Why isn't everything expanding in an expanding universe?

[Happiness]

Viewpoint 1:
Because gravity or other forces that are holding the thing concerned (be it a galaxy, a ruler or an atom) together are way stronger than the "force" caused by the expansion of space. So strictly speaking, space does in fact expand everywhere, including the space inside an atom between its nucleus and its electrons. But gravity or other forces keep the size of the object constant.

Viewpoint 2:
The space within the thing concerned (such as the space inside an atom) is of a different nature from the space between two galaxies (the space that "occupies" the vast region of space). Let's call the former type-1 space and the latter type-2 space. Only type-2 space expands for some reason; eg., type-2 space is filled with (or littered with) dark energy, which drives the expansion, but type-1 space is void of dark energy.

I think the correct or the widely accepted viewpoint is the first one. But I don't understand how exactly the size of an object is being kept constant.

 

[phinds]

Viewpoint 2 sounds like nonsense to me. Where did you hear this? Do you have reputable citations?

 

[Chalnoth]

Everything isn't expanding because the universe doesn't have perfectly uniform density. When you work through the equations of what gravity predicts in the face of differences in density from place to place, you get an average, large-scale expansion, but small-scale bound systems that are reasonably stable over time (e.g. galaxy clusters and smaller).

 

[PeterDonis]

the "force" caused by the expansion of space

There is no such thing; the expansion of the universe does not give rise to any force.

 

[Happiness]

There is no such thing; the expansion of the universe does not give rise to any force.

Yes, that's why it was in quotation marks. iirc, Prof Susskind mentioned in one of his lectures that the expansion can be modeled using a small force.

 

[PeterDonis]

Prof Susskind mentioned in one of his lectures that the expansion can be modeled using a small force.

Do you have a reference? I suspect the use of the word "force" in this connection was ill-advised, since it leads to the erroneous inference you have made. Expansion does not "try" to push bound objects apart, which is what the word "force" implies.

 

[wabbit]

Yes, that's why it was in quotation marks. iirc, Prof Susskind mentioned in one of his lectures that the expansion can be modeled using a small force.

I suspect he may have been discussing accelerated expansion in the presence of a cosmological constant, where something like that is possible (within limits) but I don't think it makes sense at all for unaccelerated expansion.

 

[Chronos]

We can safely conclude the historical Earth sun recession rate is much smaller than that predicted by the expansion rate of the universe based on a variety of unrelated lines of evidence as discussed in this paper;http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.3166, A Closer Earth and the Faint Young Sun Paradox: Modification of the Laws of Gravitation, or Sun/Earth Mass Losses? Given the existing expansion rate measured at 1% per 140,000,000 years the Earth would have been about 27% closer to the sun at the beginning of the Archean era 3.8 billion years ago. This is inconsistent with a vast body of climate and paleontology evidence.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

As far as I know, the universe at the smallest level does expand. A possible fate of the universe is called the big rip, where the expansion of space becomes so fast that atoms aren't able to keep themselves together.

Chronos, that's interesting, I never thought of that before, so why has the solar system not expanded? A gravitational orbit in an expanding space shouldn't remain stable should it?

 

[wabbit]

I don't understand how expansion per se can affect orbits at all. The Earth is not comoving and the geometry is locally Schwarzschild. Can it be affected by a distant symmetric distribution of galaxies, whether these are receding or approaching?
The cosmological constant should have an effect though, I recall seeing a paper analysing that, will try to dig it up.

 

[Chalnoth]

Do you have a reference? I suspect the use of the word "force" in this connection was ill-advised, since it leads to the erroneous inference you have made. Expansion does not "try" to push bound objects apart, which is what the word "force" implies.

In some equations, the expansion acts as a sort of friction, tending to damp differences in velocity between things in the universe over time. That *might* be what he was talking about, but I'm not sure of the context.

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't understand how expansion per se can affect orbits at all. The Earth is not comoving and the geometry is locally Schwarzschild. Can it be affected by a distant symmetric distribution of galaxies, whether these are receding or approaching?
The cosmological constant should have an effect though, I recall seeing a paper analysing that, will try to dig it up.

