Dark energy alternatives to Einstein are running out of room

Jan 09, 2013
The accelerating expansion of the galaxies observed in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field may conform more to Albert Einstein’s “cosmological constant” than a popular alternative theory of dark energy. Credit: NASA; ESA; G. Illingworth, D. Magee, and P. Oesch, University of California, Santa Cruz; R. Bouwens, Leiden University; and the HUDF09 Team

(Phys.org)—Research by University of Arizona astronomy professor Rodger Thompson finds that a popular alternative to Albert Einstein's theory for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe does not fit newly obtained data on a fundamental constant, the proton to electron mass ratio.

Thompson's findings, reported Jan. 9 at the meeting in Long Beach, Calif., impact our understanding of the and point to a new direction for the further study of its accelerating expansion.

To explain the acceleration of the , astrophysicists have invoked dark energy – a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space. A popular theory of dark energy, however, does not fit new results on the value of the proton mass divided by the electron mass in the early universe.

Thompson computed the predicted change in the ratio by the dark energy theory (generally referred to as rolling scalar fields) and found it did not fit the new data.

UA alumnus Brian Schmidt, along with Saul Perlmutter and Adam Reiss, won the 2011 for showing that the expansion of the universe is accelerating rather than slowing down as previously thought.

The acceleration can be explained by reinstating the "" into Einstein's . Einstein originally introduced the term to make the universe stand still. When it was later found that the universe was expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant "his biggest blunder."

The constant was reinstated with a different value that produces the observed acceleration of the universe's expansion. Physicists trying to calculate the value from known physics, however, get a number more than 10 to the power of 60 (one followed by 60 zeros) too large – a truly astronomical number.

That's when physicists turned to new theories of dark energy to explain the acceleration.

In his research, Thompson put the most popular of those theories to the test, targeting the value of a fundamental constant (not to be confused with the cosmological constant), the mass of the proton divided by the mass of the electron. A fundamental constant is a pure number with no units such as mass or length. The values of the fundamental constants determine the laws of physics. Change the number, and the laws of physics change. Change the fundamental constants by a large amount, and the universe becomes very different from what we observe.

The new physics model of dark energy that Thompson tested predicts that the fundamental constants will change by a small amount. Thompson identified a method of measuring the proton to electron mass ratio in the several years ago, but it is only recently that astronomical instruments became powerful enough to measure the effect. More recently, he determined the exact amount of change that many of the new theories predict.

Last month, a group of European astronomers, using a massive radio telescope in Germany, made the most accurate measurement of the proton-to-electron ever accomplished and found that there has been no change in the ratio to one part in 10 million at a time when the universe was about half its current age, around 7 billion years ago.

When Thompson put this new measurement into his calculations, he found that it excluded almost all of the dark energy models using the commonly expected values or parameters. If the parameter space or range of values is equated to a football field, then almost the whole field is out of bounds except for a single 2-inch by 2-inch patch at one corner of the field. In fact, most of the allowed values are not even on the field.

"In effect, the theories have been playing on the wrong field," Thompson said. "The 2-inch square does contain the area that corresponds to no change in the , and that is exactly where Einstein stands."

Thompson expects that physicists and astronomers studying cosmology will adapt to the new field of play, but for now, "Einstein is in the catbird seat, waiting for everyone else to catch up."

Explore further: Cooling with molecules

Related Stories

Light from galaxy clusters confirms theory of relativity

Sep 28, 2011

All observations in astronomy are based on light emitted from stars and galaxies and, according to the general theory of relativity, the light will be affected by gravity. At the same time all interpretations ...

Nature of universe is still a mystery to Nobel winners

Oct 04, 2011

They won the Nobel Prize for changing our understanding of the universe, but their discovery left an even larger mystery -- what is this dark energy that is propelling the universe to expand so fast? ...

South Pole Telescope hones in on dark energy, neutrinos

Apr 02, 2012

Analysis of data from the 10-meter South Pole Telescope is providing new support for the most widely accepted explanation of dark energy — the source of the mysterious force that is responsible for the ...

