The 1998 astronomical observations of SN 1A implied a (so-called) accelerating universe. It is over 20 years later and no consensus explanation exists for the 1998 observations. Despite FLRW metric, despite GR, despite QM, despite modified theories like MOND, despite other inventive approaches, still no explanation. It is hard to believe that hundreds or thousands of physicists having available a sophisticated conceptual mathematical and physics toolkit relating to cosmology, gravity, light, and mechanics are all missing how existing physics applies to explain the accelerating expansion of space. Suppose instead that all serious and plausible explanations using the existing toolkit have been made. What would that imply? Does it not imply a fundamental physical principle of the universe has been overlooked or even, not overlooked, but does not yet form part of physics knowledge? In that case, physics is looking for the unknown unknown (to borrow an expression). I suspect the unknown principle relates to dimension (dimension is fundamental and Galileo’s scaling approach in 1638 for a problem originating with the concept of dimensions --- the weight-bearing strength of animal bone — suggests fundamental features of dimension may have been overlooked, beginning then). Is there a concept gap?
No. The effects of dark energy can be perfectly well described by the cosmological constant, which is as much a part of general relativity as Newton's constant is.
The dark matter , dark energy, inflation are ad hoc additions to the standards model in an effort to keep the data from suggesting a need for a major paradigm shift. Such attempts have been made in the past for the social elite to hang onto the past. The pressure for a paradigm shift will continue to grow until one of the currently suggested paradigms overcomes the bias. It's too bad such time and resources have to be wasted.
In the mid 90s, if you spoke with a (so-called) mainstream cosmologist, she/he was certain that only normal and dark matter exists in the universe and the cosmic expansion is thus decelerating. In this regard, the discovery of the accelerating expansion implied a gap in the existing cosmology, and this is the main reason why the term "dark energy" was adopted to describe the (unknown) cause of the accelerating expansion. However, it seems that the General Relativity has enough “room” to accommodate phenomena of repulsive gravity.
Dark energy does not exist as the new fundamental science of Cryodynamics, sister to Thermodynamics, has proven.
Not even the Big Bang exists any more for 11 years.
It is embarrassing to have to defend a BIG change of paradigm even if it is trivial.
Are you the young mind whose sympathy and help is vital for all to be saved?
Hi Robert,
Your intuition is correct. There is a serious concept gap in physics. Your comment, "I suspect the unknown principle relates to dimension ....." identifies the problem. Physics has several categorical errors one being the interpretation of the fine structure constant. It appears that all of the physical constants used in physics are correct in terms of their numerical value, but it is the arbitrarily assigned dimensions of a few of the constants which is causing all of the problems. Physics currently has enough evidence to put together a unified theory. What's missing is how to correctly show the relationships between these constants. I am currently working on several papers that will reveal the problems.
Dear Randy:
If there is an inconsistency because one central belief is false, time is not yet ripe for a unifying program, right? That is, I feel that first you need to help me: Am I preposterous?
Take care,
Otto
Hi Otto,
The problem in physics is the SI system of units. When physicists came up with the system of electromagnetic units over one hundred years ago, they failed to see a second possibility. As a result, the permittivity of free space was assigned the wrong units of measurement and the fine structure constant became a dimensionless value. In order for any system of units to work correctly one must first establish what it is which gives mass and electric charge to a particle. This allows mass to be described in terms of charge, or charge in terms of mass. This is the only way to make certain, that a system of units actually works. To illustrate the problem, consider this. In conventional physics, Planck charge is a ridiculous value. It is seldom used in any paper and requires extraordinary explanation to explain its magnitude. In a system of units which works correctly, Planck charge will have the same value as elementary charge, a more realistic value.
I should have papers out in the next month or two revealing the problem. I do have a data table which represents an organized system of units which works, but few if anyone is going to understand it until I write a paper on how to use the table. The table suggests that the SI system has to be modified slightly to connect microscopic phenomena with macroscopic phenomena. When done correctly, theoretical values for CMBR temperature, the Hubble constant, etc. will appear from very simple calculations. P.S. What brought me to Roberts question, was that the 4/3 ratio which he discussed in several papers is the same ratio I get which relates the Boltzmann constant with the CMBR. It appears that the assumptions of Allen and Maxwell (0805.1715v2 page 7) were correct.
Regards
Randy Sorokowski
Good point. The physics definitions of standards lacks many values that should be included. Another is "cycles" as in cycles per second. You mention one of the biggies.
Thanks John for the comment.
I would also like to point out that the SI system works to a certain point. It is more about what the system can't do than what it can do. The SI system has limitations that I will be pointing out in my paper. The best way to look at the SI system is that it is like a language. There are many people that can speak a language, but they can not read or write it. The alphabet allows us to break down words into components which allows us to recombine and extend a language further than if we were to speak it. The kilogram, the coulomb, and the kelvin are like spoken words in a language. As fundamental units, the SI system doesn't break them down so that they can be properly integrated with each other.
