3
$\begingroup$

Antimatter and matter particles annihilate. But does dark energy annihilate energy?

We consider energy to be photons, and such, correct? So when we say energy, we're actually talking about some bosons, right?

So photons and anti-photons would annihilate, gluons and anti-gluons.

I am not sure if anti-bosons are hypothesized so please forgive. I am amateur to this.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There are no antiphotons or antigluons, they are themselves their own antiparticle. Photon photon interactions have very small probability and gluon-gluon will create more gluons or other particles. Energy is kinetic and mass energy ( E=mc**2) for all particles . $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Sep 1 '14 at 18:58
12
$\begingroup$

Dark energy is an unknown or unattributed form of energy that is separate and distinct from the other forms of energy. It is not anti-engery. It is dark energy. Anti-energy (were such a thing to exist) would annihilate any form of energy. Dark energy is called "dark" because we aren't exactly sure what it really is or what causes it.

The most abundant forms of energy in the universe right now as a percentage of all the energy are (approximately):

  • Dark energy at 72.8%

  • Dark Matter at 22.7%

  • Baryons at 4.5%

  • Radiation at around 0.009%

There's a margin of error on these numbers but anything that doesn't add up to 100% we attribute to the curvature of the universe (it too has an effective amount of energy but isn't actually energy per se). Additionally, these numbers refer to the energy density ratios for the observable universe. However, as the universe is assumed to be homogeneous in the $\Lambda$-CDM model, these ratios should apply to the entire universe as well.

$\endgroup$
10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Dark energy is called "dark" because we aren't exactly sure what it really is or what causes it." Well shucks. Here I was, thinking it was called 'dark' because we base physics off of Zelda's dark world. :P $\endgroup$
    – ahnbizcad
    Sep 1 '14 at 18:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @gwho In re to your first comment, no, dark energy is not the equivalent of that. It is a completely different form of energy. Like comparing photons to gluons. In re to 2nd comment, it's the observable universe but we assume the universe is mostly homogeneous, which means it should be valid for the entire universe $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Sep 1 '14 at 18:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So seeing that you refrained from responding to the third comment, I assume you agree with my Zelda hypothesis. :P $\endgroup$
    – ahnbizcad
    Sep 1 '14 at 18:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @gwho Anti-matter particles and all anti-matter phenomena are included under "baryons" unless they are massless particles, which we put under "radiation". Dark energy is not currently attributed to a particle nor is it at all close to being equivalent to the interactions of anti-matter $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Sep 1 '14 at 18:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @gwho Dark matter is a completely different thing from anything we've discussed here. It doesn't interact in corresponding ways and, in fact, usually doesn't interact at all (except via gravity). But like HDE 226868 said, it's unrelated and will only serve to complicate things right now $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Sep 1 '14 at 19:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.