Dark energy -- 10 years on

Nov 30, 2007

Three quarters of our universe is made up of some weird, gravitationally repulsive substance that was only discovered ten years ago – dark energy. This month in Physics World, Eric Linder and Saul Perlmutter, both at the ...

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

10 hours ago

An international team of scientists have become the first ever researchers to successfully reach temperatures below minus 272.15 degrees Celsius – only just above absolute zero – using magnetic molecules. ...

Backpack physics: Smaller hikers carry heavier loads

Oct 21, 2014

Hikers are generally advised that the weight of the packs they carry should correspond to their own size, with smaller individuals carrying lighter loads. Although petite backpackers might appreciate the ...

User comments : 53

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

El_Nose
4.2 / 5 (17) Jan 09, 2013
Finally a theory based on good observation.

Please not this does not discredit DE -- it discredit the theories that have been used so far to create it. DE still exists and is still unexplained but now the theories about it have to have a lot more refinement.
Gawad
3 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2013
Except for one, El Nose, the simple CC (proposed by Einstein with a slightly different value to explain the steady state universe assumed at the time).
that_guy
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2013
I think this is great science, however, I suspect that trying to use the 'cosmological constant' in dark matter's place is just another crutch for not yet knowing the underlying principles causing these effects.

In essence, I believe the CC is no better a band aid than DM.

@Gawad and El Nose - Please note that this does not necessarily discredit DM. It could be argued that it puts such constraints on DM as to drop us right on top of the place that we need to look (in the 2 inch squared patch).

For the rest of you, I'm discussing all sides of this article (Pro and Con), so put away your partisanship...
Gawad
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2013
Euh, Guy...who said anything about DM?
Tausch
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 09, 2013
Guy' greatest blunder. Inserting an M into the dark equation.
Kron
3.5 / 5 (14) Jan 09, 2013
Except for one, El Nose, the simple CC (proposed by Einstein

Einsteins Cosmological Constant was nothing but a fix for his field equations, without the CC his models predicted a gravitational collapse of the Universe. In order to match his model to the *observed steady state Universe (*as it was falsely viewed at the time), Einstein invented the CC.

The CC is nothing more than a fix to Einsteins model. When the Universe was observed as expanding at an accelerating rate, the value of the CC was changed. The value is taken from observation of nature in order to correct the model.

Now we're going backwards amazed at how well the value fits. Kinda funny, no? The value taken from nature to correct the model, seems to correct the model of nature. Well, duh!

The CC is not a Dark Energy theory. So El_Nose is correct. Not a one theory is left standing (well, mainstream anyways).
Kron
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 09, 2013
Although, El_Nose, this only applies within the context of the current models of nature:
DE still exists

DE is required in order to explain natural phenomena as they are currently understood. Should a new model of nature emerge, the need for Dark Energy may be abolished.
that_guy
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2013
Euh, Guy...who said anything about DM?


Mybad, please read "DE" everywhere I put "DM" and Carry on.

Another note, does anyone know who "Lite" is. Is it you Gawad?
malapropism
4.7 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2013
Except for one, El Nose, the simple CC (proposed by Einstein with a slightly different value to explain the steady state universe assumed at the time).

But so far as I understand it - and I freely admit I may be totally wrong in this as I'm not a physicist - Einstein's Cosmological Constant has no associated notion of "why". (I think this is what guy was saying.) The point of the various DE theories was not only to give a number but to provide some idea of the "why" of the number's existence.

Of course, if we do in fact live in a simulation, maybe there is no "why" and it's just that that's what "they" decided on to increment the simulation's storage or memory space... :-)
LED Guy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2013
@Kron:

Einstein's CC allowed for a steady-state universe, without his equations predicted a universe that would continue to expand or would collapse.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2013
@Kron:

Strickly speaking...as far as the article itself, Thompson isn't proposing a theory at all, but Nose is correct when he lauds the proper use of observation to constrain DE theories.

Also, you're quite right that the CC isn't a DE theory as such, but what matters here is that whatever DE actually is it seems to *act as* a simple CC rather than as a rolling/tracking field that predicts either an eventual collapse or "big rip".

