In Lake'ch - Dark Energy in the news
 
May the Dark Energy bathe you in its mysterious light of darkness and illuminate your sceptical minds.
I am herewith continuing the thread on the Dark Energy with emphasis on the standard cosmologies and some deviations - in the news.
 
 
Bob Roudebush wrote in theoretical_physics:
Tony, great post but a bit overcomplicated. A simpler explanation of dark energy within the confines of relativity can be found in Wiltshires Exact solution.  http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0732
 You should enjoy his work for the math. Dark energy and dark matter are in my humble opinion properties of space we do not yet understand. See my proposal on spacial dynamics in the files section and you will find a current understanding of dark matter based on observation without the need for GUTs or TOEs. Simple but profound enough for the metaphysical you should enjoy mining the true depth of my proposal. Robert
 
Hi Bob!
 
Yes David Wiltshire has many points right, but the major point wrong. And so it is with your proposals regarding the SSE's and the spacesinkemitters by the way.
The universe is NOT accelerating, but appears to do so much for the reasons outlined by David. I'll explain in a minute why.
 
The news releases below illustrates much of what I have written and you will see that the global physics community is slowly converging onto a synthesis of the many ideas regarding strings and branes, the holographics in 5D Kaluza-Klein, the dark energy and dark matter and the unification of all the interactions in an approach which does away with the metrics of Einstein for the quantum gravitational cosmology.
 
1. David (and your ideas, which are relayed to his) is on the mark, when he states that the clumpy nonhomogenous universe is in some manner responsible for the energy discrepancies.
I see, that you have incorporated Milgrom's MOND in your proposal and you will have seen, that I have named the intrinsic gravitational deceleration after Mordehai (Milgrom).
But MOND 'fiddles' with Newton's Law instead of 'fiddling' the Gravitational Constant and it is there that Mordehai deviates too much from the standard cosmology.
But his heuristic acceleration constant is basically 'spot on' and that is why I have named the Intrisicator after him.
 
Now where David (and you perhaps) are 'losing track', is in attempting to superpose time dilatory effects onto the expansion of the universe.
The clumpy universe is the effect of the inflationary seeding of the galactic seeds from protostars (called ylemic dineutron stars after Gamow) and has nothing to do with Special Relativity with observer reference frames.
The 'inner massparametric' universe is filling prespace in a higher stringdimension and your intuition with the SSE's and also the Black Hole sinks is rather in harmony with what is going on, but you then fail to connect this 'mass evolution' properly to the quantum physics. You must define the dark energy in terms of the metric background of the ZPE and independent on the large scale classicalism of the thermodynamic expansion under the relativities. So despite your misgivings, the quantum string physics cannot be eschewed in the classical physics of the FRW-Cosmology.
 
2. David is uncannily 'correct' in postulating an age for the universe of 14.7 billion years as galactic observers and almost as correct in postulating an age of 18 billion years from the vantage point of a void observer.
You see, the honey-comb structure of the universe of voids and textures on the grandest scale is a direct consequence of the supercluster interaction scale of 236.5 million years.
This sets a maximum Black Hole equivalence Sink at so 2.4x10^24 meters to give the gravitational interaction limit for the maximised subsystems in the universe as the superclusters.
 
The universe is 19.11 billion years old from the void observer, BUT appears to be 14.7 billion years old for the inertial (say galactic) observer.
The void observer is simply the 'outer universe' observer of the inflationary string epoch, which inflated the outer universe to 16.9 billion years 'in an instant' and so setting up a Steady State Hoylean Standing Wave for an oscillating universe of 16.9 billion year halfcycles.
 
This then means that the present time measurement in cosmology (by whatever means) will be 'too short' by a double-interval of 19.11-16.9=2.2 billion years and so subtracting 4.4 billion years from 19.1 billion years gives you David's 14.7 billion years.
 
Adjusting the Hubble constant used by the cosmologists from 72 to 69 will also do the trick.
 
