I think the answer is that Dark Energy, may be due to "Holes". I have been writing about holes for some time, in that they do not collide, at least not always, now and again a "hole" collides with an Electron and produces one Gamma Photon, not two, as happens when a Positron collides with an Electron. Although Holes, are not particles, in the sense of repeatable collisions, they do interact with fields. If you look at the holes that result from the evaporation of water, you can see that holes have another interesting property, and that is that they transform scalar fields into vector fields, so for instance the would transform a Voltage Potential into a Vector Potential ( V into A) for instance. So if you had a collection of Holes somewhere, they would act as an Attractor, and would pull the Universe outward, not push it. Now Majorana Particles are their own antiparticle, and as I see it, most of the Holes of the Universe come from the evaporation of Antimatter. This is where experiments are needed. Do Neutrinos, sometimes completely disappear?----I am certain we can answer yes to that. Do they sometimes form Neutrino "Holes"? Anyway, I am glad I thought of this exciting new theory, now I just need someone to pony up a $100 million to test it, or perhaps someone already has discovered it and doesn't know it. Of course it could be wrong, but it seems to tease the mind too much for that.

First of all, I could not get the exact question you were asking. According to the current understanding, all the energy components whether it is matter, radiation or something else is there in the universe from the very beginning. As the universe expands, there density falls of in the physical frame. Depending on how their density falls off, at different stages of the universe different energy components will dominate. Current observations show that the universe is expanding with an acceleration and this accelerated expansion can be accounted for by considering an energy component whose density in the physical frame is constant with time, this is what is called the dark energy. The exact nature of this energy component is not known.

In your question you have written that 'As the more the universe expands, more Dark Matter exists ...' which is not true ...

Dear Stanley Wilkin

Yes, there is a very interesting classical description of dark energy in the Universe: the pseudo-complex general relativity (Pseudo-complex General Relativity - Peter O. Hess, Walter GreinerArticle Pseudo-complex General Relativity

Yes. My thinking too. Either this or something more probable or possible.

Dear Thierry

The equations of the General Relativity Theory (GRT) formulated by Albert Einstein in 1915 represent the foundation of our present understanding about the universe:

Gµβ= 8πG(Tµβ) + (Л/8πG)gµβ

The right-hand side of this equation describes the energy content of the universe, where the (Л/8πG)gµβ term was included by Einstein in a later formulation, for cosmological reasons, which modernly is interpreted as dark energy, the cause for the current cosmic acceleration, i.e., the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. The left-hand side on the other hand describes the geometry of spacetime. The equality between these two components of the equation means that in General Relativity mass and energy determine the geometry and concomitantly the curvature of spacetime, which represents in turn a manifestation of gravity, the warping in the fabric of spacetime.

Einstein in the years 1945 and 1946, developed an algebraic extension of General Relativity by introducing complex-valued fields on real spacetime in order to apply Hermitian symmetry to GRT (Einstein, A., The Ann. of Math., 46, ps.~578,1945; Einstein, A. and Strauss, E., Ann. Math., 47, ps.~731, 1946). Einstein introduced in his formalism a Hermitian metric whose real part is symmetric and describes the gravitational field while the imaginary part is antisymmetric and corresponds to the Maxwell field strengths. However, in this formulation the spacetime manifold remains real. Einstein soon recognized that this proposed unification does not satisfy the criteria that the field gµβ should appear in GRT as a covariant entity with an underlying symmetry principle.

General Relativity covers a series of fascinating notions and predictions about the geometry of spacetime, the motion of massive objects, the propagation and bending of light by gravity, among many others. General relativity introduces new paradigms in correspondence to classical gravitation: the comprehension of gravity as a manifestation of the spacetime curvature, the distortion of space and time by the presence of massive objects, the gravitational time dilation, the gravitation redshift and the gravitational time delay, for instance. The cosmological and astrophysical implications of General Relativity are inexhaustible. It predicts the existence of black holes and compact stars as end states of massive stars. The evidences for the existence of black holes and that they are responsible for the intense radiation emitted by micro quasars and active galactic nuclei are significant. The observation of the bending of light by gravity originates the gravitational lensing effect, which can be observed as a multiple images phenomenon of the same astronomical object in the sky. General Relativity also predicts the phenomenon of frame-dragging of spacetime around rotating massive bodies. The existence of gravitational waves is also a remarkable prediction of General Relativity. There is a growing effort in this field of observational astronomy, with the installation of various observatories and projects acting in this area of research. And this valiant effort achieved success recently with the detection of gravitational waves 100 years after Einstein's predictions. ``For the first time, scientists have observed ripples in the fabric of spacetime called gravitational waves, arriving at the earth from a cataclysmic event in the distant universe. This confirms a major prediction of Albert Einstein's 1915 general theory of relativity and opens an unprecedented new window onto the cosmos'

(See: www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2016-041)

Peter O. Hess and Walter Greiner through their new algebraic extension of the General Relativity Theory, --- named pc-GR, with pseudo-complex (pc) coordinates, which contains a minimal length and in addition requires the appearance of an energy-momentum tensor, related to vacuum fluctuations, which are provoked by the presence of a central mass ---, successfully describes the presence of dark energy in the universe and its repulsive effects. An important result of their theory is that the dark energy density increases toward the central mass and avoids the appearance of an event horizon. Another important result: they present observational consequences related to quasi periodic oscillations in accretion disks around the so-called galactic black holes, allowing the study of the structure of these disks. Additionally, they made interesting predictions about gravitational waves after the first direct measurements of gravitational waves announced in February 2016 (Abbott, B.~P. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, p.~061102 (2016) (see for instance http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/9690).

