Question regarding dark energy and accelerated expansion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the possibility that a diminished gravitational force at large distances could explain the universe's accelerated expansion, questioning the need for dark energy. However, existing theories like MOND suggest gravity might actually strengthen with distance, complicating this idea. The consensus indicates that while modified gravity theories are being explored, observations align more closely with dark energy than with modifications to gravity. It is noted that a lower gravitational constant would not account for the observed acceleration, implying a need for a repulsive force. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of gravity and dark energy, suggesting that the latter remains a necessary component in understanding cosmic expansion.
rrosenthal
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Question regarding dark energy and accelerated expansion. If gravitational force were somehow diminished at large distances----ie lower gravitational constant at huge distances--might this explain the increase or accelerated expansion seen. If this were true, would it be necessary to evoke a completely separate factor--ie dark energy --to explain this. For this to be even considered , one would have to humbly admit that not all is known of gravity-----less of a leap than the same statement re dark energy----?

Randall Rosenthal
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
This is not a simplifying explanation. We already have MOND as an alternative theory of gravity that predicts it becomes stronger with distance.
 
rrosenthal said:
Question regarding dark energy and accelerated expansion. If gravitational force were somehow diminished at large distances----ie lower gravitational constant at huge distances--might this explain the increase or accelerated expansion seen. If this were true, would it be necessary to evoke a completely separate factor--ie dark energy --to explain this. For this to be even considered , one would have to humbly admit that not all is known of gravity-----less of a leap than the same statement re dark energy----?

Yup... People have thought of that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F(R)_gravity
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5266

The next step would be to come up with models of modified gravity (dozens of theorists doing pages and pages of math), figure out exactly what observations you should see with modified gravity (more theorists doing more pages and pages of math), and the punchline is that the observations look more like dark energy than modified gravity, but modified gravity isn't totally dead yet.
 
As you already know that in general relativity, dark energy arises due to a comparitively large value of the cosmological constant, But the complete explanation of dark energy is beyond the direct scope of general relativity. When you say that-" If gravitational force were somehow diminished at large distances----ie lower gravitational constant at huge distances--might this explain the increase or accelerated expansion seen. If this were true, would it be necessary to evoke a completely separate factor--ie dark energy --to explain this?". If you consider gravity alone, then if G is small at large distances, it would only reduce the effect of gravity. But, this doesn't explain why the universe is accelerating. If we assume your point to be true then the universe should now be in a steady state. BUT IT IS NOT. Therefore, there must be a repulsive force responsible for the expansion. This gives rise to the WIMP theory,axion assumption(i.e nambu-goldstone theorem) etc.
 
Er ... your point is not even wrong, but, is an unnecessarily confusing mix of unrelated ideas.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...

Similar threads

Back
Top