Dark energy produced by friction between matter and space?

  The mystery of dark energy
  in recent years, some things in physics is more difficult, such as dark energy.
  We have known dark energy for some years. In 1998, astronomers observed distant supernovae and found that they were darker than expected. In an expanding universe, although the brightness of supernovas and ours is increasing, their brightness is destined to decay, but they are still too dark. This can only be explained by the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
  There must be something mysterious, it is the “throttle” that accelerates the expansion of the universe. Scientists call this unknown thing dark energy. Dark energy accounts for about two-thirds of the universe. According to recent observations, it should be evenly distributed throughout the universe, and its energy density is only equivalent to the mass of 6 protons per cubic meter. Figuring out what dark energy is is one of the biggest topics in physics today.
  For physicists, the easiest way is to interpret dark energy as vacuum energy. Because they knew very early that according to quantum mechanics, a vacuum is full of various quantum fields, so a vacuum is also energetic. But subsequent calculations show that the vacuum energy is almost 120 orders of magnitude greater than the dark energy. Such a big gap is of course unacceptable.
  In this situation, many people give up this idea. But there are still many people who are tenaciously narrowing this distance by amending the theory. Recently, some people claim that dark energy is not a real entity in the universe. It is just something that physicists have previously ignored when they recorded the balance of energy in the universe.
  But to understand this, one has to assume that the conservation of energy, which we generally understand, is not true in all cases.
  Energy conservation questioned
  this assumption can be described as ground-breaking. You might as well think about it, there are so many laws and principles in science, but which one is more fundamental and more unbreakable than the law of conservation of energy? In fact, energy conservation has not only passed the test of countless experiments (see the extended reading “What has energy conservation done for us?”), But it is also related to the most basic symmetry in physics.
  As early as the beginning of the 20th century, mathematician Emily Knott has proved that every symmetry of the laws of physics corresponds to a law of conservation. For example, the symmetry of space translation leads to the law of conservation of momentum, and the symmetry of time translation leads to the law of conservation of energy. Time (space) translation is symmetrical. In layman’s terms, the physical laws do not change with time (space). For example, it is well known that no physical law has a deadline.
  However, questions about conservation of energy do not begin today. Physicists have questioned both micro and macro aspects before.
  From a micro perspective, quantum theory believes that a vacuum is not really empty, but it is actually filled with many virtual particles; these virtual particles can temporarily borrow a part of the energy from the vacuum to obtain the “physical body”, and then annihilate, Return energy to the vacuum. Although energy seems to be conserved on a large time scale, energy conservation is clearly destroyed on a very small time scale.
  From a macro perspective, general relativity tells us that when light propagates in a strong gravitational field, the wavelength will be stretched, which is called the gravitational redshift. However, we know that the energy of a photon is inversely proportional to the wavelength. If the wavelength becomes longer, does it not mean that the energy of the photon decreases? But light travels in a vacuum, and nothing steals energy? So here, the conservation of energy is also destroyed.
  How does matter and space exchange energy?
  However, physicists say that all this is just a superficial phenomenon. The reason why energy is not conserved is because our previous understanding of energy was too narrow. In the question from the micro perspective, because the vacuum also has energy, once the vacuum energy is considered, the total energy is still conserved. In the question from the macro perspective, general relativity has long told us that when space is bent or spread out, energy will be absorbed or released. Therefore, for a photon that undergoes a red shift, the lost energy must be absorbed by the curved spacetime. Once the energy changes in space and time around it are taken into account, the total energy is also conserved.
  As a result, it seems that there is nothing left to say. However, it is understandable that energy exchanges between matter, but how does it exchange between matter and time and space? For example, how do red-shifted photons transfer their energy to the surrounding space-time?
  French physicist Hibbert Rosette tried to solve this problem. He believes that the secret may be hidden where the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics intersect.
  This place involves both general relativity and quantum mechanics. The unified theory of quantum gravity should be used as Austrian aid, but unfortunately the theory has so far failed. An important reason is that there is a huge difference between the space-time view of quantum mechanics and relativity. Relativity believes that time and space are continuous and smooth; however, quantum mechanics believes that everything is discrete and piece by piece, if you go deeper, even space and time itself.
  We have described physical phenomena so far, assuming that space-time is smooth and continuous. The theory of relativity tells us that any mass object, even a microscopic particle, will distort the spacetime around it, and the degree of distortion depends on its mass (for example, a black hole twists its space into a funnel shape) . But if space-time is really granular, of course, it will have an impact on the objects in it. It’s like an iron ball rolling on a thick blanket. From a distance, it sinks wherever it rolls, but from a close distance, you will find that the surface of the blanket is not smooth, but is straight upright. When the iron ball is in motion, it will be blocked by the fine hairs and lose energy. Rosette said that granular space is like friction to moving particles. The energy of the particles is transferred to the “furry” space in this form.
  New Dark Energy said
  if this idea head, then since the Big Bang, the universe of matter in continuous loss of energy. Of course, for a single particle, the energy lost is very small. It cannot be detected by current equipment, but considering the size of the universe, over time, these accumulated energy must be very considerable, which can be used to explain the dark energy. the origin. In other words, dark energy is nothing else, it is the energy that is lost and absorbed by space and time when matter is in motion.
  Rossett did a calculation. If the total energy of matter in the universe, excluding dark energy, is compared to a body of water of 10 × 10 × 10 cubic kilometers, the energy lost each year is only equivalent to the mass of a proton. . Adding all the energy lost since the Big Bang, compared with the dark energy observed from astronomy, the gap has narrowed from the original 120 orders to 7 orders of magnitude. He believes that if his theory is further refined, the gap may narrow.
  Of course, this theory is not without controversy. First of all, it is difficult for physicists to figure out what is related to space-time on the particle scale, because the general theory of relativity, which works at the level of celestial bodies, is invalidated here. Secondly, another hypothesis in Rossett’s theory is that space-time is granular. Although it has become popular in popular science articles, it is far from scientifically proven. Therefore, to clarify the true source of dark energy, I still need to wait for a unified theory that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity.
  Further Reading
  conservation of energy is what we have done?
  Regardless of where we look, energy seems to be creating or extinguishing: the falling body gains speed; the tide rises and falls, the rise and fall; the digested food seems to be gone …
  but every time, as long as we firmly believe that energy can not create It can’t disappear, and it is always conserved. It always sees through these surface phenomena and adds new insights to us: objects rise from the ground to obtain gravitational potential energy; the water of the ocean is affected by the gravity of the moon; food is transformed into The muscles and fats in our body …
  For the same reason, the stones glide on the ground, and the speed is getting slower and slower, so Da Vinci discovers the friction. In the 19th century, the French astronomer Auburn Levier combined the law of conservation of energy with observational data to enable him to predict the existence of Neptune. A group of physicists, such as Joule, has proved with the law of conservation of energy that heat is just another form of energy. Einstein’s mass-energy equation proves that the huge energy generated by the atomic bomb explosion is stored in the mass of the atom.
  Perhaps the most impressive is the discovery of neutrinos. In 1930, physicists discovered that radioactive atoms could emit electrons, but in the process, energy seemed to have somehow diminished. At the time, large physicists like Bohr speculated that energy might no longer be conserved in the process. But the Austrian physicist Pauli insisted that the energy is conserved and only taken away by some new invisible particles. Finally, experiments confirmed Pauli’s idea was correct, and the newly discovered particles were named neutrinos. The law of conservation of energy has once again proven correct.