3. The apparent acceleration of the universe derives from that, in that for the last 2.2 billion years, the higher D-Universe has been contracting and so the expansion of the lower D-universe  has become contraimposed by a contraction which in the lightmeasurements results in a blueshifting of the cosmological redshift and this 'doubling of the light from the higher dimensions' plays havoc with particular redshift intervals, beginning precisely at the markers (Tololo-Chile, Riess, Perlmutter and Schmidt, 1998), which led to the 'discovery' of the accelerating universe.
Relative to the galactic observer the redshifts become multivalued in an interval from about 1.08 to 1.84, which coincides with the highest redshifts (say Riess) in the supernova type 1 data from 1998 following.
Relative to the void observer, the universe itself is expanding as a Hubble wavefront at 22% of lightspeed at the present time and with the deceleration as given in my last post on the Dark Energy.
This particular speed itself provides a redshift relative to the galactic observer, but not for the observer expanding with the wavefront.
Therefore relative to the wavefront observer, the 1.08-1.84 redshift interval become shifted and maps onto the galactic (Big Bang) observer
The redshift data shows a 'curving away' from linearity of a steadily decelerating (and as predicted by the older models) universe at a redshift of 0.12 and has 'missing data' between that redshift up to about 0.3.
 
Using the higher dimensional analysis as given, shows that the 1.08-1.84 interval relative to the earth-observer becomes 0.34-0.29 relative to the void-observer to define the 'critical alpha-variation' interval measured by Webb also in 1998 following.
 
This then allows you to define a 'Local Hubble Flow' up to a redshift of 0.11 and a 'True Cosmic Hubble Flow' from 0.29 onwards and precisely as the data of 1998 has shown.
 
4. David Wiltshire's cosmology so is partially correct in stating that the Dark Energy is INTRINSIC to the spacetime structure. But one does not require spacetimesinks which exchange space with matter or with time, as this scenario is already fully encompassed in the quantum gravitational treatment in the form of the ordinary parameters of the 'inner universe' linked to inertia becoming the effect of 'monopolic current elements' from the 'outer universe' NOT linked to inertia, but the gravitational inertia equivalence from Einstein's Equivalence Principle.
 
David's proposal is incorrect in superposing either time dilatistic or say gravitational time dilatory effects onto the cosmology of the standard models.
 
5. The universe is MUCH SIMPLER, than the mainstream envisages; the mathematics necessary to fully grasp the underpinning characteristics is not beyond undergraduate level at any university.
To calculate detailed dynamics on subsystems, the curvature of space on a local level must be considered and this requires familiarity with the abstact shorthand notations in tensor calculus and quantum mechanics.
But considering the universe as a unity embedded in dimensional recursive generators, will one day be shared with graduating college students and high schoolers - such is the Nature of the Unification Cosmology.
 

 

Dark energy a furphy, says new paper

Friday, 21 December 2007 Marilyn Head
ABC

---

Once the uneven distribution of matter is taken into account, we don't need dark energy to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe, say researchers (Source: iStockphoto)

Related Stories

• Universe may disappear from view, Science Online, 23 May 2007
• Ever-expanding universe nets top prize, Science Online, 18 Jul 2007
• Fresh light on dark energy

'Dark energy', which researchers have spent years trying to fathom, isn't necessary to explain our universe after all, according to a new solution to Einstein's theory of general relativity.

This challenges the notion that dark energy makes up 76% of our universe, as many cosmologists believe.
Research by Dr David Wiltshire, from New Zealand's University of Canterbury, accounts for recent observations of the distribution of matter in the universe, observations that hadn't been made in Einstein's time.
Wiltshire's paper, published this week in the journal Physical Review Letters, focuses on the lumpy distribution of matter in the universe as it evolved, rather than a smooth distribution that Einstein assumed.
Once this uneven distribution is taken into account, he says, we don't need dark energy to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe.
"Dark energy, this mysterious stuff in the vacuum of space which makes the universe want to accelerate, is the basis for standard cosmology today because it explains much of what we see," says Wiltshire.
Galaxies do appear to be moving away from each other and at an ever increasing rate, he says.
But he says this acceleration is apparent, and whether you see it or not depends where in the universe you are taking measurements from, a void or a galaxy.

The matter with matter

When cosmologists first solved Einstein's equations 80-90 years ago, they didn't know how matter was distributed or what the universe really looked like.
"The early solutions, which standard cosmology still uses, assumed a very simple structure where the universe is uniformly smooth and featureless, evolving the same way in all directions," says Wiltshire.
But he says through observational projects like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2 Degree Field survey, we now have a much better picture of the large-scale structure of the universe and we know that galaxies are not uniformly distributed.
"Rather, they are in clusters sprinkled thinly in filaments and 'bubble walls' surrounding huge voids hundreds of millions of light-years across," he says.
This complicates a standard view of the universe.
"Space curves around a massive object, just as a rubber sheet on a trampoline will stretch around a heavy cannon ball, and time slows down," says Wiltshire.
But he says this only represents bound systems like galaxies.
"The flat edge of the rubber sheet is the reference point for our clocks. It is only the space beyond this flat edge that is expanding. Clock rates and the curvature of space can both vary gradually as you move across an expanding void."
And, since mass slows down time, the clocks of observers in voids, where most of the empty space in the universe is, will appear to be ticking faster than the clocks of observers in galaxies.
It is this last feature, he says, that explains why dark energy is unnecessary.
"What we see as cosmic acceleration is an apparent effect, which begins when voids open up. When the universe was very young all the clocks were synchronised but because of the way voids have evolved, the clock rate is variable today," Wiltshire says.