The Hubble constant has a dual nature. It describes with the same success two different physical processes in the observable Universe: expansion and rotation of its space. That is, the redshift from distant objects of the observable Universe can be described with equal success on the one hand by the removal (scattering) of these objects under the action of the force of so-called dark energy, and on the other hand by the rotation of the space of the observed Universe. Both hypotheses have flaws. In the first case, a scientifically based source of dark energy is required, and in the second case, under certain conditions, the basic principle of cosmology, the principle of isotropy of space, is violated. Currently, of the many hypotheses about the nature of the source of dark energy, the most widely used hypothesis is the cosmological constant or, as say, the lambda constant. According to this hypothesis, the lambda constant in Einstein's equations gets a physical meaning - the pressure of the vacuum. The expansion of the space of the observable Universe occurs under the action of the pressure of the vacuum. However, space can expand only from the area of high pressure to the area of low pressure, that is, only under the action of pressure drop. The lambda calibration coefficient is constant for all points of the Universe, that is, the vacuum pressure at all points of the Universe is the same and there is no pressure differential in it. This means that the hypothesis of the cosmological constant, as a source of dark energy, is not consistent. The solution of the Einstein equations for the rotating space of the Universe was proposed by Gödel in 1949. In the article: ROTATING SPACE OF THE UNIVERSE, AS A SOURCE OF DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01329145v1
and Preprint: Analytical evaluation of the numerical values of the Hubble constant and the main spatial-energy characteristics of the observable Universe based on golden algebraic fractals and the law "Planck's Universal Proportions".
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02045149v1
It is shown that the source of dark energy and dark mass can be the rotation of the space of the observable Universe.
Valery Timkov
There are other explanations of the applicability of the Hubble constant. The Doppler shift of expansion is poorly correlated with Cepheid distances (0.76 in one study, 0.80 in the Key Project).
I have considered the isotropic universe along with the homogeneous universe assumptions as poor and false. The size scale to make them reasonable is way to large (>200 Mpc).
We must develop a model without Dark matter and Dark Energy. Enough time and effort has been expended with no joy.
Dear John Hodge,
The observable Universe, like the Hubble sphere, is a slowly rotating black hole (see preprint above). Since the Big Bang (13.88 billion years), the Hubble Sphere has made one incomplete rotation at 345 degrees. Such an angular velocity of rotation does not violate the principle of isotropy of space.
Valery Timkov
As I look around (maybe in our solar system) I do NOT see isotropic space. The Sun is in one direction and not others. Well, That is the basis of the assumptions.
I presume when you state "the universe is ...", you are stating you model.
Although not mainstream physics I like the QSSC over the BB because it has a Machian universe and BB doesn't. QSSC doesn't need dark matter or dark energy.
Its STOE (mine) model goes further to explain many galaxy observation and allow a link to QM (diffraction experiments).
Dear John Hodge,
Talking about the isotropy of space on the scale of the solar system, our galaxy and metagalaxy does not make sense. The isotropy of space is considered on the scale of the entire observable Universe. Next. There is a redshift from distant objects of the observable universe in all azimuths. Information about this redshift is obtained based on the Doppler effect. The basis of this effect is a change in the frequency of the emitted (or reflected) signal from a moving object. The key word here is moving. Therefore, the redshift can be explained only by two main hypotheses: 1) expansion (scattering) of the space of the observable Universe under the influence of dark energy; 2) the rotation of the space of the observable Universe. All that is beyond the scope of these two hypotheses is scientific tales and fantasies.
Valery Timkov
That the redshift of galaxies is a Doppler effect is an assumption - not verified. That is, the redshift is a Doppler effect is itself a fantasy and discrete redshift observations are unexplained by this assumption. Another explanation of the redshift is possible and some have suggested it. But Hubble Law is still valid.
Even on the largest scales, the universe in redshift surveys shows voids and clumps.
Dear John Hodge,
The correct answers in cosmology can only be obtained on the basis of the physical laws and effects that have been repeatedly tested in experiments. One of them is the Doppler effect. The data on the redshift is consistent with the Doppler effect and are obtained on equipment whose operation is based on the Doppler effect. The basis of this effect is a change in the frequency of the radiation signal due to radial movement relative to each other of the signal source and the observer. Such a movement in cosmology is adequately consistent with only two physical processes: the expansion of space and its rotation. Accordingly, in cosmology, there are two hypotheses that explain these processes: the hypothesis about dark energy and the hypothesis about the rotation of the space of the observable Universe. The remaining hypotheses are not consistent with the observations. Further. As for the voids in the observable Universe, this refers to the question of its large-scale structure, and not the redshift.
