The following excerpt from NASA’s in its Astrophysics web site Dark Energy describes what we do and don’t know about Dark Energy.
"More is unknown about it than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe’s expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest – everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter – adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn’t be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.
One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein’s gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energyofspace would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the Universe."
Most scientists would agree the best case scenario would be to understand the causality of dark energy and how it interacts with its environment in terms of observations and our currently accepted theoretical models.
However, presently there are only two scientific disciplines that address those interactions. The first or the laws of thermodynamics defines the forces associated with heat early in the universe’s evolution and the second or Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity defines how gravity influences that evolution.
Unfortunately neither of them, in their present form address the expansive force of Dark Energy and how or why it interacts with its environment to cause it to accelerate.
Yet one of the most obvious difficulties in integrating it into Einstein’s spacetime universe is that observations tell us that threedimensional space is expanding towards a higher spatial dimension not a time or spacetime dimension.
Therefore, in order to explain the observed spatial expansion of the universe one would have to assume the existence of a another *spatial* or fourth *spatial* dimension in addition to the three spatial dimensions and one time dimension that Einstein’s theories contain to account for that observation.
This would be true if Einstein had not given us a means of qualitatively and quantitatively converting the geometric properties of his spacetime universe to one consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions.
He did this when he defined the geometric properties of a spacetime universe and the dynamic balance between mass and energy in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light because it allows one to redefine a unit of time he associated with energy in his spacetime universe to unit of space we believe he would have associated with mass in a universe consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions.
In other words by defining the geometric properties of a spacetime universe in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining his spacetime universe in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.
The fact that the equation E=mc^2 allows us to quantitatively derive the physical properties of energy in a spacetime universe in terms of its spatial properties is the bases for assuming, as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
As mentioned earlier it is difficult to integrate the causality of threedimensional space expanding towards a higher *spatial" dimension into Einstein spacetime universe because it does not define a higher spatial dimension.
However it is easy if one reformulates it, as was shown above to be possible in terms higher fourth *spatial* dimension.
Yet this also allows one to understand how and why the force called Dark Energy is causing an accelerated spatial expansion of our universe in terms of the laws of thermodynamics because it gives one the ability, as mentioned earlier to use his equations to qualitatively and quantitatively define energy in terms of a spatial displacement in a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimensions.
We know from the study of thermodynamics that energy flows from areas of high density to one of low density very similar to how water flows form an elevated or "high density" point to a lower one.
For example, if the walls of an above ground pool filled with water collapse the elevated twodimensional surface of the water will flow or expand and accelerate outward towards the threedimensional environment surrounding it while the force associated with that expansion decreases as it expands.
Yet we know from observations of the cosmic background radiation that presently our threedimensional universe has an average energy component equal to about 3.7 degrees Kelvin.
However this means according to concepts developed in the article “Defining energy" that the threedimensional "surface" occupied by the particles in our universe which has an average energy component of 3.7 degree Kelvin would be elevated with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Yet this means similar to the water molecules occupying the elevated two dimensional surface of the water in the pool, the particles occupying a region of threedimensional space that is elevated because of its 3.7 degree temperature will flow and accelerate outward in the four dimensional environment surrounding it.
This shows how reformulating Einstein’s theories in terms of four *spatial* dimensions allows one to use the laws of thermodynamics to explain what the force called Dark Energy is and why it is causing the accelerated expansion of the universe in terms of Einstein’s theories.
Many feel that because space is everywhere, the force called Dark Energy is everywhere so therefore its effects will increase as space expands. In contrast, gravity’s force is stronger when things are close together and weaker when they are far apart. Therefore they feel the rate at which the universe expands will increase as time go by resulting in galaxies, stars, the solar system, planets, and even molecules and atoms could be shredded by the everfaster expansion. In other words the universe that was born in a violent expansion could end with an even more violent expansion called the Big Rip.
However if the above theoretical model is correct than the magnitude of Dark Energy relative to gravitational energy will not continue to increase as the universe expands but will decrease because, similar to the water in a collapsed pool the accelerative forces associated with it will decline as it expands.
Yet, because the energy/mass of the universe remains constant through its history its gravitational potential will also. Therefore in the future the gravitational contractive forces associated with it will exceed the expansive forces associated with Dark Energy because, as mentioned earlier according to this theoretical model its accelerative forces should decrease as the universe expands . This would be true even though its components may be separated by extremely large distances because, as just mentioned if the above theoretical scenario is correct the force associated with dark energy will decease relative to gravity as time goes by.
