The Cosmos

27
Jan

Will We Ever Know the True Nature of Dark Energy?

You know that dream where you’re about to take a final exam, only to realize that you have neglected to study and, moreover, to put on pants? I imagine that’s what astronomers must have felt like in 1998, when they found out that most of the cosmos had somehow escaped their notice.

Astronomers knew that the universe had been expanding since the Big Bang, but they assumed that the gravitational pull of all the stuff inside it was gradually slowing that expansion. So they were caught off guard when supernova observations showed that in fact the expansion was speeding up, thanks to a mysterious phenomenon they dubbed “dark energy.”

X-ray image of the remnant of SN 1572, a supernova of the type used to measure the accelerating expansion of the universe. Credit: NASA/CXC/Rutgers/J.Warren & J.Hughes et al.
X-ray image of the remnant of SN 1572, a supernova of the type used to measure the accelerating expansion of the universe. Credit: NASA/CXC/Rutgers/J.Warren & J.Hughes et al.

Nearly 16 years and a trio of Nobel Prizes later, the initial shock has worn off, but the sense of chagrin lingers. “About 70% of the universe is dark energy, so it’s embarrassing not to know what it is,” says Valeria Pettorino, a physicist and cosmologist at the University of Geneva in Switzerland and the University of Heidelberg in Germany.

That uncertainty means physicists can’t predict whether the acceleration will continue at the same pace, speed up, or slow down, leading to no small amount of existential angst over the fate of the cosmos. “We don’t know what’s going to happen,” says Daniel Eisenstein of Harvard University. “The expansion of the universe is really being controlled by this new phenomenon that we don’t [understand].”

So when will we unmask this cosmic meddler? It could take physicists a decade or more to narrow down its hundreds of possible identities, many of which are devilishly hard to distinguish from one another. But researchers are attacking the problem from a number of angles and are already collecting some intriguing hints as to the true nature of dark energy—or at least what it’s not.

The astrophysical observation campaign “is really hitting its stride,” says Eisenstein. The initial finding in 1998 was based on measurements of fewer than 100 supernovae that appeared to be dimmer, and thus farther away, than expected. Since then, researchers have studied about 1,000 supernovae and developed a number of other techniques to gauge how the universe’s expansion rate has changed over time.

So far, all the observations can be accounted for with the simplest explanation: that any cubic meter of space froths with a set amount of repulsive energy, so that as space expands over time, the amount of repulsive energy grows as well.

But this simple solution, known as the cosmological constant, suffers from what may be a fatal flaw. Quantum physics suggests that the vacuum of space does contain energy, thanks to “virtual” particles that constantly pop into and out of existence, but when researchers calculate that energy based on known physics, they come up with a value that is some 10120 times larger than dark energy’s observed strength. “That’s a really embarrassing mismatch,” says cosmologist Michael Mortonson of the University of California, Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. It’s easier to imagine how to cancel out the vacuum energy completely in the equations than have it retain a small, but non-zero, value, he says.

That has led researchers to ponder alternative explanations, such as the possibility that dark energy is caused by a quantum field that changes strength over time. One such field is the leading candidate to explain inflation, the period of super-fast expansion thought to have taken place just after the Big Bang. Another possibility is that our current understanding of gravity, Einstein’s theory of general relativity, is incomplete. “General relativity is very well tested at the scale of our solar system,” says Pettorino. “What we are trying to understand is if somehow it could be different at scales that are much larger.”

Some of these alternatives already appear to be on shaky ground, including the exotic notion that gravity could be leaking into an extra spatial dimension, making the universe expand faster than it otherwise should, says Mortonson.

But many others are still in the running, and new observations have bolstered the case for certain models. For example, last year researchers analyzing data from Europe’s Planck satellite calculated a value for the expansion rate of the universe today, known as the Hubble constant, that differs from Hubble Space Telescope observations by as much as 10%. The conflicting results can be reconciled by a model called “phantom energy,” a hypothetical dark energy that grows stronger over time. The catch: phantom energy could cause the universe to end in a “big rip,” tearing apart stars, planets, atoms, and their constituents. But don’t panic just yet. Pettorino says the discrepancy can also be explained if there is an extra force in the universe that causes dark energy to interact with another unknown component of the universe: the dark matter, whose presence has only been detected through its gravitational pull on visible matter.

Or the discrepancy, which is small to begin with, may be a flaw in the data analysis. “I think [that’s] the more likely explanation,” says Mortonson. “Every team is checking their analysis,” says Pettorino, who is a member of the Planck collaboration.

Future observations should help narrow down the possibilities. Dark energy’s behavior over time, which is measured by the ratio of its pressure and energy density (called its equation of state, or w) is measured to a precision of about 5% today. But in the next five years, new observations, including those with a special camera fitted onto a telescope in Chile called the Dark Energy Survey, will increase the precision to 2% or 3%, says Mortonson. Future ground- and space-based missions, including a planned European space mission called Euclid and a possible US probe called WFIRST, could make even finer measurements.

These missions will not only probe the expansion history of the universe but also chronicle how the distribution of matter has changed over time. One way to do this is with a method called weak gravitational lensing, which looks for distortions in the light from distant galaxies due to any mass that the light passes on its way to a telescope. If dark energy changes over time or if gravity behaves unexpectedly at large scales, we might see evidence of it in the changing “clumpiness” of matter over space and time.

But Eisenstein points out that there are always going to be exotic dark energy models that behave just like the cosmological constant. “The worry is that if we do all these very accurate measurements, and it still looks like a cosmological constant, then we haven’t actually ruled out a lot of the models,” he says. “I think we have a major challenge on the theory side to try to understand what else we can look for.”

“[To understand] dark energy, we will probably require more time, and I would say not less than 10 years,” says Pettorino.

But it’s worth trying to get to the bottom of the mystery, say the researchers. “We thought we had four forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Dark energy is either some new force, or some substantial modification to gravity,” says Eisenstein. “It’s a major actor in cosmology and in the history of the universe.”

Go Deeper
Editor’s picks for further reading

The New York Times: The Universe, Dark Energy and Us
In this Op-Ed, Harvard astrophysicist Robert Kirshner reacts to the 2011 physics Nobel award and reflects on the future of dark energy research.

physicsworld: Dark energy: how the paradigm shifted
Explore the history of dark energy and the cosmological constant.

Talks at Google: Dark Energy and the Runaway Universe
In this video, astrophysicist Alex Filippenko, a member of the teams that discovered the accelerating expansion of the universe, discusses the history and implications of dark energy.

Tell us what you think on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

maggie_96

Maggie McKee

    Maggie McKee is a freelance science writer focusing mainly on astronomy and physics. She worked at New Scientist as both a reporter and physical sciences news editor from 2003 to 2012 and in 2012 was one of the winners of the first European Astronomy Journalism prize. She studied physics at Grinnell College and science writing at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and now lives near Boston with her husband and a passel of four-legged friends.

    • SHREEKANT
      • billybeer54

        Is it possible,that an ocean of dark matte could have an electro magnetic charge however slight .opposition all forces attract causing expansion.

        • SHREEKANT

          no, dm has no em-charge. the reason of expansion is different

    • Anony

      Saying that the expansion of space creates more dark energy which creates more space is cyclical logic. Also, to say that energy is created is a bit heretical too. On the other hand we know that space is not empty but is “stuff.”. So, in essence, I guess energy IS being created. Crazy ideas, huh? If this is true, then maybe the more fundamental aspect of the problem we should be tackling is this seeming violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics…where does this energy come from.

      If space is a substance subject to gravity isn’t it possible that the dark energy that exists through space could be more dense in certain pockets of space like near stars and in galaxies and hence be called dark matter?

    • Doctor Who

      Fractal Gemeontry should solve it.

    • sean samis

      Here’s my $0.02 worth: as the universe expands it gets emptier; objects cluster around gravitational attractors and gravitational influence across emptier regions fades as distance increases. Dark energy is just cosmological expansion continuing with a declining “gravitational tension”.

      sean s.

    • Nathan Grant

      I believe that gravity can explain all of this. I also don’t believe we know enough about gravity to state anything about it’s effect’s over inter-stellar distances. Perhaps gravity behaves differently over vast distances – maybe it can even have a repulsive force that we aren’t aware of that is constant where as the attractive force becomes stronger depending on how close mater is to other matter. Really anything is possible at this point.

      Also, something that i think is interesting is when they call it “dark mater.” They make it sound like it’s some mysterious force – when in fact it is just ordinary mater that we can’t see. It makes up more mass than all of the stars and black holes and other bodies in the universe…this really isn’t hard to understand when you consider the VAST distances in the universe. “Dark Energy” has simply arisen as a fancy way of saying WE DONT KNOW what they heck is happening here but we can observe it and messure it and it apears to have some degree (10%) of accuracy…Also isn’t it possible that “dark energy” is just energy continuing out out from the big bang?

    • mpc755

      We know what dark energy and dark matter are.

      Cosmic microwave background
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#Low_multipoles_and_other_anomalies

      “With the increasingly precise data provided by WMAP, there have been a number of claims that the CMB exhibits anomalies, such as very large scale anisotropies, anomalous alignments, and non-Gaussian distributions. … A number of groups have suggested that this could be the signature of new physics at the greatest observable scales”

      The new physics is understanding our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_jet).

      Cosmos may be curved, scientists say
      http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/cosmos-may-be-curved-scientists-say/?intcmp=features

      “Now cosmologists suggest these anomalies occur because the universe is not flat. Instead, these researchers propose the universe may be ever so slightly “open,” curved in such a way that parallel lines, which never converge or diverge when traveling on a flat surface, will eventually diverge from one another, like on a saddle.”

      Our Universe is open because it is a larger version of a polar jet.

      Was the universe born spinning?
      http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/25/was-the-universe-born-spinning

      “The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis”

      Our Universe spins around a preferred axis because it is a larger version of a polar jet.

      Mysterious Cosmic ‘Dark Flow’ Tracked Deeper into Universe
      http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

      “The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. “We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we’d like whether the clusters are coming or going,” Kashlinsky said.”

      The clusters are headed along this path because our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet.

      It’s not the Big Bang; it’s the Big Ongoing.

      Dark energy is the evaporated matter (i.e. aether) which is continually being emitted into the Universal jet.

      There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

      Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

      Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

      The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

      There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it’s what waves.

    • Jokef1000

      Maybe it is just God.

      • Jokef1001

        Couldn’t God be speaking through science?

        • Becky Salibrici

          That’s a question open to speculation. If you believe it, fine. But it’s not a fact, that’s for sure. It’s not even scientific. Religion and politics go together. Now spirituality and science, maybe there’s something there. I believe in the forces of physics; “higher” powers…. I like to feel a sense of connection with the universe, because after all, I am a part of it (a very very small part)….. but it has nothing to do with religion. That’s the problem with conversations about God. First, define God. That’s the milestone.

          • RyanF1

            >”First, define God.”

            To paraphrase St. Augustine, “If you could comprehend (or in this case, define) it, it would not be God.”

            • sheila

              Can we believe or say that God is that just the creation , before or not , something we perceive within our beauty of our breath , perhaps man has been fooling himself to believe in nothing. for many years.

      • gatorallin

        ….said no scientist ever….

      • Thinking is good

        It is God waiting for the Scientist to thank him for the Great Brain he gifted them. To honor him for the Intelligence he gave them and to humble him for the Free will in not having to believe in him or trust in him or to need him or to Honor him. That is why Science Law is so finite. God is never changing and all powerful.

      • sheila

        You my friend have it right,

    • Wes Hardy

      Wave theory….a wave pushes out till it hits a shoreline and returns with less force….
      A boat is pushed out by the wave but the return of the wave slows it down.

      Where’s my Nobel, I could use a million today more than tomorrow, when it is worth less…inflation theory :)

    • Richard Poleet

      I going with what the man said(Einstein) “some substantial modification to gravity”.

      • gatorallin

        It sure seems we don’t understand gravity that well, or maybe we only understand the parts easiest to see……..or we only understand it on a small scale and still missing the forest for the trees…

        • KB

          Having completed high school introductory physics, I don’t qualify, but it seems that we are observing gravity on a scale of years while gravity is performing in constantly changing mass situations over many billions of earth years. Also any explosion as a nova would seem to act as fireworks in a chamber, scattering less matter onto the less dense surrounding areas, not uniformly. This could be perceived as accelerated expansion on the edge of the observable universe, and not as obvious at closer range where more matter is congregated or over a shorter time frame.

    • Tank Carson

      This is where this lay-person (above average intelligence is just a little bit confused)… the “dark force” aside (let me see if I understand this) Inflation is not matter moving by way of kinetic energy imparted by the Big Bang but “space” itself is expanding. Could this ever increasing and exponential curve be reason enough for a “speeding” up for the Universe? I have a headache….