Does dark energy reveal a concept gap in physics?
The issue about isotropy is sort of related to the question of a concept gap in relation to dark energy, because a theory of dark energy would have to yield results approximately consistent with isotropy.
According to the COBE data from the 1990s (Smoot, Fixsen etc), the universe is approximately isotropic to one part 100,000, or one part in 10^5. Supposing the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old (leaving out issues of what there is out there that astronomy does not see, and leaves out cosmological inflation, which may or may not apply), suppose a light distance diameter during that time of about 30 billion light years. If the 4/3 scaling law applies, then that would be 40 billion light years diameter. I have read estimates of 93 billion light years for the diameter of the observable universe. The 93 billion light years figure is mentioned in a question on RG. https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_is_the_size_of_universe_calculated_as_93_billion_light_years.
A 2005 article on arxiv by J. Richard Gott, III et al estimates a radius for the universe in gigaparsecs, which is about 46 billion light years according to accounts of the article.
Suppose we take the diameter as 40 billion light years. That means that clumpiness begins once size gets to be under about 40,000 light years, 93,000 billion light years if we use the 46 billion light year radius estimate. That is enough room, more or less, for the Milky Way Galaxy, which is an estimated 100,000 light years across. It would seem that the conclusion that the universe is isotropic to one part in 100,000 leaves room for galaxies at least, not to mention stars and bipedal animals.
Valery Timkov
The correlation of redshift to other distance indicators is poor - 0.80 for Cepheids in the Key Project data. Your statement about "only" is false.
Robert Shour
The clumpness goes far beyond our cluster and supercluster. The is no data in the redshift survey or anywhere else that suggest the universe is anything other than as shown in the redshift surveys. Universe has superclusters and voids.
The main spatial and energy characteristics of the observable universe, as the Hubble sphere. See attachment.
Dear Robert Shour
and Dear John Hodge
I think this is a beautiful theoretical answer about the Origin of Dark Energy with the estimation of its size, please see this paper.
Research Proposal The origin of dark energy
With best regards.
Allow me to mention that the discovery of the new fundamental science of Cryodynamics, sister of Thermodynamics, has confirmed Zwicky 1929. So that the universe is stationary and eternal.
The 90 years long adherence to the "Big Bang" is a historical tragedy, a "Dark Age."
Can anyone forgive me for that statement?
https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/a-primer-for-deterministic-thermodynamics-and-cryodynamics/15231270
I added a paper, March 24, 2019,Preprint Are some implications of dimension missing in current physics?
that suggests aspects of dimension are missing from current physics. I think a ratio of dimensions may account for expanding space, so-called dark energy.
This quote appears as an epigraph at the beginning of the recent biography of Frederick Douglass by David W. Blight. I do not know the context, but think it applies to dark energy and perhaps dark matter too:
There is a prophet within us, forever whispering that behind the seen lies the immeasurable unseen. —FREDERICK DOUGLASS, 1862
Two articles on RG that I added after the initial posting also might relate to the question:
Does dark energy reveal a concept gap in physics?
Preprint Size, scaling, and invariant ratios
Preprint Dark Energy and the two reference frame solution
Dear Robert Shour
Please can you give me your opinion about this paper that say:
"The false flat universe paradigm needs mysterious ingredients: dark energy , dark matter and inflation to pridge the gap between theory and observations. In testing the validity of any scientific paradigm, the key creterion is whether measurements agree with what is expected given the paradigm. We modify the laws of gravity through the new hyperbolic spacetime paradigm. Such a modification explains the accelerating expansion of the universe without needs for dark energy and inflation. "
Book The Hyperbolic Universe.
With best regards.
There is no big bang and no cosmic expansion and none of the attendant secondary concepts like gravitational waves and accelerated expansion and dark energy, etc.
Large groups of people tend to form false syntheses obviously.
The last correct physicist was Fritz Zwicky 1929 who got confirmed since by the new fundamental science of Cryodynamics, sister to deterministic thermodynamics (both chaos based).
See, for example, Chapter A Primer for Deterministic Thermodynamics and Cryodynamics
The scaling of our size (1 meter plus or minus 3 orders of magnitude) suggests the STOE which does have a consistent explanation of both dark energy and dark matter. Using the same math. we can also get the "planet 9" problem solved and the similarity of the Pioneer 10 & 11 observations solved. Also, the model is corespondent to both GR and QM.
From:
How to become a successful physicist, Physics Today 75, 9, 46 (2022) September 2022 issue
"Are there gaps in the field that need solving or opportunities to challenge the status quo and question assumptions in the field? "
- Badges
- Science topic