No, it doesn't. Bound objects are stable in an expanding universe without a cosmological constant. This drops right out of the linearized equations using perturbation theory to describe a universe that isn't homogeneous (linearized equations only describe really big objects accurately...smaller objects are going to be even less impacted by the expansion).

 

[wabbit]

I was saying there might be an effect with a CC, not without it - not sure though.
Couldn't find the paper I had in mind but this one seems relevant:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.2712
Influence of global cosmological expansion on local dynamics and kinematics
Matteo Carrera, Domenico Giulini

We review attempts to estimate the influence of global cosmological expansion on local systems. Here `local' is taken to mean that the sizes of the considered systems are much smaller than cosmologically relevant scales. For example, such influences can affect orbital motions as well as configurations of compact objects, like black holes. We also discuss how measurements based on the exchange of electromagnetic signals of distances, velocities, etc. of moving objects are influenced. As an application we compare orders of magnitudes of such effects with the scale set by the apparently anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft s, which is 10^-9 m/s^2. We find no reason to believe that the latter is of cosmological origin. However, the general problem of gaining a qualitative and quantitative understanding of how the cosmological dynamics influences local systems remains challenging, with only partial clues being so far provided by exact solutions to the field equations of General Relativity.

 

[Chalnoth]

Right. I was a little ambiguous in my reply. I was agreeing with you (my first sentence responds to your first sentence).

 

[wabbit]

Ah OK, got it now thanks:)

For a spherically symmetric distribution, distant stars should have zero effect - this is correct in Newtonian gravity but is it always true in GR? Looking at these papers the issue doesn't seem so simple so presumably this may be only correct up to a Newtonian approximation, or otherwise up to second order effects?

 

[PeterDonis]

For a spherically symmetric distribution, distant stars should have zero effect - this is correct in Newtonian gravity but is it always true in GR?

Yes; the "shell theorem" holds in GR as well as Newtonian gravity.

 

[wabbit]

Great. Can we also say that if we add one mass at the center of this spherical vacuum, we get a Schwarzschild geometry in place of flat spacetime?
Newton-wise we would just add forces, but in GR unless the sphere is large enough there should some correction?
Otherwise the orbits around a comoving mass surrounded by a spherically symmetric distribution of matter would be unaffected even by a cosmological constant - but this isn't quite true, in the vacuum case we get Schwarzschild-de Sitter geometry with some corrections to orbits?

Edit: but how does the shell theorem work with a CC? It must be saying something like, not the vacuum is flat, but it has de Sitter geometry? Otherwise a sphere cut out in de Sitter space would seem to provide a counterexample.

 

[Chalnoth]

Great. Can we also say that if we add one mass at the center of this spherical vacuum, we get a Schwarzschild geometry in place of flat spacetime?
Newton-wise we would just add forces, but in GR unless the sphere is large enough there should some correction?
Otherwise the orbits around a comoving mass surrounded by a spherically symmetric distribution of matter would be unaffected even by a cosmological constant - but this isn't quite true, in the vacuum case we get Schwarzschild-de Sitter geometry with some corrections to orbits?

Edit: but how does the shell theorem work with a CC? It must be saying something like, not the vacuum is flat, but it has de Sitter geometry? Otherwise a sphere cut out in de Sitter space would seem to provide a counterexample.

Found a proof here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.4110

They say that locally, the vacuum solution in a spherically-symmetric space-time in the presence of a cosmological constant is necessarily equivalent to either de Sitter space-time, or Schwarzschild-de Sitter space-time (Theorem 1 in the paper). However, they also say that the predicted space-time is not necessarily static, and I don't entirely understand what that means.

 

[PeterDonis]

Found a proof here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.4110

This is a proof of Birkhoff's Theorem, not the shell theorem; they're two different things.

Birkhoff's Theorem, in the generalized form proven in this paper, says that any vacuum, spherically symmetric solution to the EFE with cosmological constant must be the Schwarzschild-de Sitter geometry.

The shell theorem says that, if we have a distribution of stress-energy that is spherically symmetric outside some region, the geometry inside that region is unaffected by the stress-energy distribution outside it.

We can combine the two results to say that, for example, if the stress-energy distribution is spherically symmetric outside some region, and inside the region we have a spherically symmetric vacuum, then the geometry inside the region must be Schwarzschild-de Sitter.

they also say that the predicted space-time is not necessarily static, and I don't entirely understand what that means.

