Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Interpretation of dark energy and gravity as the same thing

  1. Oct 8, 2007 #1
    First of all, I don't really know much of physics so it may very well be something silly and laughable... but I just find somewhat interesting, and from the layman's point of view at least, not worse than some ideas that I see from people from the field, such as the hypothesis of darwinian evolution of universes through the reproduction by black holes and heritability of universal constants (I recall reading something about it). I'm not saying that it is as good, only that it looks like to me on the surface.

    Summarizing, I think that if we interpret/reframe gravity as something that pushes mass towards mass, "instead of" mass attracting more mass, then the accelerating expansion of universe through dark energy is somewhat implicitly "solved".

    A massive object attracting a less massive one could be thought as the larger empty space surrounding both objects pushing the less massive object, more easily movable, through the smaller empty space (which offers less resistance) between both objects.

    I'm not sure, but to me seems that this reframing would produce exactly (or almost) the same predictions of the conventional notion that matter pulls more matter thought deformations in space. I think that it may even be irrefutable, and I don't say that as if it was a good thing, I'm just stating that I would not know which sort of observation could prove one view or refute the other.

    Sometimes I even got confused and I can actually make the distinction, since, in the conventional sense, matter is not actually pushing matter, but instead smaller quantities of matter are "falling" into more matter through deformed space, which is, somewhat as if space was pushing matter rather than matter pulling matter.

    (I hope I'm not sounding much like a crazy cranky theorist, or that it's at least somewhat funny)

    With that interpretation of gravity and the role of space, seems that the acceleration of the expansion of universe just follows naturally. The vast space between huge clusters of matter just pushes further away these clusters, at increasing speeds, as the space itself increases.

    I know it's all probably fundamentally flawed somewhere, but I just thought it was curious enough, and from the layman's perspective, feasible enough when compared with the superficial descriptions of the related things.

    Now, having said all this, I think that I could not make myself much more ridicule if I share what I imagined as possible implications for cosmogony and big bang. I don't see it as necessarily implicit in any of what I said earlier, it's just one more thing I thought when I was mentally playing of reassembling/interpreting the ideas about the universe

    I found striking similarity (well, from the layman's perspective, again) between the accelerating expansion of the universe and the big-bang and following inflation. So just does not seem odd to me that, perhaps new big-bangs occur within huge emptinesses between the clusters of matter, as a sort of fractal. A certain "amount of emptiness" of space could be a critical point where more matter is created (somehow, however it's thought to happen in the standard BB), initially expanding at high speeds (inflation) but almost "immediately" would slow some localized expansion of space due to the presence of matter.

    Again, it's probably fundamentally flawed somehow; perhaps the expansion of the universe never could be so great that a "new universe", a new big-bang could occur between these clusters, I don't know.

    I plan to eventually read much more about these things, and even learn some of the math required, but for while I thought it would be interesting to see what people who already understand of these things could think of it, and see if it triggers some discussion, which I would follow from afar while trying to grasp the essential things.
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 8, 2007 #2
    What if the vacuum has repulsive gravity and "mass" is shielding that gravity or reducing it's strength near the mass? I would think it would produce the same thing we see now. The vacuum would push an object toward a mass instead of the mass pulling it and we'd still get orbits. Since the vacuum is assumed to be repulsive in this, it could also account for dark energy. The universe expands because vacuum repels itself. Wouldn't this reverse the black hole infinite density problem, because instead of having infinite gravity, it has 100% anti-gravity shielding - a finite quantity? What if before the big bang, there was nothing but anti-gravity-shielding matter. Quantum fluctuations could introduce anti-gravitational vacuum and in the proper configuration maybe cause expansion. I don't know. I don't know the math at all. Just throwing things out there.
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2007
  4. Oct 8, 2007 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Doesn't that violate the cosmological principle, though? I don't see how, if every body "pushes" every other body away from itself, that the universe would expand.
  5. Oct 8, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Oh, and I should probably mention that discussions/promotions of one's own theories are not permitted on PF: see the guidelines available on clicking on the Rules icon on the toolbar above.
  6. Oct 8, 2007 #5
    What if only the vacuum pushes and matter shields the pushing but has no repulsive or attractive gravity of it's own? Objects would get pushed into the "holes" created by the gravity-shielding matter since it's not pushing back. The vacuum pushes against itself and would make the universe expand.
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2007
  7. Oct 8, 2007 #6
    My mistake... more than fractal it would be like "tiles", I think, it would remain isotropic, I guess.

    It wouldn't be the bodies that push each other away, but the "even" space that pushes the objects against each other. The more space, the harder and faster an object is pushed against its nearer object.

    If gravity can be thought as "holes" in space topography through which matter "falls", larger empty space areas would be the biggest holes in which the main clusters of matter are "falling".

    Ops, I'm sorry.... I'm going to save the text of the fist post then... (saved)
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2007
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook