Re: Dark Matter, dark eneggy, & conservation

From: George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:52:11 -0800

Ron,

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?

George

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
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Nov 14 2003 - 15:07:44 PST