It means that the Schwarzschild-de Sitter geometry is only static between the two horizons--outside the black hole horizon and inside the cosmological horizon. In the other regions it is not static; there is still an extra Killing vector field (in addition to the ones implied by spherical symmetry), but it is not timelike (it is null on the two horizons and spacelike inside the black hole or outside the cosmological horizon).

 

[Chalnoth]

This is a proof of Birkhoff's Theorem, not the shell theorem; they're two different things.

I don't think so. One consequence of Birkhoff's theorem is that the spacetime inside a spherical shell is Minkowski.

Birkhoff's Theorem, in the generalized form proven in this paper, says that any vacuum, spherically symmetric solution to the EFE with cosmological constant must be the Schwarzschild-de Sitter geometry.

Right, which reduces to de Sitter geometry when m=0. And as with Birkhoff's original theorem, this is also valid for vacuum inside a spherical shell.

 

[wabbit]

Thanks @Chalnoth and @PeterDonis. So from this theorem, if we have a central mass in a spherically symmetric universe,
- if $\Lambda=0$ the geometry is locally exactly Schwarzschild;
- if $\Lambda>0$ but $\Lambda\ll M^{-2}$ it is locally exactly SdS.
The "locally" still describe a "large" region, spherically symmetric, which is if I understand it correctly is sufficient to describe orbits around the central mass.
In this case - say, carving out a hollow comoving sphere in a FRW spacetime and putting a mass at the center, the orbital dynamics inside that sphere are entirely unaffected by expansion, and a small cosmological constant changes them a bit but leaves them bounded.

A more realistic situation might be to look at a scale where homogeneity holds and carve out a comoving sphere where the outside is still symmetric, but then replace the homogenous inside with some random distribution of matter (with the constraint that its center of mass is at the center of the sphere?)
It would be nice if we could to conclude that dynamics inside are still unaffected by (spherically symmetric) dynamics outside, so that again expansion has exactly zero effect on local gravitational dynamics (and the cosmological constant effect is that of the constant local curvature it adds, not an effect of outside expansion), which seems to be the conclusion suggested by the shell theorem.

 

[PeterDonis]

One consequence of Birkhoff's theorem is that the spacetime inside a spherical shell is Minkowski.

More precisely, one consequence of Birkhoff's theorem is that a vacuum spherically symmetric spacetime region with zero cosmological constant and zero mass is Minkowski. But the shell theorem is much more general: the region inside the shell does not have to be vacuum (or zero mass or zero cosmological constant). No matter what is inside the shell, if the shell is spherically symmetric, the geometry inside it is unaffected by the geometry outside it.

 

[PeterDonis]

carving out a hollow comoving sphere in a FRW spacetime and putting a mass at the center, the orbital dynamics inside that sphere are entirely unaffected by expansion

Yes.

A more realistic situation might be to look at a scale where homogeneity holds and carve out a comoving sphere where the outside is still symmetric, but then replace the homogenous inside with some random distribution of matter (with the constraint that its center of mass is at the center of the sphere?)
It would be nice if we could to conclude that dynamics inside are still unaffected by (spherically symmetric) dynamics outside, so that again expansion has exactly zero effect on local gravitational dynamics (and the cosmological constant effect is that of the constant local curvature it adds, not an effect of outside expansion), which seems to be the conclusion suggested by the shell theorem.

Yes.

 

[wabbit]

Thanks, this seems clear then.

But now I am having doubts about the approach of the (Newtonian approximation to the) two body problem in an expanding background described in http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.2712 (p.7) and elsewhere, which takes the acceleration of comoving bodies and applies it to orbiting bodies (by itself this step seems arbitrary).

The clearest case is that of a significant comoving mass and a small orbiting one, both added to an FRW background. The only reason I can see for a correction, is that the background fluid is escaping a fixed sphere around the comoving mass, so that the effective mass within a fixed sphere decreases over time (and the solution seems to be a TLB spacetime) - but this doesn't seem to be a realistic prescription, when the comoving fluid represents galaxies and such and we're looking at a smaller scale : here, the empty ball embedded in a symmetric spacetime seems much more relevant, with the conclusion that the two body probem is the same as with no expansion.

Is this correct ?