@That_Guy:

Sorry, that should have been obvious in retrospect. It's just that DM and DE are so often confused that I didn't pick that up.

And no, I'm not Lite and have no idea who or who else they may be. The only other nick I've ever used on Physorg was "Athabasca" and that was a couple of years ago and only for a couple of test posts.
Telekinetic
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2013
Euh, Guy...who said anything about DM?


Mybad, please read "DE" everywhere I put "DM" and Carry on.

Another note, does anyone know who "Lite" is. Is it you Gawad?

The silent rater "lite" is none other than the loquacious TheGhostofOtto1923 as well as "FrankHerbert" and the less-used "arfarfarfarf". TheGhostofOtto1923 and his sockpuppets have pissed in the pool for many of us. Take a look at MY ranking page.
brodix
1.3 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2013
The only distant light we can observe is that which has passed between all the gravity wells of intervening matter. It appears stretched in inverse proportion to the effect of gravity. Could they be two sides of a contiguous process, where the universe is not expanding, only our measure of intergalactic space? Think in terms of the rubber sheet analogy of gravity; Mass pushing in creates an equal outward pressure on the rest of the sheet. This would explain why space on the largest scales, as measured by COBE and WMAP, appears flat.
LarryD
2.2 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2013
Theories about DE has always made me think of a possible 4D (that is 4D t=5D) because everything (I think)would have a 'hidden' momentum component and perhaps a hidden grav component that might be a function of the overall mass in 4D. I wonder, could the CC be connected with such an idea?
yash17
1.5 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2013
We will never get out of perplexity as long as the main concept or the main model we rely on is defective. I know, most or all of you won't like this, but the main problem of this all is due to "The BB theory" and space expanding concept.

We are now like going astray on our way but insisting that we all are still on the very right track. Then we find all explanations to our situations throw confusions.

Actually, getting stick with Newton's Laws and Newton's words, we still can explain the cosmological fact that most sky objects redshift. One strong objection that I find difficult to defend my model base on your fanaticism is you tightly grasping; the theory (to me, it is just theory) saying that matter can't travel faster than light. To me, compressed atom structure matters really can travel faster than light.

With CARM (away from BB theory); the accelerating of sky objects to spread away in cosmos (not accelerating expansion), DE and DM are all just find and logical.
dirk_bruere
4.3 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2013
Einstein's CC is not an explanation. It is a single parameter that fits observations
vega12
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2013
Einstein's CC is not an explanation. It is a single parameter that fits observations

If you want to, you can take that same logic to every theory we have. Electromagnetism is not an explanation. It is a single parameter (coupling constant) that fits observations.

One key thing to remember is that, by following Einstein's postulates of general relativity, there are only two possible interaction terms that can be covariantly written down: the normal GR mass-energy tensor curvature of spacetime, and a cosmological constant term. Both come with a coupling constant which is not determined by the theory itself, but are parameters. In fact, all theories we have have some parameters that are not predicted by the theory.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2013
(Phys.org)—Research by University of Arizona astronomy professor Rodger Thompson finds that a popular alternative to Albert Einstein's theory for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe does not fit newly obtained data on a fundamental constant, the proton to electron mass ratio.

It is quite difficult to visualize how the proton to electron mass ratio involved the acceleration of the expansion of the universe! Maybe understanding what electron and proton are and where do they come from (below) could help us to understand the matter.
http://www.vacuum...=4〈=en
Scryer
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2013
DE and DM will always exist, we may find better explinations for them, but they will always be a part of nature.

Would be nice to figure out how to generate DE.
VendicarD
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2013
DE is negative energy. Matter is positive energy.

Matter and Dark Energy are created together, and the total energy sums to zero, just as it always has done.
Kron
1 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2013
Matter, both regular and anti, have positive mass energy, while space contains negative energy (DE as you point out VendicarD), the total sum of the energy at the moment of the big bang would have summed to zero. The annihilation of matter and antimatter would have caused a resulting imbalance. Meaning, with the loss of positive energy (mass), negative energy (DE) is left to dominate over the universe. As mass deteriorates the expansion of the universe accelerates.

