-1
$\begingroup$

It's my sincere request to this Physics forum that if i am wrong (which has the least possibility atleast from my side) just reply "wrong" so that i can move on futher. I know personal theories are not allowed but i am not finding any place to get it checked. thanks

DARK ENERGY The theory described below does not contain any self made false assumptions about anything but uses only one, most logical assumption about the potential energy of curved space. Let a particle of unit mass curve space according to general relativity.Now, if we suddenly evaporate it (i.e. convert it's mass into radiation), the curvature of space associated with it begins to die out.But what about the potential energy associated with the curved space after the mass is lost?

We can better understand this with this example. We stretch a rubberband by applying a constant force (correspond to mg).Now, if we remove this force, the stretched rubberband tends to come to it's mean position.But, the potential energy due to initially stretched rubberband makes it go further from it's mean position making it vibrate along it's mean position. The same happens in space. Bodies cause the curvature of space which induces potential energy in space. So, when a body loses it's mass,the curvature associated with that mass does not just dies out but instead the space starts vibrating along it's mean shape i.e. the potential energy of the curved space associated with that mass makes the space vibrate along it's mean shape producing gravity - anti-gravity fields. But , if there is another body of mass m near it, the magnitude of anti-gravitational field is more in each oscilation as the other body tends to curve space (apply force i.e. mg) along it's direction.

This is why the galaxies are moving away from each other.As the stars present in them lose their mass,anti-gravitational fields are produced along all directions making every galaxy move apart from each other. Therefore, the space is not expanding but instead the already curved space produces this effect as it starts vibrating along all directions when a body loses it's mass.

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by John Rennie, David Z Oct 26 '13 at 7:50

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – John Rennie, David Z
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ If you convert its mass to a form of radiation, then you'll get gravitational waves. You seem to be assuming that space works like a vibrating membrane or some such thing. Do you know how to do general relativity? $\endgroup$ – Robert Mastragostino Oct 26 '13 at 6:18
  • $\begingroup$ The source of gravitational forces is the mass in Newtonian gravity. It is somehow "natural" for you to think that after a particle is annihilated, gravity abruptly "disappears". But in General Relativity (where the words "curved spacetime" make sense) the source of gravity is not only mass, but a more complex entity called the energy-momentum tensor that takes into account not only mass, but also flux of energy from one place to another. Thus, the energy released when a mass "disappears" produces no abrupt "vanishing" of gravity. $\endgroup$ – Eduardo Guerras Valera Oct 26 '13 at 10:32
5
$\begingroup$

You do not state your age or your educational background in your profile , so I will assume that you only know physics at the highschool level and particularly gravitation from videos and simplified explanations.

1) It is wrong to think that matter disappears like bubbles blown out on the water. The grand majority of elementary particles are bound in stable configurations that can be disturbed only by interactions. Very few "disappearances", i.e. particles breaking up into other particles or radiation are currently happening in the cosmos.

2)The two dimensional model of a rubber membrane to popularize General Relativity cannot be used for such subtle observations as dark matter and dark energy. The space curvature is described in four dimensions ( 3 space and 1 time) as equations of the energy momentum tensor. The mathematics to understand the curvature of space include the whole calculus and differential equations curriculum, let alone graduate level mechanics .

Astrophysical measurements cannot be explained by words. It needs strict mathematics.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Good answer. Just to elaborate a bit on the rubber sheet metaphor failing: while this is sometimes convenient to help visualise spacetime curvature, it really fails as a physical analogy. Spacetime is not understood as an elastic medium in general relativity, and the question of how much energy is associated with spacetime curvature is actually really difficult and subtle. It turns out there is no way to attribute an energy density to spacetime curvature that is (a) local, (b) not trivial (i.e. not just equal to $-$ all the other energy density, everywhere and always) and (c) conserved. $\endgroup$ – Michael Brown Oct 26 '13 at 7:19

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