 

[Jimster41]

Do you have a reference? I suspect the use of the word "force" in this connection was ill-advised, since it leads to the erroneous inference you have made. Expansion does not "try" to push bound objects apart, which is what the word "force" implies.

I've wondered about this... I interpreted, perhaps wildly incorrectly, the information content of Verlinde's holographic screen, p.2 sec3

"Thus we are going to assume that information is stored on surfaces, or screens. Screens separate points, and in this way are the natural place to store information about particles that move from one side to the other. Thus we imagine that this information about the location particles is stored in discrete bits on the screens. The dynamics on each screen is given by some unknown rules, which can be thought of as a way of processing the information that is stored on it. Hence, it does not have to be given by a local field theory, or anything familiar. The microscopic details are irrelevant for us."

to be a set of as yet un-identified dynamics well-covered by the term "expansion", like curvature distribution in LGQ, or MERA renormalization through disentanglers.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785v1.pdf

On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton
Erik P. Verlinde
(Submitted on 6 Jan 2010)
Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton's law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic.

 

[PeterDonis]

I interpreted, perhaps wildly incorrectly, the information content of Verlinde's holographic screen

This is a speculative theory on the origins of gravity, which should be discussed in a separate thread (and probably belongs in the Beyond the Standard Model forum, not this one).

 

[PeterDonis]

which takes the acceleration of comoving bodies and applies it to orbiting bodies (by itself this step seems arbitrary).

This seems ad hoc to me too. However, I have not read this paper in detail, and their approach looks interesting enough that I would like to before commenting further.

 

[Jimster41]

Yep, sorry. I was just trying to qualify a possibly mistaken connection I've been carrying around regarding the concept of expansion of space-time and force, as I heard it being discussed here.

 

[wabbit]

This seems ad hoc to me too. However, I have not read this paper in detail, and their approach looks interesting enough that I would like to before commenting further.

Actually, re-reading it, it looks to me like they quote this argument only heuristically, and then proceed with what looks like a rigorous derivation (which I don't follow), so my doubts on that part most likely reflect only my lack of understanding of the complete argument.

Still it does rely as far as I can tell on the FRW metric being valid locally, i.e. being immersed in the comoving fluid, so the question whether this is a realistic prescription for local dynamics in the actual universe remains.

 

[PeterDonis]

it does rely as far as I can tell on the FRW metric being valid locally, i.e. being immersed in the comoving fluid, so the question whether this is a realistic prescription for local dynamics in the actual universe remains.

Yes, exactly. I'm not sure their reasoning still applies in a bubble of empty space (possibly with a mass in the center of it) surrounded by spherically symmetric cosmological fluid.

 

[wabbit]

Yes, exactly. I'm not sure their reasoning still applies in a bubble of empty space (possibly with a mass in the center of it) surrounded by spherically symmetric cosmological fluid.

I can't be positive but I'm pretty sure it doesn't, they describe it (and calculate it) as coming from an "ambiant" FRW metric. They mention vacuum bubbles before that, though they criticize that approach - but as I read it, what they really criticize is the patching of an external strict FRW solution to a bubble (they refer to that as Einstein–Straus and related solutions), which they show can work only at very large (galaxy cluster and above) scale. This is different from vacuum bubble+symmetry, the latter being a LTB, not FRW. But here too I can't truly follow their arguments so this is only an impression.

 

[Warp]

I have never quite understood why so many people seem to be perplexed by this question. They are not perplexed by any other similar situation, only by this one. What exactly makes this one so different that it's so hard to comprehend?

Nobody asks "why isn't the lake tearing the boat apart (even though the water is pulling and pushing it to all directions)?" Or "why isn't the wind ripping apart this building?" Or "why do not I collapse when I submerge in water?"

Those are rather silly questions. Yet "if the universe is expanding, why isn't everything expanding?" seems to baffle the mind, somehow.

 

[zanick]

There is no such thing; the expansion of the universe does not give rise to any force.

you state this as an absolute... yet, it isn't. we don't know if there is a huge mass on all sides of the universe creating a force due to gravity that is accelerating everything in our universe outward.

 

[zanick]

I have never quite understood why so many people seem to be perplexed by this question. They are not perplexed by any other similar situation, only by this one. What exactly makes this one so different that it's so hard to comprehend?

