Dear Prof. Shour,

In terms of your observation about 4 dimensional systems in your very illuminating article I would like to bring to your attention a simple model of Electronic Stock Markets which is well calibrated by experimental systems equilibrium data with internetworking and cybernetic systems that there is an Econophysical intrepretation of the Haag Theorem (Mallick (2015)) in experimental electronic stock markets, which implicitly proves that the spacetime resolution of string perturbations and condensation in internetworked cybernetic systems can be configured by satellite positioning "putting out fires" configuration to converge to systems equilibrium with resource balancing. "sustainability" and application of quantum mechanics. This is a result which precludes "Dark Energy" being a balancing of information-energy forces with particle balancing in a Boolean Type Field. If you would like to please take a look at the paper and the paper on the proof of the Externetworks application by our RHMHM School, which with comparison of the paper by Sullivan, Kolokythos, Raychaudhury, Vrtilek and Kantharia (2012) develops the convergence criterion in quantum cosmological spectra which is relativistic.

S.K.Mallick

for S.K.Mallick, S.Raychaudhury & S.Mallick

of The RHMHM School,

USA, Japan, India

I copy from one of my previous answers: " I would thought DE as the energy/"mass" that is evenly distributed within spacetime. If we consider spacetime as a sphere and the Present Universe as the intersection of this sphere/spacetime and a plane perpendicular to the line that connects the two sphere's poles, then we may have a notion of why Present Universe is "expanding", due to the gravity force that the DE of the mayor part of the sphere(spacetime) acts on the moving plane contrary to the DE of minor one. "

I would not say that DE is a crisis of cosmology as cosmology is still at its infancy, albeit the number of existing theories, but certainly is a crisis of the present model.

Dear Dr. Shour,

Good question. I don't think it is a crisis for the entire physics, for GR has an inbuilt scope to describe repulsive gravity (hence, an accelerating universe). In GR, acceleration due to gravity caused by a specific matter distribution is proportional to :

- (energy density + 3. pressure) of this matter.

Hence, if one has some exotic matter for which, energy density + 3. pressure is negative, then it will surely cause repulsive gravity. That is precisely, what the dark energy (DE) does, except for the fact we don't know what this DE is made of.

DE is one of many models from unexplained observations. Together they form a "crisis" begging for a new paradigm and new language( definition words). The paradigm sought has been named the "Theory of Everything".

We must model from the unexplained observations not from other existing models. So, forget the concept of "Dark Energy" and create new models from the observation of SN1a data. Are the supernovae really accelerating away or is the application of the current models to the observed shape and timing of their luminosity. The other confirmations are within the current cosmological model. That is DM fits neatly into weird current models. So, all the other observations need to be included in the new paradigm - the task becomes quite daunting. More, the basics of QM also need to be included (to me this means the double-slit experiment - note emphasis on "experiment".).

Such was the formation of the Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) . (gotta give a plug)

https://www.researchgate.net/project/STOE-replaces-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics

https://www.researchgate.net/project/STOE-photon-diffraction-and-interference

Briefly, for DM- Temperature of universe (CMB temperature) hunts (like thermostat controlling room temperature) 2.718 K. Withing the last 5 billion years this has been higher and increasing. It is decreasing (now about 2.723 K). But before that the increasing temperature caused the universe to expand. The universe has no bounds. So the space occupied expands, hence observation falsely attributed to DM.

"Is dark energy a crisis for cosmology?"

The dark energy hypothesis is a serious problem for the lambda cold dark matter version of the Big Bang model, but it is not a crisis as yet IMO. Almost the exact same problem exists with dark matter, and also the Inflation model IMO. For the dark stuff there is little direct evidence to support its existence.

I, and an associate, wrote a paper 5 years ago now. The conclusion of that paper, with much supporting supernovae data, was that dark energy does not exist.

Article An Alternative Universe-Scale Analytic Metrology and Related...

Here is one of several press releases concerning that paper: https://revolution-green.com/new-research-study-concluded-dark-energy-probably-exist/

This research paper and study dealt with several hundred type 1a supernova, 18 years more data than when they declared what they believed to be the accelerating expansion of the universe, visa-a-vis dark energy in 1996. In our study we asserted the reason why they believed in dark energy was that the Hubble redshift distance formula was wrong. It is accordingly not wrong in the close-by universe, but it has a progressively increasing error up to being10% wrong where redshifts (z) are equal to about z=.6. This is where the maximum over estimation of cosmic distances occurs, which was the basis for the declaration of the accelerated expansion of the universe and dark energy in the first place.

After a redshift of z=.6 this calculation error begins to decrease to zero (no error) at a redshift of about z=1.1, then the errors begin to increase again after that by underestimating cosmic distances. The calculation error, accordingly, is in the Hubble distance formula. This formula was derived using Special Relativity (Lorentz transforms) based upon galaxies physically moving away from each other, and also based upon a limited age of the universe based upon a Big Bang beginning of the universe.

Instead, using roughly 10 times more supernova data (the difference between the type 1a supernova data available in 1996 and that available to us in 2013 when our study was conducted) and a different model of the universe as our basis, we derived an alternative redshift distance formula that statistically comes very close to exactly matching supernovae data, without the accelerated expansion of the universe or any need for dark energy at all, as the paper shows.

Again, this was five years ago. I believe the problem with today's cosmology is not just dark energy, but also the dark matter hypothesis, the Inflation model, and the Big Bang model itself, which IMO is completely wrong.

I and an associate have also written another paper that to the same very high degree of certainty statistically, shows exactly the same conclusion concerning the declaration of dark matter, that it is wrong. We expect to find a high-impact journal to publish this paper in the not too distant future.

Here you will find the abstract of this "no dark matter" paper.

Preprint Background-Field Flow Dynamics as an alternative to dark mat...

following

Is the standard cosmological model in crisis—i.e., “a time when a difficult or important decision must be made”? Maybe not. Here we’ve invented new entities—dark matter and dark energy—in amounts and distributions as necessary to calculate, with compelling precision, our diverse observations across the cosmos. Of course there is the challenge that deeper relativity physics (and deeper QM) could, eventually, do equally well, thereby bringing crisis. But then there is an epistemological problem: that any advance of a fundamental nature—i.e., necessary for a paradigm shift—must be inductive rather than deductive (not derivable within the existing paradigm)—“The transition from a paradigm in crisis to a new one from which a new tradition of normal science can emerge is far from a cumulative process, one achieved by an articulation or extension of the old paradigm. Rather it is a reconstruction of the field from new fundamentals (Kuhn 1962)”. …. The way out from this quandary may be that the inductive advance—whether dark energy or deeper space-time theory—also explain missing [dark] matter.

Dear Robert,

You write: " It seems dark energy does not fit into any of the existing paradigms (or any of several proposed ones)". Maybe this is not entirely true. The Kaluza-Klein theory and string theory gave us a new picture of the world. Matter exists in several phase states simultaneously. We can distinguish three phases: Prе-matter, electromagnetic field and substance.

The dispersed phases of the Prе-matter and the fields fill the space. Their quanta have kinetic energy, which ensures the repulsion of particles. This is the “Dark Energy” phenomenon.

If you find time, look at the pictures in my book "Electromagnetic Gravity" in my profile.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Thomas,

Time line is also invented but used to predict the reality.

Best jm

Dear Thierry De Mees,

Your quote:

"If dark matter is invented and dark energy is invented, is the determination of these alleged values in amounts and distributions as necessary to calculate, with compelling precision, our diverse observations across the cosmos a proof at all of the existence of dark matter and dark energy? Or are the existing theories just false because they need these fallacious inventions?"

From what I and an associate, using statistics consider to be precise calculations, both dark energy and dark matter are both false hypothesis. But also because both have a very poor calculative ability compared to otherwise determinable observations of astrophysics alone.

Yes, the Big Bang model (BB) was thought to be correct before either hypothesis was invented, but now both are used to justify many other observation anomalies that are more difficult to otherwise explain.

Since the existence of imaginary things cannot be be disproved, only better explanations that are more obvious to the mainstream, will ever shake the foundation of these hypotheses.

IMO: When the James Webb goes up and is properly functioning, the present BB model will become seriously under fire because of the age limitation of this model which will be challenged by the observations of the James Webb. If a move were to be made using the Inflation hypothesis to vastly increase this age limitation (13.8 billion years), many would begin to seriously search for a replacement theory for the Big Bang. At the same time all of its theoretical tenets and hypothesis will become a target of fire, especially dark energy and dark matter, two of its weakest supportable hypotheses, a third being Inflation.

Dear Thierry De-Mees,

Regarding your question as to whether the success of the LCDM model proves the existence of dark matter and dark energy? By itself, no—and here we can recall instances where hypothesized scientific advances failed “in the end” confirmation. But recall other instances that were successful—as in continental drift and the heliocentric model. …An interesting question here is whether the discovery of dark matter and/or dark energy brings a new paradigm. Probably not, because both fit within 20th century relativity physics. But a change in our understanding of space and time in terms of a radically deeper special (and general) relativity—i.e., “not derivable within the existing paradigm”—could change the course of physics and connected disciplines.

From the book by Ferreira, Pedro G.. The Perfect Theory: A Century of Geniuses and the Battle over General Relativity (p. 217), (pub. 2014):

It wasn’t a new planet [Vulcan] but a new theory of gravity that was needed to fix the model [in reference to Le Verrier and Mercury's orbit].

Now, in the early twenty-first century, we seem to be in a similar situation, with a wonderful theory of gravity that, to explain cosmology, requires that more than 96 percent of the universe be made up of something we can’t see or detect. Could this be yet another crack in the edifice that Einstein had constructed almost one hundred years before?

Yasunori Nomura on January 30, 2020 in a SciAm blog, Have We Solved the Black Hole Information Paradox?, writes: `This framework tells us that the picture of spacetime offered by general relativity is not as fundamental as we might have thought—it is merely a picture that emerges at a higher level in the hierarchical descriptions of nature, at least concerning the interior of a black hole.' Perhaps DE is another example of a problem for GR.

Nomura has a 2019 article, updated November 2019, on arXiv: Spacetime and Universal Soft Modes --- Black Holes and Beyond.

It is no more of a crisis than the many other anomalous observations that current cosmology fails to explain. But the name sounds neat.