    • TyrellCorp

      Perhaps dark matter and dark energy do not exist and do not need to exist…
      http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-is-einsteins-greatest-work-wrong-didnt-go-far#.Uu7U7BAZlx1

    • John Wolfgram

      Sean & Grant, I like your explanations. Now add a known ingredient, temperature. We know that interstellar space has a small temperature above absolute zero. But that temperature can’t exist in a vacuum. So, there must be something there to have a temperature, say ordinary matter in the form of a cosmic atomic dust forming the substance through which light propagates. So, as per your theory, gravity lessons over distance between masses, and distance results from the force of the big bang which gravity is supposed to slow down over time, except that the internal cosmic dust which contains the temperature is an expanding force against gravity pushing the universe into nothingness beyond the universe where there is no cosmic dust (or relatively less cosmic dust) rendering the universe like a pressure cooker that gradually but progressively over comes its container (gravity) and expands forever into the relative nothingness of space beyond the universe.

      In this case the cosmological constant is cosmic dust at a gradually decreasing temperature which decreases over distance caused by the force of the big bang.

      Add to that the multi-universe theory and you have a situation where some universes would expand forever while others will collapse upon themselves into another big gang depending on the amount of cosmic dust/temperature relative to mass producing gravity as a constant. If we suppose that the amount of mass compressed to a single point to cause a big bang is also a constant, we can have multi verses that never end and a necessity that even though the expansion is presently at increasing speed, as internal temperature approaches absolute zero, the pull of gravity can over come the expansive force.

      As to the amount of mass producing gravity, the cosmic dust being everywhere, produces nullifying and thus undetectable gravitational force within the universe, but relative to the absence of gravitational forces outside of the universe, it is a constant gravitational force tending to hold the universe together.

      Just a thought; and as most such thoughts, incomplete.

      Wolfgram

      • gatorallin

        I like your big gang theory….

      • @LeonardoV59

        Sorry John, but temperature can exist in a vacuum, the incandescent light bulb’s filament produces heat and it exist in a vacuum. what that meas to us is that the universe is encapsulated in a soap bubble, google [ the “Soap Bubble Nebula”, this planetary nebula (officially known as PN G75.5+1.7) ] and that is how our universe should look like. and my theory goes to explain that the universe is not really expanding, as much as is just matter that is moving from back to front, back and forth just like in an amoeba. in physics the small compares to the big. and that is how the universe can and will be explained, all by how molecules behave right here on earth. I wrote about it in a book that is not yet published, but soon it will be, the book is completely theoretical, but with easy to understand and with very believable explanations.
        You can find me in twitter, @LeonardoV59

        • raymondmarcano

          That’s not an absolute vacuum. It would implode if it were…..not even pumping it down with a cryo pump the best you can get is 20 Kelvins…..and plenty of molecules there to vibrate and produce temperature. It is a vacuum relative to the 760 Torr outside the light bulb.

    • Ron Henteleff

      Dark energy is simply the reciprocal of dark matter. Once depleted, Dark matter is longer present and so, you have it’s antithesis taking over and expansion results.

      • Ron Henteleff

        The fact 75% is now Dark Energy is evidence expansion has been taking place for some time. Entropy is the final result.

    • http://www.amazon.com/New-Standard-Model-Introduction-Dimensional-ebook/dp/B00JXW7KGI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404406791&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+standard+model D.C. ADAMS

      The universe is not just accelerating, it expands exponentially – You simply calculate relativity in Hyperspaces – The derivatives increase exponentially the further out you are able to observe! – http://www.amazon.com/Calculating-Dark-Energy-Matter-Displacement-ebook/dp/B00K7FH0UQ-

    • Kathleen Sisco

      Well, it seems we went wrong after Newton. Miles Mathis has strong opinions on this subject and from my various reading, I prefer his theory. His name: the charge field, real and not virtual photons. Whatever its called, the aether, d matter/mass, charge field, its always been there.
      My theory is that Sol, our sun, is a magnetar, losing energy from the day it was imploded, and is now only producing what I call monopole energy (see NASA a star with two poles) during what science calls a ‘delayed reversal.’ We have almost continual dipole energy, emitted from the poles and not equatorial. This is two different kinds of energy from one source, our sun. One strong, collecting, synchronized (monopole energy) and the other, loose, expansive and weak which I think explains not only our mystifying genesis but our puzzling atomic structures.