However observations also suggest that early in the universe evolution the gravitational forces exceeded the expansive forces of Dark Energy.
The reason is that according the above theoretical model, just after the big bang when the concentration of energy and mass was high, the gravitational forces of the universe’s energy/mass would predominate over Dark Energy because the distance between both its energy and mass components was relatively small.
However as the universe expands its gravitational attractive forces will decrease more rapidly than the expansive force associated with Dark Energy because they are related to the square of the distance between them while those of the expansive forces of Dark Energy are more closely related to a linear function of the total energy of content of the universe.
Therefore after a given period of time the expansive forces associated with Dark Energy will become predominate and the expansion of the universe will accelerate.
However as the universe expands and cools that force will decrease because as mentioned earlier similar to the twodimensional surface of the water in a collapsed pool, the forces associated with that expansion will decrease as it expands.
This means that eventually gravitational forces will win because, as mentioned earlier the laws of thermodynamics tells us the total accelerative forces associated with Dark Energy will decease and therefore will eventually approach zero, while the total mass content and the gravitational attractive forces associated with it will remain constant as the universe expands even though they may be separated by a greater distant.
Therefore. gravity will eventually win the battle with dark Energy because as was just mentioned the forces associated with it approach zero as the expansion progress while those of gravity remain constant.
There can be no other conclusion if one accepts the validity of Einstein’s theories and the laws of thermodynamics because the theoretical arguments presented are a base solely on their validity.
It should be remember that Einstein’s genius allows us to choose whether to view dark energy in either a spacetime environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined the geometry of spacetime in terms of energy/mass and the constant velocity of light.
Later Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014
The Imagineer’s 
The Imagineer’s 

The Reality 

The Imagineer’s 
The Imagineer’s 
Should we have given Einstein credit for being the first to predict the existence of the Higgs field?
The Higgs boson is an elementary particle whose discovery was announced at CERN on 4 July 2012. The discovery has been called "monumental" because it appears to confirm the existence of the Higgs field, which is pivotal to the Standard Model and other theories within particle physics. It would explain why some fundamental particles have mass when the symmetries controlling their interactions should require them to be massless, and why the weak force have a much shorter range than the electromagnetic force. The discovery of a Higgs boson should allow physicists to finally validate the last untested area of the Standard Model’s approach to fundamental particles and forces, guide other theories and discoveries in particle physics, and potentially lead to developments in "new" physics.

Many believe the mechanism responsible for it was first proposed in 1962 by Philip Warren Anderson while the relativistic model was developed in 1964 by three independent groups: by Robert Brout and François Englert; by Peter Higgs; and by Gerald Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and Tom Kibble.
However Albert Einstein in an address given on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden stated very clearly that according to the Theory of Relativity space must have the physical properties of what is now called the Higgs field, although he preferred to call it Aether.
He said in summation
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuringrods and clocks), nor therefore any spacetime intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
Granted Einstein did not specifically call it a scalar field, which is how modern scientists describe the Higgs field however he did say that it could not be tracked through time and that motion may not be applied which is another way of saying the same thing.
One way of understanding how Einstein may have developed or defined the physical properties of Aether or the Higgs field, as it is now called would be to review his General Theory of Relativity and try to understand how he would have connected it to the physical properties he associated with gravity.
Einstein realized that one can understand how gravity "may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum" by extrapolating the physical image of how objects move on a curve surface in a threedimensional environment to a curved four dimensional spacetime manifold. This allowed him to conceptually understand gravity in terms of a physical image based on our threedimension world.
However he was unable to tell us what mass is, he was only able tell us how it interacts with spacetime.
As Steven Weinberg said "Mass tells spacetime how to curve while spacetime tells mass how to move".
This is similar to Newton in that he was able to mathematically define how mass gravitational interacts with other masses but was unable to understand or define a physical mechanism that could account for that interaction.
In other words the mathematics developed by Newton was only able to quantitatively predict gravitational forces while Einstein gave us the ability to conceptually understand why "one body may act upon another at a distance" by physically connecting it to the reality of what we can see and touch.
Einstein was often quoted as saying "If a new theory (such as that associated with the Higgs boson) was not based on a physical image simple enough for a child to understand, it was probably worthless."