I agree except for this:
the total energy sums to zero...as it always has

I think the total was only at zero before the big bang. Since, matter has taken the losing end of the scale, as matter annihilates, space is created. This brings on an interesting thought though, could the antimatter be confined in nuclear spaces together with matter (quarks and antiquarks together inside nucleons?)? Could annihilation be controlled by use of negative energy, space between particle-antiparticle means no annihilation, no?
Shinichi D_
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2013


Would be nice to figure out how to generate DE.


Simple. Just expand vacuum.
A2G
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2013
The problem with the "Dark Energy" label is that it sets in the reader's mind that it is there for sure and it is energy.

I agree that the issue is there. i.e. there are things in space such as the increasing expansion of the universe which points to problems in currently accepted theories. But we really don't know that the answer to this problem is "energy" and we certainly do not know that it is "dark energy".

But the "Dark Energy" label has already put the idea in most people's head that the answer is energy that is not visible.

Let's say that I find that I put a bowl of milk out in the yard for my cat. Then every time I let my cat out to drink the milk, it is discovered that the milk is gone. So I the only real facts known are that the milk was there and now, the milk is gone. So I assume that another cat is jumping my fence and drinking my cat's milk.

Wouldn't it be foolish to decide to call it the "Dark Cat" problem without knowing the real reason the milk was disappearing?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.9 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2013
Bad press release, the cosmological constant is currently the most popular alternative for dark energy anyway.

And this is just wrong: "Physicists trying to calculate the value from known physics, however, get a number more than 10 to the power of 60 (one followed by 60 zeros) too large – a truly astronomical number." From known physics you get a factor 10^-120 of the natural (i.e. ~ 1 in normalized terms), it is then you assume supersymmetry it gets up to 10^-60 of the natural, not finetuned, value.

Einstein's cc was a spacetime curvature, today's observation is a negative pressure effect so comes out on the other, matterenergy, side as an energy with the opposite sign.

@ El Nose, Kron: Different things. This is DE, and in the standard cosmology the best fit comes out as the cosmological constant, same as here. And the theory so far used to predict a cc is a (constant) vacuum energy.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2013
@ that_guy, dirk_bruere, A2G: Neither DE or its constant CC form are "band aids", "not explanations", "not for sure", "place holders" or something else folk physics, they are unambiguous observations constrained by the well tested standard cosmology.

@brodix: There is no metric problem, that was the whole point with introducing relativity. And standard cosmology has extended GR much more than earlier observations.

@yash17: The inflationary standard cosmology is the first self-consistent cosmology, and the December WMAP 9 year release has decreased the uncertainty to < 1.5 % on parameters. It is highly unlikely a self-consistent theory and its observations will be replaced. More detailed, certainly.

@vm: Science sites is not the place to present crackpot ideas. Take it to the crackpot sites.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.1 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2013
@Kron: Your balance equation doesn't work. DE is a constant, independent of the matter content.

There are in principle 5 ways to see that the universe is zero energy (AFAIK):

1) Classically the inflationary standard cosmology (SC) is efficiently flat space, which translates to a near zero energy density sum over energies.
2) SC is future eternal (no rip or crunch), so must be a zero energy system to not change.
3) The two possible ways to start inflation is a fluctuation or past eternal inflation. The latter works as 2) above, the former is most likely a near zero energy fluctuation.
4) During inflation and future eternity the universe is adiabatically expanding with zero or virtually zero matter content, so approximates an empty de Sitter universe. Zero energy.
5) [TBC]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2013
[C]

5) You can't define energy except as a local approximation in a GR space such as SC. (Eg redshift shows energy loss over cosmological distances.) But you can study so called FRW universes as systems, and their behavior is only describable by a zero energy system. (Se Tonioni et al papers, which I have zero energy to google for right now.)

