Out on a limb: Looking at dark energy from outside the box

The other day, I was considering this formula (figure 1) for gravitational lensing, i.e., the distortion of light caused by gravity. Though the formula has more to do with dark matter rather than dark energy (two entirely different things, say the physicists who can’t describe either), it got me to thinking about the expansion of the universe.

Figure 1

See, not only is the universe expanding, but the expansion is accelerating, a fact that was only discovered in 1998. Up to that time there were two popular contemporary theories on the subject:

1. The size of the universe was static (not really all that popular).
2. The universe was expanding, but the expansion was decelerating and would eventually lead to an inversion, collapsing in on itself, sort of a reverse of the Big Bang (much more popular, in a morbid sort of way).

The general theoretical assumption is that the accelerating expansion is being driven by this ubiquitous and unaccountable dark energy, the existence of which is mainly premised on the fact that the universe is expanding at an accelerating velocity. (Is that a bit of circular logic, or is it just me?)

Now let me ice the cake.

Since the universe is expanding, and since the laws of physics firmly prohibit the creation of new matter and energy, the expansion is left with but one alternative—the creation of new space. (I really want to say “Go figure” right here, but it just doesn’t seem scientific enough for this blog.)(Ah, what the hey.) Go figure.

Now that one really freed my mind. In this realm of scientific definitions, where matter and energy are everything and space is the nothingness between them, it seems to me that the expansion of the universe is really creating more—nothing!

Can you understand, now, why people become physicists? Isn’t this more fun even than watching The Daily Show?

Realizing how wide open astrophysics and cosmology were to this sort of sideways thinking (as MAD Magazine used to call it), I figured I would jump right in.

I took another look at the gravitational lensing formula (figure 1). I then reversed and inverted the formula (figure 2).

Figure 2

Do you see what I mean?

Right! It makes no sense at all. I’m just goofing around. (But it makes this essay look a bit more science-y, doesn't it?)

However, I do have a serious point, even though it may not sound serious.

Generally, astrophysicists are reluctant to consider anything outside of the universe. This would include any presumed events or conditions prior to the Big Bang and, well, anything outside of the universe since that event, because there is no way of knowing, sensing, measuring or testing anything in those supposed realms. Even to speculate is largely pointless.

I, however, am not limited by such considerations.

And I got to thinking: what else could be responsible for the increasing velocity of the universe’s expansion?

In letting my mind wander over the question, I eventually pictured Newton’s fabled apple, accelerating as it approached the gravity-fraught earth. (Fraught really isn’t the best word here, but it’s come into more popular use lately, and I’ve determined to employ it in each of my blogs; one to go. Now, back to Newton’s apple.) And I thought: Eureka!

It would make much more sense if there were something outside the universe, drawing the universe toward it, than to have to explain some illusory dark energy that exists but cannot be sensed, measured or tested. It has the added benefit of being outside the universe and, therefore, neither provable nor disprovable. However, I can offer the expansion of the universe as evidence in its favor.

I’ll name this force expaneity. (Hey, you try making up a relevant-sounding word that isn’t in use somewhere else on the internet.)

Remember, you heard it here first.

[?]