In other words for us to fully understand the theoretical significance of the Higgs Field and why it is responsible for mass one should be able to describe how it interacts with its environment in terms of a physical image based on what we can see and touch in our threedimensional world much as Einstein was able describe how space and time interacted with each other to cause gravity.
However Einstein’s and modern scientist’s inability to define or derive the casualty of mass in terms of a physical image can be traced to the fact that they chose to define the universe in terms of energy instead of mass.
Einstein told us that a curvature in spacetime is responsible for gravitational energy and because of the equivalence been energy and mass defined by his equation E=mc^2 one must also assume that it is responsible for mass.
However the Higgs Field or what Einstein called Aether is associated with mass and not energy. Therefore to understand what it is made up of one must convert or transpose Einstein’s spacetime universe which defines field properties of energy in terms of geometry of spacetime to one that defines mass of in terms of its field properties.
He gave us the ability to do this when he defined the geometric properties of a spacetime universe and the dynamic balance between mass and energy in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light because it allows one to redefine a unit of of time he associated with energy in his spacetime universe to unit of space we believe he would have associated with mass in a universe consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions.
However the fact that he defined the geometric relationship between energy and mass in terms of the constant velocity of light means that one can also quantitatively and qualitatively define a one to one correspondence between the field properties of energy in a spacetime universe and those of mass in four *spatial* dimensions.
This was the bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy including thermo and that associated with mass can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension as well as of defining them in terms of a displacement in a spacetime environment.
However changing ones perspective on the geometric structure of the universe form one of spacetime to four *spatial* dimensions, as was just shown to be possible gives one the ability to define the physical mechanism by which the Higgs Field or the field properties of four *spatial* dimension creates mass and why it is quantized in the fundamental particles of the Standard Model in terms of a physical image formed by our threedimensional environment.
For example one can form a physical image of why mass is quantized, as was done in the article "
Why is energy/mass quantized? " Oct. 4, 2007" by extrapolating the image of a wave and its resonant properties in three dimension environment to one made up of four *spatial* dimensions. This would be analogous to how Einstein, as mentioned earlier was able to explain gravity by extrapolating the physical image of how objects move in a threedimension space to one consisting of four dimensional spacetime.
(Louis de Broglie was the first to predict the existence of the wave properties of mass when he theorized that all particles have a wave component. His theories were confirmed by the discovery of electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer).
Briefly that article showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would be meet in one consisting of four.
The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave that Louis de Broglie associated with a particle the ability to oscillate spatially on a "surface" between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.
These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold to oscillate with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension at a frequency associated with the energy of that event.
However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or "structure" to be established in four *spatial* dimensions.
Classical mechanics tells us that resonant systems can only take on the discrete or quantized energies associated with a fundamental or a harmonic of their fundamental frequency
Therefore, these resonant systems in a four *spatial* dimensions would define mass and its quantum mechanical properties in terms of the field properties of four space dimension because of the fact that the volumes of space containing them would have a higher concentration of energy and therefore their mass would be relative greater than the neighboring volumes.
However, one can also use the field properties of four *spatial* dimension to define the physical boundary of the mass component of a particle in terms "physical image simple enough for a child to understand".
In classical physics, a point on the twodimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface. However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to threedimensional space.
Similarly an object occupying a volume of threedimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
In other words the confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of a threedimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the spatial boundaries associated with a particle in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“.
This suggest that the Higgs field is made up of the field properties of four *spatial* dimensions and that the magnitude of a mass would be dependent on its geometrical configuration.
If true one should be able to use those field concepts to explain why the mass of corresponding particle types across the three fundamental families of particles in the Standard Model listed in the table below grows larger in each successive family.
Family 1  Family 2  Family 3  
Particle  Mass  Particle  Mass  Particle  Mass 
Electron  .00054  Muon  .11  Tau  1.9 
Electron Neutrino 
< 10^8  Muon Neutrino 
< .0003  Tau Neutrino 
< .033 
Up Quark  .0047  Charm Quark  1.6  Top Quark  189 
Down Quark  .0074  Strange Quark  .16  Bottom Quark  5.2 
As mentioned earlier the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?” showed that one can derive a particle’s mass in terms of the energy contained within a resonant structure created by a matter wave on a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension while the article “Defining energy" showed that one can derive the energy or temperature of an environment in terms a displacement in that "surface" with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Therefore using the concepts developed in those articles the total mass of a particle would be defined by the sum of the energies associated with its resonant structure and its displacement in the "surface" of threedimensional space associated with the energy of the environment it is occupying.