Of course, with your publications (I read the article you sent) you are following the trajectory I mentioned in a previous post. When we speak of RG we speak of the most recognized theory in the history of science. The most successful and elegant theory and that explains the most varied phenomena. But the theory has limitations. Of course, since GR is a classical theory its limitations are concentrated in the interface between the classical/quantum regimes, weak and medium gravity/strong gravity-high energy. PC-GR tries to overcome some of the GR limitations in the region of the intensity of gravity in which it has limitations. It is a theory that follows a line similar to that followed by Einstein when he elaborated a complex theory of general relativity. As we saw, Einstein's complex theory presented conceptual limitations associated with conservation laws. A new theory must be moved, in my opinion, by the search for answers to questions that other theories are not able to provide. This is the case of pc-GR. As you can see, pc-GR was not built to make just part of a "zoo". The pc-GR was elaborated with the intention to bring answers to some of the most current questions that permeate GR, and looking to superate some of its limitations. It is the only theory based on the search for the superation of the limitations of GR? Of course not. There are different authors/models/theories searching for new answers and a new physics. They are not also "members of a zoo". From my point of view, the most crucial point of GR, which is healed by pc-GR is the avoidance of space-time singularities in the regime of Strong gravity without the need to consider quantum gravity.

Your approach Thierry looks interesting, but I would like to understand if it is Lorentz invariant, if it was motivated by a search to iluminate obscure aspects of other theories, and more important, if your approach give any answer that other theories did not give before. Best regards

Cesar Zen Vasconcellos

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See for instance:

Experimental Tests of Pseudo-Complex General Relativity

Thomas Schönenbach, Gunther Caspar, Peter O. Hess, Thomas Boller, Andreas Müller, Mirko Schäfer, Walter Greiner

1st Karl Schwarzschild Meeting on Gravitational Physics pp 111-117, 2016.

Abstract: Based on a recently proposed extension to General Relativity (GR), called pseudo-complex General Relativity (pc-GR), we present a selection of several tests of GR near compact massive objects. The investigated phenomena are the redshift, the orbital frequency of a test particle and the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) around a massive object. We observe that the redshift and orbital frequency are in general lower in pc-GR compared to Einstein’s GR. Also, the orbital frequency for prograde motion now exhibits a maximum, which is not present in GR. In addition, the concept of an innermost stable circular orbit does not hold in pc-GR as it arises in GR. All modifications due to pc-GR correction terms appear only at small distances.

Dear Thierry

Well you remember my message about scientific publications. I expressed in that message my synthesis about the work of a scientist which is: to seek for logical answers to questions based on methodological premises, on the adoption of the scientific methodology, on conducting experiments and observations, on the elaboration of models and theories, on the realization of tests of these models and theories, on the dissemination of data and theoretical predictions, and finally to achieve scientific recognition. The scientific recognition of a model, of a theory, results from the corresponding recognition of the theory, of the model, by the scientific community. When we speak of RG we speak of the most recognized theory in the history of science. The most elegant, most sophisticated, most successful and that explains most varied phenomena. But that has limitations. Of course as it is a classical theory its limitations are concentrated in the interface between the classical/quantum regimes, weak and medium gravity/strong gravity, high energy. Your difficulty in accepting these facts does not change this reality. Remember, you can have your opinion in science, but you can not have your own facts. Facts in science must be universal, so that every scientist can test the most varied theories and models. And it is the success of testing the models and theories by the scientific community that brings recognition. Nothing else.

Yes, - dark energy is an outward force and the expansion continues to accelerate. Intersting though, dark matter will increase and perhaps, as the existance of black hole matter increases, it wiil slow down the accelaration to a certian extent - but not be able to overcome the dark energy acceleration.

But as there are no upvotes on this thread there is no point in me clarifying.

SW: According to many scientists dark energy makes up two thirds of the universe and creates or rather continues the universe's expansion.

Expansion would continue even without dark energy, the effect of dark energy is accelerate it.

There seems to be a typo in the next part of the question:

SW: While there is evidence for Dark Matter is there another way of looking at the phenomenon? As the more the universe expands, more Dark Matter exists ...

Did you mean "more dark energy exists"? The amount of dark matter in any comoving volume is constant so as the universe expands, its mean density decreases as the cube of the scale factor.

SW: seeming to create tension , but strangely not pull. Why?

Dark energy does both but while the energy is positive, the pressure is negative. If you look at the stress energy tensor, you can see that the energy density appears once but the pressure appears three times.

The equation of state is T11 = T22 = T33 = -T00 so you get one positive contribution and three negative. The total is -2 times the energy density hence the overall effect is a negative gravitational contribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor#/media/File:StressEnergyTensor_contravariant.svg

mmm. take your point.

i need to check this but honestly I don't like wikipedia on principle. Some of what you say I haven't come across before including Dark matter decreasing. Can you send another information source?

Wikipedia is OK as an encyclopedia for the public (though I think many mathematical articles are a bit too technical) but really it's usefulness in conversations at this level is in the list of references they cite as the sources. That's where you can get the original peer-reviewed papers or references to textbooks.

I'll try to dig out another source for you later but if you realise that dark matter is just some unknown form of matter that doesn't interact with EM radiation, it can no more be created than any other kind of matter. If you think of the number of stars in a cube say 100 million light years on each edge, the density per cubic light year will fall to one eighth if the cube expands to be 200 million light years on each edge. That's so obvious, I'm not sure where I would find it written down, everyone just treats it as self-evident.

ok. That seems like a given, but the rest? I consulted a few books of mine yesterday-but no result. I'll try again.

Recent papers I have read have pointed to any phenomenon in this area as due to 1) the effects of planets, etc 2) black holes