Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Response to Dark Energy Theory

Hi, I'm new to the forums but, before I joined I read a thread about a theory explaining what Dark Energy is. The user had posted something like this: "What if dark energy is negetive energy, the counterpart of all the positive energy?". My answer to you is: If that were the case then we should have negative energy/dark energy here on earth.

Hello and welcome Hleyix and it is good to see someone pondering and thinking about science.

The problem here Hleyix is negative energy as you describe is simply a reference frame in which you are putting a minus sign in front.

In other words you haven't really made dark energy because I can still see it I would just measure it with an opposite sign much like measuring a DC voltage with a multimeter and the leads backwards.

Remember energy is already invisible it is not like I can show you a bucket of energy so in many ways energy is already dark to us.

To start to understand what is going here .... start at the beginning and this is a question I pose to you as I once did to Bill on here.


QUESTION: Is energy real or is it an imaginary thing?

You will get very mixed answers if you google that but there is actually a correct answer and a very definite proof of it by falsifying the alternative.


To explain the importance of the question consider the US dollar or the currency of any nation, it appears real and you can buy and sell things with them. Yet they are imaginary if the country and sometimes government ceases to exist the currency becomes worthless and yet the rest of the world economy continues on. So the question to you is energy fictional like currency or is there a proof energy is a fundamental thing.


To understand the importance of energy being real can you have a negative US dollar and look at what you posed?

So start there give me what your answer to the question is energy real and what is it and the proof.

Hleyix

you should think of all forms of energy as being potential energy.

stupid orac wants you to think that energy is like money and
can be created or destroyed.

because that is a necessary part of his QM religion.



he is trying to draw you into a argument , its called fishing.

the truth is out there , but it no longer resides in science.

its the people like orac who gave science its new reputation.

and to me that reputation can be correctly represented by a big
pile of .....

As you can see Hleyix we have a number of resident Religious nutcases and there is very little if any moderation so you have to wade thru large pile of Paul's (which he gives you a nice picture of himself above).

You either need to learn to ignore the religious nutters or even make fun of them (which can be fun) or if I can suggest take the question to http://www.physicsforums.com/ where stupidity like the goat worshipper Paul get perma banned.

There are logical and easy to follow answers to your question but rather than insist on an answer it is easy to lead you thru the science evidence and you will see there is no other choice than the final answers and you end at two possibilities.

Your choice .... I am happy to show you the science logic in it's answer and have some fun with the religious nutters along the way here or move the discussion to a moderated science forum.

but notice that orac is the only one that continually
talks about religion , its even in his tag line.



then that would be a first for you orac.

never before have you shown any logic.

I will have to check in during your discussion to see if its really logic or if its just more fantasy.

You guys obviuosly don't like each other. I read and thought about the matter at hand and my answer is no, it isn't it is a property of things.

And in the classic physics world that is a perfectly acceptable answer but there is a small problem

E=MC2

C2 is the speed of light square squared and is a constant if energy isn't real then mass must not be real and as we don't know what causes gravity perhaps that is ok as well.


So if that is true as per your original post dark matter is simply negative energy which creates negative mass and infact you can write dark energy conservation using negative signs

-E = -MC2

And since we are implying negative mass dark matter gravity must be repulsive rather than attractive.

That all sounds good so far dark energy therefor pushes the universe apart and the normal energy pulls the universe together.

Can you see the problem yet ... hint think about the pushing and pulling.

In answer to your question about Paul ... dislike is to strong a term for me ... he is just a religious zealot who thinks he is defending GOD by interfering with science discussions and it is opposed to what I want to achieve on the forum ... for me there is nothing personal in it.

Energy is a property that is affected by mass. If it isn't real that doesn't mean that mass isn't. Btw there is no clear answer to this question, it's like asking is there a God? So why are you asking it?

I REMIND YOU E=MC2 you can weight the matter before and after and then we do a little thing to it ..... here is an image of converting a few grams



So we lost some mass we got a massive release of energy ... so how do you propose that energy is simply a property of matter?

Let be more blunt and give you a science history lesson in 1919 Ernest Rutherford preformed the first successful atomic transmutation when he converted nitrogen gas into oxygen by bombarding it with alpha particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation

As I said classic physics may struggle with energy because it is a nebulous concept in classic physics BUT we know classic physics is wrong we have known that since 1905.

Quantum mechanics and nuclear physics are not so nebulous energy is very real and very measurable and you can create thousands if not millions of experiments to confirm it.

For young students we make a particle-in-a-box version which simplifies the situation to a manageable level

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box

The key point to the model is




So let me be clear because we do it routinely you can show energy is real and you can measure it .... energy is most definitely not just a property of matter.




Again total garbage try to get the particle in a box model to have negative energy you can't because there is no parameter that can go negative so the result can only ever be positive.

So if you have negative energy in a mass you have something that doesn't exist in our physical world.




See because your answer is totally wrong on every level and it tells me what level of science you have attained. What I know is you have only ever been taught classic physics at a school level and haven't yet been told that it is all semi-wrong they just teach it to keep things simple enough for you to understand.

So be careful claiming science can't answer questions until you ask because your level of science is not high enough to make that claim.

Well said Orac