Nobody asks "why isn't the lake tearing the boat apart (even though the water is pulling and pushing it to all directions)?" Or "why isn't the wind ripping apart this building?" Or "why do not I collapse when I submerge in water?"

Those are rather silly questions. Yet "if the universe is expanding, why isn't everything expanding?" seems to baffle the mind, somehow.

because the forces of expansion don't exceed the forces keeping some things together. If everything as we know it was expanding, the universe would be expanding a heck of a lot faster than it is. :)

 

[Bandersnatch]

you state this as an absolute... yet, it isn't. we don't know if there is a huge mass on all sides of the universe creating a force due to gravity that is accelerating everything in our universe outward.

We do know that can't be the source of expansion, since such a mass imparts exactly zero acceleration on the particles contained inside. This result has been known for hundreds of years. Google 'shell theorem'.
edit:typo[/size]

 

[zanick]

We do know that can't be the source of expansion, since such a mass imparts exactly zero acceleration on the particles contained inside. This result has been known for hundred of years. Google 'shell theorem'.

good point... kind of like if there was a bubble directly in the center of the earth, then if you stood there, you would just be floating?
So, the answer must be in another source of the force. (if the universe is still expanding as it appears to be)... and if there is this "force" , the force is not greater than the micro forces holding the small things together. because the universe is expanding and accelerating, then this force must be increasing, so eventually, everything will be expanding and ripped apart. what is it due to ? hmmmmm dark matter? forces we don't understand? how can the universe have accelerated expansion without a force to blame it on?

 

[wabbit]

Not dark matter - dark matter is actually the primary thing slowing down expansion, which would accelerate more without it. But dark energy if you want, that is just another name for this effect.

But it can also be seen as pure geometry - in the same way that gravity is said to be not a force in GR, but an effect of curvature, so is accelerated expansion, which is due to a particular kind of curvature.

 

[PeterDonis]

the answer must be in another source of the force

Expansion, by itself, does not require any force; it's just inertia. Things in the universe are flying apart. It doesn't take any force to keep them flying apart.

how can the universe have accelerated expansion without a force to blame it on?

Here you refer specifically to accelerated expansion, which, according to our best current model, is due to dark energy. That can be thought of as a "force", but only in the same way that any other kind of tidal gravity can be thought of as a "force". "Accelerated expansion" is just a name for a particular kind of spacetime curvature, i.e., tidal gravity, as wabbit says.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

I was under the impression that most physicists believed that dark energy came from a gauge boson like the electro-weak and strong forces rather than the curvature of spacetime? I remember watching a documentary on how the first began to try and find distant supernova to measure the expansion and in it the theory they laid out for dark energy was that most of it would come from a yet undiscovered unstable gauge boson that randomly pops in and out of existence from vacuum energy?

 

[PeterDonis]

I was under the impression that most physicists believed that dark energy came from a gauge boson like the electro-weak and strong forces rather than the curvature of spacetime?

No, that's not the right way to put it. The curvature of spacetime is there; it's been measured (that's what "accelerating expansion of the universe" means). The source of the curvature of spacetime--what produces it--is what is currently a matter of speculation: is it due to a cosmological constant, or a scalar field, or what?

 

[Chalnoth]

Deleted because I'm pretty sure what I wrote was incorrect.

 

[Chalnoth]

We do know that can't be the source of expansion, since such a mass imparts exactly zero acceleration on the particles contained inside. This result has been known for hundreds of years. Google 'shell theorem'.
edit:typo

There's been quite a bit of work to attempt to explain the accelerated expansion without a cosmological constant in terms of inhomogeneities. What they found is that if the Earth is almost identically at the center of a very large void, it is possible to observe an accelerated expansion as a result. But it turns out that this solution doesn't fit with observations.

 

[bcrowell]

There is a discussion of this topic here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70047/can-the-hubble-constant-be-measured-locally . I have a longer treatment in section 8.2.10 of my GR book http://www.lightandmatter.com/genrel/ . Both of those links have references to published papers.

 

[Quds Akbar]

Even if we were expanding in size, though that is not what I think, our instruments and labs would expand proportionally and we would not notice any difference, though I did not quite get your question or your point in Viewpoint 2. This was brought up in The Grand Design and it was concluded that objects do not increase in size as the universe expands using the balloon analogy. The distance between two objects may increase, but the size does not.