SC is an FRW universe.
A2G
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2013
Torbjorn wrote this "Neither DE or its constant CC form are "band aids", "not explanations", "not for sure", "place holders" or something else folk physics, they are unambiguous observations constrained by the well tested standard cosmology."

I think you better go back and study your standard cosmology a bit more to see that what you just said is total BS. You are not as wise as you think you are.

DE is an admitted place holder by most of the world's leading astrophysicists. You can believe whatever you want but this is not what the commonly accepted understanding of the DE issue is.

Here is what NASA says about it.

"What Is Dark Energy?

"More is unknown 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"

So I guess you are smarter than NASA Torbjorn. or not.
A2G
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2013
Another quote directly from NASA.

"Another explanation for dark energy is that it is a new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field, something that fills all of space but something whose effect on the expansion of the Universe is the opposite of that of matter and normal energy. Some theorists have named this "quintessence," after the fifth element of the Greek philosophers. But, if quintessence is the answer, we still don't know what it is like, what it interacts with, or why it exists. So the mystery continues."

I guess DE is not as nailed down as Torbjorn thinks. NASA certainly does not think so. Therefore the "Dark Energy" label can be very misleading. It has obviously mislead Torbjorn.
A2G
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2013
I ran across this interesting short clip on YouTube about black holes. It features five of the world's leading physicists such as Michio Kaku discussing black holes. Here is the link. Ignore the title. I don't know why it even has God in the title as it has nothing to do with religion. Very frustrating because it is a great clip.

https://www.youtu...z4mB9GKY

These guys clearly state that even black holes don't actually make sense and math breaks down in a black hole. That's what they say. Are they part of the mainstream or not? Because they are the talking heads for a large portion of mainstream astrophysics and physics.

Or are you smarter than them too, Torbjorn?

Gawad
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2013
@A2G: He may not be smarter, but at least he's dealing with it a couple of notches up from the pop-physics level you seem to mired in. And, yes, in particular Kaku has a long established pop-physics record,so does NASA's stuff that is put out for the public: that's its whole point-not to mislead, mind you, but it's still (astro)physics lite. If you want to get a serious gip on DE you're going to have to actually put in the hard work of graduate level GR and QM...for starters. No other way around it.
brt
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2013
I wish someone had recorded Prof. Thompson's lecture. I'd like to find more information about it.
brt
2.8 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2013


I think you better go back and study your standard cosmology a bit more to see that what you just said is total BS. You are not as wise as you think you are.

DE is an admitted place holder by most of the world's leading astrophysicists. You can believe whatever you want but this is not what the commonly accepted understanding of the DE issue is.

Here is what NASA says about it.

"What Is Dark Energy?

"More is unknown 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"

So I guess you are smarter than NASA Torbjorn. or not.


It is now a fact that what Torbjorn_Larsson_OM is saying is true. You won't find it in a text book because the info that solidified it beyond a doubt was released a few months ago; they don't write graduate level cosmology texts that fast.

I wouldn't say "wiser", but more informed than an outdated press release by NASA designed for middle schoolers
A2G
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 10, 2013
So you smart guys have DE all figured out but you can't it explain it simply. Hmmmmm? Not what Einstein and many others said about understanding. Tell me pray tell, please inform us all what DE really is and then collect your Nobel prize.
A2G
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2013
I can read heavy science no problem. Where are these proven facts that we all would like to know? You throw insults with zero backing except for the cop out that "you wouldn't understand".

I smell BS. Give a real meaningful answer or all know what you are really about. Anyone who tells someone I could tell you but you wouldn't understand has always in my experience been a BS artist regardless of their position or degrees.
A2G
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 10, 2013
I just figured that quoting from NASA itself in very plain words would get right to the point as it does. But the answers are clearly avoided. That is the response of someone who wants to think they are smart but actually don't know. I saw a lot of this in my recent work at Oxford. Academics who were so smart they didn't know how to reset a circuit breaker when it tripped. They had to call in a lowly electrician. But man did they ever think they were smart. Just like I see here. No answers, just that I am smarter than the rest of you. Those who truly understand something can explain it. That is not being done here. It is all talk around.
A2G
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2013
If you guys are so much smarter then the rest of us then tell us how I do what you see in these videos. If you are really smart you will be able to do that. But I bet you are not that smart.

