contributing source of such energy (i.e. energy of C_R manifold) might have to be in part (or in full) accepted.So have LIGO I, VIRGO already made a GREAT DISCOVERY - that is, the inertia of C_R manifold?So C_R manifold seems to have significant stiffness, and hence contributes a significant amount of energy to Tuv, and thus contributes significantly to curvature. SRM.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Do We Already Have Evidence Of Dark Energy - Our Manifold?

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**