If this were the case, we could think of black holes as nodes on this wave.
In an harmonic oscillator (an ideal perfect spring with an ideal punctual mass) the energies are (2n+1)ħ/2*ω. They are all multiples of the minimal value for this oscillator. Note that it is a different set of values for each oscillator.
Each of these energies is associated with a wavefunction with a well defined energy. Combining all these wavefunctions you can represent any wavefunction. (The technical term is "orthonormal base", or simply "base".) This is easy to prove. More details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
So if you try to put the oscillator in a state that is not a wavefunction with a well defined energy, the state can be represented as a linear combination of the wavefunction with a well defined energy, and it will evolve following the laws of QM. It will not get transformed to dark energy or dark matter or get lost by damping.
If you later make measure the energy of the harmonic oscillator, the arbitrary wavefunction will colapse to a wavefunction with a well defined energy, and the probabilities are easy to calculate knowing how the initial state was decomposed in wavefunction with a well defined energy. If you measure the position or speed, the calculation is similar but there are a few more technical details.
In a more realistic system like an Hydrogen atoms, the energies are not multiples of a minimal value, the energies are like -E0/n^2. The corresponding wavefunctions are a base anyway, so any initial state can be decomposed in wavefunction with a well defined energy (that sometimes are calles "orbitals", but sometimes more general states are called "orbitals"). So there is no a fundamental frequency, there is no a minimal energy that is the divisor of all the energies, there is no dark energy.
In atoms with more electrons the calculations are more complicated, there is no nice formula for the energies, but is anyway possible to decompose any initial state without using dark energy.
1. If you squint, the inflation model is something in this spirit. The "inflaton" field corresponds to the harmonic oscillator like variable that ismovingunder a potential, and causing space to expand.
2. The quantization of frequencies for a harmonic oscillator (or a particle in a box) comes from spatial bounds on it's profile -- through some potential function. The quanta are separated by inverse of the region size (like aliasing effects a la Fourier). If we're imagining a field spread all throughout space then the "harmonics" are very closely spaced enough to be considered a continuous spectrum, sort of.
3. All that was just quantum mechanics. A more appropriate framework to have this conversation is quantum field theory (and not just in flat spacetime, but curved spacetime). In that context, quanta refer to number of inflaton particles at a specific frequency, and that goes in a direction different from what we're interested in. So that was just a paranthetical aside.
4. As far as we can tell from observations space hasn't been globally oscillating. So it's more like an overdamped oscillator (with a lot of "friction") than an underdamped one -- see "slow roll inflation". (For examples of where space was locally affected by underdamped oscillations, see baryonic acoustic oscillations).
Beyond just a few technical nuggets, what I hope to have conveyed is that the way to research these things is to take every word/facet seriously and try to operationalize it in an appropriate framework (which is very hard) and verify whether it matches our experience of reality.
Of course your explanation is much more scientific than mine, which is just a hunch.
Such 'resolution' increase of the universe would explain nicely its expansion.
I wonder if the creation of wormwholes that would allow travelling to distant systems in human lifetimes would simply be the opposite effect of damping of this frequence of our universe. By reversing the damping, the "resolution" of the universe may decrease and then moving from one place to the other would require a lot less time.
Also, could gravity be a change of this frequency by mass?
So, if we interpret all matter to be different expressions of a fundamental frequency, it means us, the observers are also made up of the same, and to observe you would be basically sampling reality. Even if you consider measurement instruments to be an observer, they also sample other things that are made up of the same.
Then maybe there's a fundamental limit to what we can sample, hence observe. And that could explain why we only observe harmonics of the s orbital.
Here are some statements of my own, typed quickly on a phone before I head to work:
-Electrons do not in general have quantized energy; only bound electrons have a discrete energy spectrum
-Electrons do not necessarily have a single energy; although energy eigenstates form a basis that can describe all states, very often the electron won't be in a pure eigenstate
-Single electron models are simplifications; in general, atoms will have multielectron states that are very difficult to write down or reason about; it's deep and non-obvious why single electron models do so well at describing behavior of multielectron wavefunctions
Is there anything at all in the whole of physics that isn't, at some point, shoehorned in the "mass on a spring" framework </sarcasm>
No matter how ugly an expression you have for force as a function of distance, if you do the Taylor expansion you inevitably get a constant force term (often zero) and a "mass on a spring" term.