    • Raymond Marcano

      A plus B plus C equals everything that once was and everything that will ever be…….(C is a miracle that occurs)

    • sheila

      Dark Matter is a Beautiful beast of the Unknown Mystery and man has it in for himself if he believes he will break the code, and when he does , we can rest , but oh how the Mind will wish to know the Mysteries of the Mass, :)

    • George Raina

      There
      is an asymmetry between the mass of the electric charges, for example proton
      and electron, can understood by the asymmetrical Planck Distribution Law. This
      temperature dependent energy distribution is asymmetric around the maximum
      intensity, where the annihilation of matter and antimatter is a high
      probability event. The asymmetric sides are creating different frequencies of
      electromagnetic radiations being in the same intensity level and compensating
      each other. One of these compensating ratios is the electron – proton mass
      ratio. The lower energy side has no compensating intensity level, it is the
      dark energy and the corresponding matter is the dark matter. https://www.academia.edu/12066581/Glow_in_the_Dark_Matter

    • N S

      Our universe is one of many that are all in the hollow of spinning black hole. Dark energy is matter in the universe being pulled towards the internal event horizon of the black hole we are in.

    • uuberdude

      If we consider that m=e/c squared, it can be considered that dark matter and/or dark energy exceed the limit of the speed of light, and are thus unobservable. Dark energy may well put pressure on spacetime and be a functionof the Higgs field when it butts up to it, said pressure causing perturbations in the field and a repulsive, rather than attractive, gravity; something more akin to pressure. If dark energy interacts with observable spacetime but does not break altogether into it, it creates perturbations in all points of the continuum, and when it breaks into the field becomes observable. Hence gravity is more likely pressure from all points of space, and mass interferes with it, causing something like a pressure vacuum on that side opposite of said mass. That vacuum subsequently causes the same pressure coming from points on the opposite side of the vacuum to cause what we have typically seen as an attractive force, when it is possibly a pressurized force, causing mass to be driven toward, rather than attracted by, another mass, both masses creating gravity vacuums between them. In pressurized systems, action is instantaneous, which meets with the notion that gravity operates with no lag time. This could also explain why the universe is expanding. Pressure from all points in space would drive all other points in space away from each other.

    • Berttalk

      Since everyone is throwing out their hack science idea’s as theories or knowing what dark energy is I figure I might as well share mine.

      I actually had a bit of a revelation while I was watching the old ‘Time Machine’ movie from I think the 50’s or 60’s on the classic tv channel when the concept came to me.

      So a couple of differences between my hack idea and a lot of the other shared hack idea’s here. First I am not claiming with any certainty I know what dark energy or dark matter is. I have a concept and that is all I will call it. I really don’t believe you can call an idea a scientific theory unless it meets some pretty basic criteria.

      One it needs to come from a scientist. Two it needs to be based on mathematical calculations that support the theory. Three and I think most important it must provide the ability to make predictions not just explain an unknown. If the theory doesn’t perform the useful purpose of providing the ability to make novel predictions it really has no more scientific value then religious claims about reality.

      Anyway another difference between my concept and most of our non scientist ideas. I always start from a basis that I am not interested in creating a brand new scientific concept. Such that it tries to throw out Relativity or quantum physics. It must be based on what we already have established.
      Its extremely safe to say that much of what scientist use to create and rule potential theories is based on solid scientific understanding. Yes there may be an evolution of our understanding of gravity. I will be willing to bet however it wont completely dismiss everything we understand from Einstein or quantum physics or the other disciplines our actual scientist are using. It will almost undoubtable expand or connect these well established theories. So there may be portions of the Theories that are redefined, however the mathematics have shown that these theories are mostly correct.

      So my concept does tweak the idea that time is a dimension. However that is about as far as I pretty much have gone as for changing a concept. The majority of my concept is an attempted expansion on what is already established. If my concept disagrees with current understanding beyond that its probably due to my ignorance of understanding. I’m willing to brain storm well outside established science however I always measure my concept against what is pretty much already established in the current scientific field. If it conflicts I pretty much know the scientist are so far past me that I need to trust them as I believe in science not hack science. Not even my own hack science. Though it is fun to contemplate possibilities.

      So in any case, I have suspected since that day I watched the ‘Time Machine’ movie that the universe is actually an energy field. Scientist currently seem generally to believe that originally all the known energies where actually one energy that split apart at some point during the original big bang. So it seems reasonable to me to anticipate all the energies have similarities in their natures. So While some say they think its a magnetic universe. We know in fact its not electromagnetism. However the force causing the expansion could have properties and behave in a similar relationship to electromagnetism.

      So back to established science they have pretty much determined the standard model with the Higgs Boson is on the correct path. Since especially the apparent discovery of the Higgs particle with the LHC. The basic concept of the Higgs Boson is there is a Field that is produced or exists that gives particles mass which in turn is the cause of gravity. They call this field the ‘Higgs Field’.