http://www.youtub...point777
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2013
In dense aether model the Universe doesn't expand, because it predicts, the red-shift is wavelength dependent: at the wavelength of CMBR it disappears completely and for radiowaves the Universe collapses instead. The scattering of surface ripples is wavelength dependent as well. But at the moment, when scattering happens, the surface ripples are losing their energy and they do transform into waves, which scatter even more. This effect is responsible for accelerated scattering of both surface ripples, both light waves
in the vacuum and it leads to so-called dark energy.

Einstein didn't predict the dark energy with his "cosmological constant" - instead of it he attempted to introduce exactly the opposite effect with it: the steady state universe model - not the universe expanding with accelerated speed.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2013
For people who are thinking a bit more schematically it would be important to note, that the geometry of black holes is described with the same space-time metric, like the geometry of the observable Universe - it's just inverted inside out (FLRW metric vs Schwarzchild metric). Some extensions of general relativity predict the existence of dark matter around black holes - therefore it's logical, the same models will predict the existence of similar artifact at the boundary of observable Universe, i.e. the dark energy.
There are multiple ways, how to derive at least portion of dark matter effect from general relativity: for example with introduction of extradimensions and mass-energy equivalence into general relativity equations.
brt
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 10, 2013
If you guys are so much smarter then the rest of us then tell us how I do what you see in these videos. If you are really smart you will be able to do that. But I bet you are not that smart.

http://www.youtub...point777


I can't understand what your asking because you type like my local neighborhood crackhead speaks.
brt
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 10, 2013
I can read heavy science no problem. Where are these proven facts that we all would like to know? You throw insults with zero backing except for the cop out that "you wouldn't understand".

I smell BS. Give a real meaningful answer or all know what you are really about. Anyone who tells someone I could tell you but you wouldn't understand has always in my experience been a BS artist regardless of their position or degrees.


http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7231

http://lambda.gsf...aphy.cfm

go for it. Any crackpot who types up 4 responses in less than a minute like you did and then pretends as though we aren't replying when we are in fact at work, is not worth replying to. But I thought I would give you the info in case someone who understands cosmology and physics is reading these and laughing their a$$ off at how ignorant you are while simultaneously pretending you know what you're talking about.
brodix
1 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2013
"as matter annihilates, space is created."
The result of annihilating matter is light, which is what radiates out across that intergalactic space and the redshift of which says it is expanding. What happens when light/energy turns back into matter, wouldn't the opposite be true; That space is being 'annihilated?" Thus gravity would be the vacuum left by this energy condensing into matter, not just a mysterious property of matter. There is no dark matter to be found around galaxies, but there is lots of cosmic rays and other forms of radiation. Then on the denser scales, fusion continues to turn matter into ever heavier elements.
Two sides of the same coin; Matter contracts, energy expands.
As for why the redshift; What keeps photons of light from expanding when released? Wouldn't they, being light, expand out to fill/create space? Then the received photon is a sample of the light, not a particular photon traveling billions of lightyears.
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2013
It wasn't my greatest blunder... it was the best I could do with the information available at the time.

As more information becomes available, and it's able to be processed and incorporated, then all things are subject to revision AND some changes may be necessary.

"The acceleration can be explained by reinstating the "cosmological constant" into Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Einstein originally introduced the term to make the universe stand still. When it was later found that the universe was expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant "his biggest blunder."
dark_thoughts
2 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2013
@Torbjorn_Larsson_Olv: "Einstein's cc was a spacetime curvature, today's observation is a negative pressure effect so comes out on the other, matterenergy, side as an energy with the opposite sign."

Is there definitive proof that the matter-free intergalactic voids do not show a very slight inverse spacetime curvature )(, i.e. opposite in sign to that associated with aggregations of matter () ?
A2G
1.6 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2013
brt, Thanks for the papers. They help me understand where you are coming from. But those papers still do NOT prove that "Dark Energy" is caused by invisible energy. They just confirm that the observable matter in the CMB is not explained using just gravity, etc. There is a very real variance and I never have thought otherwise. But those papers do not prove the variance is CAUSED by energy.
A2G
1 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2013
And I am sorry that you cannot answer a simple question put to you with a simple answer. Anyone with experience in any field knows what that means. You still didn't tell us how I do what I do. How I repel a non magnetized steel ball with a static magnetic field. Tell us all how that was done and how it does not fit into what we see in the observable universe. Prove me wrong with facts, not crackpots remarks. You have revealed your true level of understanding.
Montec
1 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2013
There are two explanations for red shift. If you remove velocity then that leaves the other reason. So why is the rate of time increasing as the universe ages?
yash17
1 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2013
"@yash17: The inflationary standard cosmology is the first self-consistent cosmology, and the December WMAP 9 year release has decreased the uncertainty to < 1.5 % on parameters. It is highly unlikely a self-consistent theory and its observations will be replaced."

Thank you.
Please notes: All cosmological observation data (not including theories) used to get the BB theory also match with CAR model, if you accept compressed atom structure matters can travel faster than light.

And please add the following parameters for your uncertainty measurement:

1. Out of around 59 sky objects having z > 5, there are 27 % located at around between Ursa Major & Leo. Ursa Major & Leo is suspected as the location of Universe nucleus in CAR model.
2. An object has an apparent superluminal motion of 4 times the speed of light relative to the galaxy center. (http://en.wikiped...sier_82) & (http://www.jb.man...stery/).
3.
yash17
1 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2013
3. NGC 3314a & b NGC 3314b (Hydra). "This is a pair of spiral galaxies, one superimposed on another, at two separate and distinct ranges, and unrelated to each other. It is a rare chance visual alignment", (http://en.wikiped...laxies).
Cloud and rain model is happy with this observation (belated light effect indication of sky objects with z around > 1.4) at that galactic coordinate.
4. No way that the space expansion concept matches with Newton's laws & Newton's words and you have certainly noticed that, whilst CAR model is totally obedient to Newton's laws.
5. BB theory still puzzles over dark matter & dark energy orientation. CAR model definitely expects there are such kinds of things at cosmos.
6. BB theory isn't obedient to the following nature's facts: Pattern equality fact of nature & Pattern stability fact of nature. Cloud and rain model is actually derived from the above 2 nature's facts.
rah
1 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2013
"The constant was reinstated with a different value that produces the observed acceleration of the universe's expansion. Physicists trying to calculate the value from known physics, however, get a number more than 10 to the power of 60 (one followed by 60 zeros) too large – a truly astronomical number."

Seriously. Bad. Writing.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
rah
1 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2013
I just noticed that no one at Phys.org or from the school dared put their name on this poorly written press release from the University of Arizona. Good call.
brt
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2013
And I am sorry that you cannot answer a simple question put to you with a simple answer. Anyone with experience in any field knows what that means. You still didn't tell us how I do what I do. How I repel a non magnetized steel ball with a static magnetic field. Tell us all how that was done and how it does not fit into what we see in the observable universe. Prove me wrong with facts, not crackpots remarks. You have revealed your true level of understanding.


You don't know what "crackpot" means; do you?
You obviously didn't read the papers or have any knowledge whatsoever of the modern concept of dark energy.
lengould100
1 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2013
After studying the work of astronomers Nick Scoville and Margaret J. Geller, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the COSMOS project, etc., I conclude that present astronomers may be deceiving themselves regarding Dark Matter. Example, studies of gravitational lensing are used to prove the existence of DM, yet what is really proven is that, in the very large picture on the scale of bubble structure of the universe, the "Dark Matter" must exist at approximately the exact same location as all the Detectable Matter. At that point, it becomes rational to ask "Why is it that the observed effects are not simply properties of the Detectable Matter which we know exists, instead of some esoteric theoretical unobservable matter which we cannot explain? e.g. it's not as if we know so much about the details of the operation of the gravitational force that we can immediately rule that possibility out".