Cosmology News

Anti-dark energy theories are burnt toast?

Spread the love

From Adrian Cho at Science:

For nearly 20 years, physicists have known that the expansion of the universe has begun to speed up. This bizarre acceleration could arise because some form of mysterious dark energy is stretching space. Or, it could signal that physicists’ understanding of gravity isn’t quite right. But a new study puts the screws on a broad class of alternative theories of gravity, making it that much harder to explain away dark energy.

The study is also path setting because it exploits an effect called weak lensing in which the gravity from closer galaxies distorts the images of more distant ones. “That’s the future,” says Bob Nichol, an observational cosmologist at the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom who was not involved in the study. “If you look to the next decade, there’s going to be an explosion of this data.”

Physicists had expected the universe’s expansion to be slowing as the galaxies pull on one another with their gravity. But in 1998, two independent teams traced the history of the universe’s expansion by studying type 1a supernovae: stellar explosions whose colors tell when they went off and whose brightness reveals how far away they are now. Both teams found that the expansion is speeding up, suggesting that dark energy is blowing up the universe like a balloon. More.

See also: Dark matter skeptics wanted

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “Anti-dark energy theories are burnt toast?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    Attempt to explain away ‘dark energy’ takes a hit By – Adrian Cho – June 19, 2016
    Excerpt:  the expansion is speeding up, suggesting that dark energy is blowing up the universe like a balloon.,,,
    The researchers used data from the 3.6-meter Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii, which imaged 5.5 million galaxies to create a weak lensing map covering 154 square degrees of sky. From the “peaks” in the map, they tallied clusters weighing hundreds of times much as our Milky Way galaxy, they report in a paper in press at Physical Review Letters. Those tallies agree with the predictions of dark energy and weaken the case for f(R) theories.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news.....-takes-hit

    is this

    REPORT OF THE DARK ENERGY TASK FORCE
    The abstract of the September 2006 Report of the Dark Energy Task Force says: “Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our (materialistic) theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible.”
    http://jdem.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs.....report.pdf

    Astronomers Lie About Star Formation – June 20, 2015
    Excerpt: “Cosmic Confusion: Talk of Multiverses and Big Errors in Astrophysics.” Mario Livio recently confessed to the public some severe embarrassments in his field. “With three other prominent astrophysicists on the panel, Livio delved into one of the most confounding (and embarrassing) problems in modern astrophysics,,,, He described how astronomers are off on their estimate for the vacuum energy of the universe by 120 orders of magnitude.
    “This is a large number even in astronomy,” Livio said. “Especially for a discrepancy.”
    One of the panelists, Josh Frieman, drove home how alarming this error is.
    “To make a math error that big you know you really have to work hard at it. It’s not easy,” said Frieman, who is a senior staff scientist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and the current director of the Dark Energy Survey.
    http://crev.info/2015/06/astro.....formation/

    Conditions for life may hinge on how fast the universe is expanding – Ilima Loomis – Feb. 29, 2016
    Excerpt: Jimenez says the expansion of the universe played a bigger role in creating habitable worlds than he expected. “It was surprising to me that you do need the cosmological constant to clear out the region and make it more suburbanlike,” he says.,,,
    In theory, Heavens explains, either the constant should be hundreds of orders of magnitude higher than it appears to be, or it should be zero, in which case the universe wouldn’t accelerate. But this would disagree with what astronomers have observed. “The small—but nonzero—size of the cosmological constant is a real puzzle in cosmology,” he says, adding that the research shows the number is consistent with the conditions required for the existence of intelligent life that is capable of observing it.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news.....-expanding

    (Commenting on the 1 in 10^120 fine tuning of the expansion of the universe), “Hugh Ross states an analogy that does not even come close to describing the precarious nature of this cosmic balance [between too fast and too slow] would be a billion pencils all simultaneously positioned upright on their sharpened points on a smooth glass surface with no vertical supports.”
    Eric Metaxas – Miracles – page 49