The phys.org article says "Two University of Hawaii at Manoa researchers have identified and corrected a subtle error that was made when applying Einstein's equations to model the growth of the universe". A more accurate phrasing would be that the researchers have proposed a modified model. Whether their proposal is valid remains to be seen as other researchers in the field check their work.
I've seen it enough times that it doesn't surprise me.
Hmmm, if this is true, then it means it's possible (in principle) to engineer the expansion rate of the universe by either preventing or causing the collapse of stars in a certain way. See the concept of Star Lifting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting
Until a better theory explains more (like the Mond or a better gravity theory), it will stay with us for a while.
How would a GEODE produce such an effect?
I'm sure this is oversimplified or outright wrong, can anyone correct me?
Not really. People make this argument for both dark energy and dark matter, and some people try to solve both of these (not necessarily at the same time) by trying to modify general relativity.
The problem is that we have observational evidence for both of them, and no alternative theory has come close to the level of accuracy and precision as GR has.
That isn't to say that we shouldn't be looking at potential alternative explanations to DM/DE, and the fact that there isn't scientific consensus on them at current doesn't mean that they're wrong (Wegener basically ended up losing his career over proposing continental drift was a thing), but at present, scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of both DE and DM existing because we have more evidence for them than anything else, and the models that incorporate them are more accurate and precise than anything else.
That's not to say there isn't room for improvement in GR/SR/QM, etc. And there are some things where the math breaks down and we do sort of just shrug. Topically, black holes are among them - at least when it comes to the singularity and infinite density. In reality, the black holes we see out in the universe almost certainly don't have a point of infinite density.
Eventually, their astrophysicists say "Look, the cosmos behaves very similarly to how our models predict, except there seems to be an extra force or energy that pulls everything in one direction. If we just add one term to every potential energy equation we have, it all makes sense, but we have no idea where that energy actually comes from."
We have a lot of observational evidence that the equations are very accurate.
But when we put all the mass we know about into the equations, the result of the equation doesn't match our observations.
Since we have a lot of evidence that the equations are very accurate, then it's more likely that there's more mass we haven't accounted for.
(at least for dark matter)
So yeah, the debate about dark energy is responsible for 'Einstein's biggest mistake' and 'the worst prediction in physics'. Either way it wasn't simply a case of "let's just give our error term a fancy name and call it a day".
Much more true for dark matter and still not really. The cumulative body of evidence suggests that this is due to real mass-energy out there.
So that's a problem with your wording.
My mental model of this is that if there were a lot of GEODEs created early, they explain acceleration (DE) with simple gravitational attraction. LET ME KNOW IF I'M CRAZY!
Have we actually proved scientifically there's a force or physical matter acting on something and it's not just being obscured from our vantage point?
Isn't dark energy/matter only visible at huge scales? Is there any pictures of dark energy or matter in any localized system? We didn't even know the correct color of Pluto until we got close, how could we know if something isn't actually there, or spacetime just twists and contorts for the sake of it without outside interaction/gravity acting on it?
Isn't there also a chance we're in a literal simulation of Plato's cave allegory until we see stuff up close? Not in the sense he meant it, but in the sense we're using assumptions/tools that involve inference. Wouldn't this risk assigning character/classifications to things that don't turn out to be true in the end?
-- In the case of dark matter, the answer is yes. Dark matter has been indirectly observed from the gravitational lensing of the dark matter shrouds surrounding galaxies - notably in situations where the shrouds of two colliding galaxies separate from the galaxies themselves. It's a "picture" as exact as many things astronomers have observed.
That’s the first time I’ve read that. Sounds interesting, have you got any links?
Although that's a colliding pair of galaxy clusters. I'm not currently aware of any examples of this effect being observed for just two galaxies.
Related thought: what would it look like from the outside if a patch of the universe returned to inflation? Does it make any difference from the observer’s POV if this change occurs inside or outside an event horizon?
LIGO and other detects are not able to tell the difference. Black holes are assumed based on the mass, event horizons have never been detected, just [mathematically] assumed.
Despite the name, no event horizon was directly photographed. Partly because event horizon's are not actually visible LOL.
The photo taken can not distinguish between a true black hole, and a super massive object of the same mass.
We just assume that if you have that much mass there is no force that is capable of preventing it from becoming a black hole.
But, that's not proof that such a force does not exist.