 

[Quds Akbar]

As far as I know, the universe at the smallest level does expand. A possible fate of the universe is called the big rip, where the expansion of space becomes so fast that atoms aren't able to keep themselves together.

Chronos, that's interesting, I never thought of that before, so why has the solar system not expanded? A gravitational orbit in an expanding space shouldn't remain stable should it?

But that happens when dark energy overcomes the gravitational force holding the objects together.

 

[wabbit]

I am no expert but my understanding is that a big rip is not a likely forecast, and not a consequence of the cosmological constant - dark energy need not overcome the gravitational force within bound systems, it separates such systems until each is isolated from all others.

For a simple system with a dominant central mass, there are stable orbits in a vacuum with cosmological constant, see e.g. Kagramanova & Lämmerzahl, Solar system effects in Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime

An interesting discussion of such a future is Krauss & Scherrer, The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology

 

[newjerseyrunner]

But that happens when dark energy overcomes the gravitational force holding the objects together.

Well, at the grandest scale that appears to already be happening. If dark energy continues to become ever stronger in proportion to gravity, then eventually galaxies will become unstable and start shedding mass. Solar system's orbits would start becoming unstable and eventually fly apart. If it continues on forever, eventually large stars will start shedding mass and explode. Planets will slowly evaporate, and eventually even black holes will vaporize or explode?

Question though, I've heard that dark energy is likely virtual particles popping in and out of existence because of random flux in vacuum energy. Because of entropy, shouldn't the vacuum energy density be steadily decreasing? Wouldn't this eventually slow the creation of random virtual particles? As the density of vacuum energy changes, shouldn't the ratio of the types of random virtual particles created from random flux change through time? Like very early on in the universe there was too much energy density to form any protons, then for a short period of time there was just energy energy density to create a ton of them, then it cooled further and the random creation of protons all but ceased. As entropy continues, shouldn't the amount of dark energy gauge bosons being produced wane, regardless of it's exact properties?

 

[wabbit]

Solar system's orbits would start becoming unstable and eventually fly apart

Would you have a reference supporting this ? Unless you are assuming an increasing cosmological constant, I don't understand how this is possible - if the ratio of $\Lambda$ to $G$ is constant, orbits are stable (actually, very slowly decaying, spiralling inward, due to gravitational radiation emission), and the local effect of the CC is forever as tiny as it is now. Kraus & Scherrer actually argue that given the low value of $\Lambda$ , this CC may even be undetectable locally. I am not sure I truly buy this last argument, but the general picture of an ultimate island universe seems convincing, and consistent with other arguments, be they from the Schwarzschild-de Sitter geometry or the shell theorem.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, at the grandest scale that appears to already be happening. If dark energy continues to become ever stronger in proportion to gravity, then eventually galaxies will become unstable and start shedding mass. Solar system's orbits would start becoming unstable and eventually fly apart. If it continues on forever, eventually large stars will start shedding mass and explode. Planets will slowly evaporate, and eventually even black holes will vaporize or explode?

Question though, I've heard that dark energy is likely virtual particles popping in and out of existence because of random flux in vacuum energy. Because of entropy, shouldn't the vacuum energy density be steadily decreasing? Wouldn't this eventually slow the creation of random virtual particles? As the density of vacuum energy changes, shouldn't the ratio of the types of random virtual particles created from random flux change through time? Like very early on in the universe there was too much energy density to form any protons, then for a short period of time there was just energy energy density to create a ton of them, then it cooled further and the random creation of protons all but ceased. As entropy continues, shouldn't the amount of dark energy gauge bosons being produced wane, regardless of it's exact properties?

Sure but it's not likely that dark energy will become stronger.

 

[bcrowell]

Even if we were expanding in size, though that is not what I think, our instruments and labs would expand proportionally and we would not notice any difference[..].

No, this is discussed in the links in my #43, and in the references therein. Cosmological expansion, if not at a constant rate, causes local effects, such as the ones estimated in the Cooperstock paper and in the examples in my book, that are in principle detectable but in reality too small to measure. The Cooperstock paper is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9803097v1