      We must keep in mind that gravity is actually the behavior of objects affecting and being affected by the influence of mass on space-time in Einsteins theories. So gravity appears to attract however according to Einstein what occurs is basically mass creating a gravity well or a depression for lack of a better word in space. This depression or more accurately warping of space is what cause massive objects to move toward and revolve around each other. So given this understanding of space-time and gravity. It really does not seem to make sense that gravity has a repulsive force since in the purest sense gravity really isn’t a force at all but is a behavior of massive objects in relationship to space-time.

      So getting back to my concept. I’m taking the Higgs Boson (God Particle) and using its Higgs Field as an even more important God Energy (I jest of course). What I anticipate is the Higgs field is a field of energy that makes up what we imagine as the space within our universe. So in my concept what we experience as 3-dimensional space is actually an energy field. That field I suspect is the Higgs Field. This field of energy seems to behave not as a stable field of energy but like an expanding energy field.

      It seems to me the Higgs field as well as the Higgs Boson as its carrier particle could have properties similar to electromagnetism with the Higgs Boson behaving like a photon in its relationship as well as the energy having a duality (electrical current/magnetism). So perhaps at the moment of the big bang and inflation this energy was ripped apart even perhaps the duality was split. However the energy would be required to return to its natural state of duality and so a big crunch occurring or at least a breaking action occurring to slow the inflation period. However now this energy is not in a state of equilibrium and for lack of a better description is at a fairly high density in relationship to its surroundings. The Higgs energy field and perhaps the Higgs bosons may have particle behaviors like electrons and have a tendency to repulse.

      So that does not necessarily explain why it appears the universe expansion is speeding up. However to quote “all the observations can be accounted for with the simplest explanation: that any cubic meter of space froths with a set amount of repulsive energy, so that as space expands over time, the amount of repulsive energy grows as well”. So it is not indicating the energy is becoming stronger only that as more space is created the energy does not seem to diminish. So its saying 3 cubic meters of space will create 3 times as much space as 1 cubic meter of space.

      Although perhaps the repulsive energy is diminishing but it is diminishing at a very tiny fraction of the dimensional space expansion. So it appears that space-time will continue to expand at an increasing rate forever. However perhaps at some point the weakening of the repulsive force could cause the expansion to slow. So it may be that we simply exist at a time when the universe is still evolving as the energy of the Higgs field attempts to find equilibrium.

      Sorry for the long description of my concept but because the following is part of my concept I figured if anyone has read this much the rest may be interesting.

      While the above is probably enough of my concept to describe my idea about the expansion of space. I did mention the concept came from a revelation I had watching the ‘Time Machine’
      So to expand on this concept of the energies in the universe having similarities. Electromagnetism is a duality of electrical current and a magnetic field. As I stated I believe the Higgs energy field may exist as a duality. My concept is the Higgs energy field is what we experience as dimensional space. This field seems to have properties similar in some manor to a magnetic energy field. So I imagine gravity is not an actual energy but massive particle behave as if they were ferrous metal within the Higgs field. So the Higgs energy field is warped by the massive particles.

      So while the Higgs energy field as our dimensional universe is expanding it may also be exhibiting a duality property like electromagnetism. Such that it is causing a current. It is my concept that the expansion of space actually is causing the current of time. After all if space-time is a fabric as Einstein predicted. Then to have additonal time created more space must also be created and visa versa. This would explain why the dimension of time seems to have only one direction while space is 3 dimensional. As it indicates Time is not a dimension but a directional energy flow. Just as electrical current is directional with magnetism being 3-dimensional

      So finally I have written and reconsidered the details of my concept and have far more however this is the basic structure, if not the best description. I do think this concept can produce some novel predictions as to being able to be tested and such. However I have not the mathematical ability and with work and family not the time to attempt the calculations. Maybe some day.

      However this concept should be the very least be able to calculate the speed of light, with the speed of expansion over a given time frame. So something like C/T=Ex. If it did turn out to be a viable theory it should also be able to make predictions about the behavior of the Higgs field and the Higgs boson particle. Perhaps it could allow for the break through as to the nature of gravity or the lack of gravity in quantum physics. The current model of the big bang includes what is known as inflation. A moment of when the universe grew faster then the original big bang occurrence and then slowed again. So for my concept to hold it may need to predict a big crunch event as well.

      Unfortunately I have not come up with a true equation or prediction that could determine if I am totally in quack-Ville or maybe have some tiny piece of reasonable inquiry. At this point I may just be to ignorant to evaluate the viability of the concept and its parts along with what it requires to make scientific predictions. Which is to say I lack a high level mathematical skill set.