Yet Classical Mechanics tells us there will be specific points in space where the matter wave that Louis de Broglie associated with a particle can interact with the energy content or temperature of its environment to form a resonant system.
Therefore, the mass of each family member would not only be dependent on the energy associated with the resonant system that defined their quantum mechanical properties in the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?” but also on temperature or energy of the environment they are occupying.
Thus suggest the reason “The corresponding particle types across the three families have identical properties except for their mass, which grows larger in each successive family." is because of an interaction between the resonant properties defined in the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?” and the mass content of the environment they are occupying.
This means the particles in the first family would be found in relativity low energy environments, are relatively stable, and for the most part can be observed in nature. However, the particles in the second and third families would be for the most part unstable and can be observed only in highenergy environments of particle accelerators because a lower energy state is available to them. The exception is the Muon in the second family, which is only observed in the highenergy environment of cosmic radiation.
The relative masses of the fundamental particles increases in each successive family because the higherenergy environments where they occupy would result in the corresponding particles in each successive family to be formed with a greater relative "separation" in the “surfaces” of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Therefore, the corresponding particles in the second family will have a greater mass than the particles in the first family because the "separation", with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension of the threedimensional space manifold associated with them is greater than the "separation" associated with the first family.
Similarly, the corresponding particles in the third family will have a greater mass than those in the second family because the "separation", with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension, of the threedimensional space manifold associated with them is greater than the spatial "separation" associated with the second family.
Additionally the corresponding particle types across the three families have "identical properties" because as shown in the article "The geometry of quarks" Mar. 15, 2009 they are related to the orientation of the "W" axis of the fourth *spatial* dimension with the axis of threedimensional space. Therefore, each corresponding particle across the three families will have similar properties because the orientation of the "W" axis of the fourth *spatial* dimension with respect to the axis of threedimensional space is the same for the corresponding particles in all of the families.
This explains why "The corresponding particle types across the three families having identical properties except for their mass, which grows larger in each successive family” in terms of the field properties of four *spatial* dimensions.
Additional it shows how one can use the field properties of space to define and understand the physicality of the Higgs Field and how it causes mass in terms of a physical image based on the reality of what we can see and touch in our threedimensional environment similar to how Einstein was able to define how gravity "may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum" by extrapolating the physical image of how objects move on a curve surface in a threedimensional environment to a curved four dimensional spacetime manifold.
In other words as the article “Defining energy" showed the fact that one can derive all forms of energy including that associated with temperature and mass in terms of an asymmetrical displacement in a "surface" of space as we believe Einstein had done allows one to understand the why the Higgs field is the casualty of mass in terms of the observable reality most associate with our three dimensional environment.
In other words if one assumes as we believe Einstein did that energy/mass is created by an asymmetrical displacement in the "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension one can conceptually understand how it interacts with space to create the inertial properties associated with mass and the Higgs field in terms of the physical image formed by water in a dam.
This is because the potential energy of water is defined by its displacement with respect to the bottom of a dam.
Therefore according to the above theoretical model, one could define the physicality of the Higgs field in terms of the potential energy or mass created by an asymmetrical displacement in a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Additionally it gives one the ability to derive the energy and therefore the mass of the Higgs bosom and where it should be located in an environment consisting of four *spatial* dimension in terms of the physical image of water in a dam because as mentioned earlier it is solely dependent on the height of the dam while that of the Higgs Boson would be dependent on magnitude of the spatial separation of the threedimension space manifold it is occupying with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Another way of defining the physicality of Einstein’s Aether or the Higgs field is that it is responsible for breaking the physical symmetry of space thereby allowing one to defining the mass of each individual fermion in the Standard Model in terms of an asymmetrical displacement in a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a four *spatial* dimension.
This shows how it is possible to understand the reality of the Higgs Field in terms of a physical image by reformatting (as was done in the article “Reformulating spacetime” Oct 1, 2013) Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity in terms of four *spatial* dimensions.
It should be remember that Einstein’s genius allows us to choose whether to view the reality of the Higgs Field in either a spacetime environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension because he defined the geometry of spacetime in choose terms of energy/mass and the constant velocity of light.
Later Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014
The Imagineer’s 
The Imagineer’s 

The Reality 

The Imagineer’s 
The Imagineer’s 