Hi Richard, I must stress that this is all new territory for me, but what I gather from the things I've read so far is that dark energy is a form of positive energy balanced by the negative energy of gravity. So here too some kind of polarity seems to hold. The point is that as space expands, dark energy increases, so the law of energy conservation is violated, unless the negative energy of gravity increases with an equal amount, so as to 'balance the books'. Thus it would seem that what happens in inflation is precisely this 'splitting' of positive, dark energy (repulsion, which drives the inflation) and the negative energy of gravity. Dark energy can only increase if the negative energy of gravity increases at the same time. Dark energy and gravity seem to be the two opposed sidess of one and the same coin, which is also suggested by the fact that dark energy is often referred to a repulsive gravity.
Well, that's what I understand about it (and that's not much)... I have to do more reading on this subject to feel really comfortable about it... But as far as I can tell right now, this duality of dark energy and the negative energy of gravity fits the dialectical picture of nothing splitting into opposites quite well. Peter Actually Peter I was thinking more about your basic assumption that mass-energy is balanced by gravity, one being the negative of the other, which also seems to apply to the dialectic explained in the second blog above, which I just read. > Dark energy creates more space and perhaps spacetime. Space or spacetime > does not appear to be the negative of anything. Rather like a particle and > an anti-particle annihilating each other to produce light, if the dielectic > is correct for Dark Energy, then there must be a balance of positive and > negative to create space. Yet the creation of space just creates more Dark > Energy along with it. > > The leading candidate for the explanation of Dark Energy is the > cosmological constant which amounts to a repulsive force. But space or > space time is neutral with respect to force and there is apparently no > evidence that an attractive force like gravity due to matter creation is > happening. Someone on this list like Brent or John Clark will surely > correct my explanation if it is wrong. But in short, Dark Energy appears to > falsify the notion that something is derived from nothing by a balance of > forces. > > BTW there some preliminary evidence that the cosmological constant > explanation is not correct: > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-energy-cosmological-constant/ > Richard > > >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
