DESI is proof of two things. The first is that dark energy doesn't exist, and the second is that the cosmological constant doesn't exist. Both of these assertions will be confirmed by SESI in another year or so. Even the Hubble constant isn't real. At best it's just the estimated average expansion rate for the local universe, with a value of about 74.

In fact instead of the universe expanding, matter is slowly getting smaller which explains galactic redshifts, evidenced by particle spin which is real, not just the incorrect hypothesis of angular momentum.

This result is obtained on the basis of the analysis of the baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) under the assumption that the gravitational mass of the particles is equivalent to their active gravitational mass. The BAO appeared at a redshift of about z=1000 according to the cosmological model. However, in Article The Gravitational Mass of the Rarefied Cloud of the Relativi...

Therefore, the model on the basis of which these results were obtained should be revised. If there are neutrinos with a sufficiently small rest mass, so that at least some of the relic neutrinos remain relativistic, then they can contribute to the total density of matter greater than is currently assumedPreprint The upper limit on the minimum mass of relic neutrinos, allo...

IMHO, Λ absolute value is pretty much fixed rock solid at 1. Everywhere and anytime during the expanding ongoing phase of our observable universe.

Saying that it has any value even so slghtly different than 1 is actually the same as arguing that equation volume = mass / density is wrong and not being a first oder linear equation.

A value of Λ=|1| actually tells us that any expansion of space will be always direct propotional to its vacuum ZPE density thus dark energy.

So, I am skeptic about the BAO results but let us see see what the Euclid space telescope results will be. However, we have to wait for another 3-4 years for these results from Euclid.

From experimentalist point of view DESI results are more reliable. The initial discovery of dark energy is due to wrong interpretation of the results:

Tipikin: DESI and accelerated expansion of Universe - DESI results confirm the absence of accelerated expansion. Explanation - wrong interpretation of the results on supernovae.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2024/11/desi-and-accelerated-expansion-of.html

The dimming of the supernova is more than expected because of light scattering not because of space-time problems:

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2024/11/light-scattering-observed-on-supernova.html

Contrary to Hubble telescope JWST has larger mirror (angular resolution is better) and capable to see supernovae at Z>3 or Z>4 (larger effect of scattering is present). The angular size of supernovae is directly resolved:

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2024/10/supernova-at-z283-large-angular-size.html

The effect is especially great when the close supernova (the angular size is close to the diffraction limit of telescope) and far supernova is compared:

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2024/06/comparison-of-angular-sizes-of-two.html

The comparison of angular sizes of brown dwarfs (outskirts of Milky Way, real point-like object, angular size is according to telescope diffraction limit) and high-Z galaxies with AGN (must be point object at such distances, angular size is three times larger than diffraction limit) just confirms that observation made on supernovae - if the object is relatively close (say z

Dear Stefan Bernhard Rüster

I agree with your analysis, that is also why GR effective theory is formally incompatible with QFT effective theory. However, this does not mean that this is not what nature is doing, meaning that ZPE of the vacuum is possible physically responsible and potentially the cause for the space expansion of the universe. GR does not really give any physical explanation for the observed expansion other for a mathematical value Λ fitting parameter. Therefore, I prefer the QFT's causal possible explanation for the expansion.

IMO, ΛCMD model is just QFT and reasoning with reference to the GR's Λ constant as a proposed physical explanation for Λ. Therefore, IMHO it is wrong to use solely GR to interpret the ΛCMD.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Dmitriy Tipikin ,

Very impressive analysis and information presented and you almost convinced me for a moment :)

But proving wrong or incomplete the ΛCMD model I can understand and accept, but rejecting all the actual past observations and saying that the accelerated expansion is not real, is a hard pill to swallow.

After all ΛCMD has a 5σ observation status whereas BAO DESI not even close to 4σ (actually 1 over 300 the DESI observations to be a fluke compared to 1 over a million of ΛCMD).

So, I better be more skeptical about these results and let the DESI team collect more data to confirm these new observations and also await independent confirmations from other research teams.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Your question overlooks the possibility of old physics. A time-varying cosmological constant in the form of decaying dark energy is a firm prediction one may draw from the old discovery that neutrinos are ideally-suited to the task of efficiently sustaining aquatic life after the stars expire. It is likely that the decay of dark energy will essentially come to an end before the last of the life-hosting stars expire (when the universe is at least 10 times older). Following that, neutrinos could sustain life for upwards of 10^23 years with startling efficiency (well over 90%).

This raises another question, also answered by old physics, of how might dark energy decay? An important point to note before proceeding any further is that Albert Einstein was correct when he pointed out in an old 1939 paper that black holes cannot possibly exist. Strange as it may seem to the uninitiated (who are either unaware of Einstein's finding or fail to comprehend the physics) one consequence is that the objects created by gravitational collapse allow us to observe far more extreme physics than might have otherwise been completely hidden behind an event horizon. Whereas Hawking radiation would be absurdly slow, we are left to consider instead Unruh radiation from a Planck scale object. It transpires that this mechanism is capable of fully discharging the energy of the vacuum at a vastly higher rate, on timescales not altogether different to the present age of the universe.

Here's a link to some old physics on this topic:

Preprint A Non-anthropic Solution to the Cosmological Constant Problem

From what I have read so far, the DESI study may do as much to alter the mainstream views of cosmology than any other prior research study. Accordingly there are about 900 astronomers worldwide contributing to this 11 billion mile radial map of the observable universe. According to my readings, so far they have contradicted a cosmological constant, have no evidence for the existence of dark energy, and even contradict a Hubble constant excepting as an average at the largest scales.