    “The cliche that ‘life is balanced on a knife-edge’ is a staggering understatement in this case: no knife in the universe could have an edge that fine.”
    Paul Davies – commenting on the finely tuned expansion of the universe (1 in 10^120) –
    The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? – page 149

    Hugh Ross PhD. – Scientific Evidence For Cosmological Constant (1 in 10^120 Expansion Of The Universe) video 23:12 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/fTP01yi-SSU?t=1392

    Here is the paper from the atheistic astrophysicists, that Dr. Ross referenced in the preceding video, that speaks of the ‘disturbing implications’ of the finely tuned expanding universe (1 in 10^120 cosmological constant):

    Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant – Dyson, Kleban, Susskind (each are self proclaimed atheists) – 2002
    Excerpt: “Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.,,,”
    “The question then is whether the origin of the universe can be a naturally occurring fluctuation, or must it be due to an external agent which starts the system out in a specific low entropy state?”
    page 19: “A unknown agent [external to time and space] intervened [in cosmic history] for reasons of its own.,,,”
    Page 21 “The only reasonable conclusion is that we don’t live in a universe with a true cosmological constant”.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf

    At the 8:15 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins is set straight by Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, on just how big the ‘problem’ of the 1 in 10^120 Cosmological Constant is:

    Quote:
    “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.
    The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,”
    (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists)
    “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.”
    Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video

    Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 – Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video
    https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495

    Here are the verses from the Bible which Dr. Ross refrenced, which were written well over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the universe, that speak of God ‘Stretching out the Heavens’; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 48:13; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 51:15; Jeremiah 10:12. The following verse is my favorite out of the group of verses:

    Job 9:8
    He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.

    The Truman Show – Truman walking on water – screenshot picture
    http://gaowsh.files.wordpress......0-pm-2.jpg

    Evanescence – My Heart Is Broken – music
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1QGnq9jUU0

  2. 2
    Querius says:

    Fascinating as usual, bornagain77.

    Thanks!

    -Q

  3. 3
    BrianFraser says:

    Here are some insights from “Beyond Einstein: Non-local physics” by Brian Fraser (2015):
    *****
    Einstein recognized that a “static” Universe (the accepted view in the early 1900s) could not be a stable one. The Universe would eventually collapse due to the action of gravitation. To counter that problem, Einstein introduced the “cosmological constant” to General Relativity in 1917. It represents what is now viewed as “dark energy” which keeps the Universe from collapsing. However, it was recognized that its inclusion still did not lead to a static Universe, because the equilibrium was unstable. If stars moved closer, the gravitational force would increase, moving closer still. If stars moved farther apart, then the gravitational effect would be lessened, and “dark energy” would more readily move them even farther apart. The whole situation was unstable, and to this day the cosmological constant is still regarded as an “outstanding theoretical challenge” in cosmology.

    –snip—-

    The view that is gaining currency today is that space itself expands or is “emergent” (new spatial units are being generated by some unknown process). It is like time, in that it progresses. But it progresses in three dimensions, and we call that an expansion.

    Opposing the expansion is gravitation, which is centered on an object (planet, star, galaxy). We interpret the resulting motions in terms of forces, the cosmological expansion force, which is not affected by distance, and the gravitational force, which has a 1/d^2 dependence. Because of this, there is necessarily a distance where the forces are at equilibrium, a distance I call the “gravipause” (which, in this definition, involves only one body, and space itself). For stars it is apparently a few light years, and for galaxies it is apparently a few million light years. Inside this distance, objects come together, and outside this distance, objects move apart. This is the “beyond Einstein” view that reconciles the issues of stability and instability. It explains why globular clusters are stable, even though they do not rotate sufficiently to keep them from collapsing. It explains why stars are separated by light years, but not by light weeks. It may explain some of the problems in calculating the Hubble constant, because the “constant” would be dependent on the location from which the observations are made (a large versus small galaxy). . .
    *****

    The free 22 page paper can be downloaded from: http://scripturalphysics.org/4.....stein.html The .html file gives a link to the .pdf file but the former has additional information, and many more links and insights.

Leave a Reply