I am not a physicist, just a dabbling engineer philosoper, however, the idea of dark energy is intriguing. I asked a question a few weeks ago, whether dark (mass) energy is identical to negative (mass) energy and what the implications would be in terms of Newton mechanics. The reason for my question was that, on purely philosophical grounds, because of symmetry and of conservation laws, I was expecting the amount of positive (mass) energy in the universe to be exactly equal to the amount of negative (mass) energy. Therefore, I was expecting the amount of dark energy to be exactly equal to the amount of mass energy in the universe.

However, in recent article, Tegmark stated that the amount of dark energy has been measured to be 67%. This data shoots down my bipolar symmetry conjecture. However, pursuing the idea of symmetry in the complex plane, it may imply that there are two kinds of dark energy each 33% of the universe. The symmetry would then be three-fold: 1/3 real matter, 1/3 (-0.5 +  isqrt(3)/2) dark energy and 1/3 (-0.5 -  isqrt(3)/2) dark energy. Can any one figure out what the implications of this conjecture  would be? How would dark energy interact with itself and how would it interact with ordinary matter?


Ron McFarland wrote:
Looks like this topic ended with my last post of 3 days ago. Thank 
you to those who contributed. I've no idea how things will really 
settle out in a Theory of Everything related to physics. My arguments 
are but one view point, certainly not the most educated, and until 
some time in the future it just can not be known what truth is within 
the view point that I've expressed in this topic thread. More than 
likely some more surprises are in store that will turn physics on its 
head yet again. We live in the most exciting age that humankind has 
ever seen, with events unfolding at an astonishing rate. It seems to 
me that it would be a little naive to think that any one explanation 
is total (not even my own offered up here for disassembly). All we 
really know is what we can repeatably measure, we do not yet know 
what we measure nor that which we have no means to measure.

Ron McFarland


Reply via email to