Age is relative too

The age of the universe also depends on where you're standing, as Wiltshire discovered in calculations published in the New Journal of Physics.
The universe is 14.7 billion years old, a billion years older than the currently accepted age, from our galactic observation point.
But it is more than 18 billion years old from an average location in a void.
In a third paper, published this week in Astrophysical Journal Letters, Wiltshire and colleagues examine independent observational tests that confirm these ages.
Although the research completely changes our view of the universe, it doesn't alter standard physics.
"Einstein's revolution is still continuing," says Wiltshire. "This is a radically conservative solution to how the universe works."

EDITORIAL

Focus on Dark Energy

2006 New J. Phys. 8   doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/8/12/E07 

The 1998 discovery that the universe is accelerating set off an enormous amount of activity, both theoretical and observational. The original result, from two groups observing the Hubble diagram of Type Ia supernovae, has since been verified by a variety of independent types of observations. It seems clear that our universe really is accelerating; what remains a mystery is why.

The most straightforward explanation for the universe's acceleration is the presence of a dark energy component comprising 70% of the universe. In order to fit the data, dark energy must have two features: it should be smoothly distributed, so as not to show up in dynamical studies of galaxies and clusters, and its density should be nearly constant as the universe expands, to provide the persistent impulse necessary to make the universe accelerate.

The simplest candidate for dark energy is vacuum energy, equivalent to Einstein's cosmological constant. Simple estimates from quantum field theory indicate that vacuum energy should exist – indeed, in an amount larger than what we observe by a factor of 10¹²⁰. This discrepancy, the 'cosmological constant problem', led to a widespread assumption that some mysterious mechanism worked to set the vacuum energy precisely to zero. If the dark energy really is a cosmological constant, we must find a mechanism to suppress its natural value without driving it all the way to vanishing.

Alternatively, the dark energy could be a dynamical field, albeit one that changes very gradually with time. Such a case is observationally distinguishable, at least in principle, from that of a truly constant vacuum energy. Constraints on the evolution of the dark-energy density come from a variety of measurements, and improving the precision of these techniques is a major goal of the next decade in cosmology.

Most dramatically, there might not be any dark energy at all, even if the universe is accelerating – a possibility that is well-explored in this focus issue of New Journal of Physics. Two possibilities present themselves. On the one hand, general relativity could break down on cosmological scales, forcing us to a new theory of gravity. In that case, we may use other observed phenomena to put limits on the way in which gravity could deviate from Einstein's theory. On the other hand, general relativity could be correct, but differ in its true predictions from the simple approximations we are used to applying. Such a possibility is both dramatically different from more conventional approaches, and yet radically conservative, attempting to explain all of the accumulated observations with nothing more than matter particles and ordinary general relativity. Only a great deal of additional theoretical investigation and observational progress will be able to distinguish which of these possibilities explains the behaviour of our universe on large scales.

The articles below represent the first contributions and further additions will appear.

Focus on Dark Energy Contents

Cosmic clocks, cosmic variance and cosmic averages
David L Wiltshire

Dark energy, a cosmological constant, and type Ia supernovae
Lawrence M Krauss, Katherine Jones-Smith and Dragan Huterer

Cosmological dark energy: prospects for a dynamical theory
Ignatios Antoniadis, Pawel O Mazur and Emil Mottola

Predictive power of strong coupling in theories with large distance modified gravity
G Dvali

Constraints on dynamical dark energy: an update
Alessandro Melchiorri, Barbara Paciello, Paolo Serra and Anze Slosar

Scaling solutions to 6D gauged chiral supergravity
Andrew Tolley, C P Burgess, Claudia de Rham and D Hoover

Modified-source gravity and cosmological structure formation
Sean Carroll, I Sawicki, A Silvestri and M Trodden

On cosmic acceleration without dark energy
E W Kolb, Sabino Matarrese and A Riotto

Sean Carroll, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA