Is Dark Energy a Mistaken Concept?

[MolaKule]

I disagree with Shao.

“Tired light” made for good sci-fi stories in the 1940s. But it’s no more viable than Phlogiston, or the presence of luminiferous aether.

Compton scattering is easily determined. The plasma effect is a guess, a hypothesis, at best.

It’s easy to dismiss Hubble’s work as theory, but in the 100 years since that theory was espoused, it has been borne out by observation.

The only people arguing against Hubble’s theory are people who are trying to explain cosmological phenomena via “outside the box” ideas. But none of those ideas have any substantive evidentiary support. They’re guesses at best.

None of the authors of the references I gave are "astro-cranks" but are professional physicists and astrophysicists. No one is dismissing Hubble's theories. Some present alternative theories or show some observational contradictions with Hubble's Law.

For example, Halton Arp was an expert in Quasars and the redshifts of galaxies but found that the redshifts of Quasars and their associated galaxies did not conform to Hubble's Law. So one of his alternative theorems/proposals was quantized redsshifts.

Arp, H., Seeing Red, Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Apeiron, Montreal, 1998.

Shau's texts: "The first volume deals with the emission, absorption, and scattering of radiation by matter, as well as covering related topics such as radiative transfer, statistical physics, classical electrodynamics, and atomic and molecular structure. Shau's Volume II is a self-contained textbook and is not dependent on Volume I (see 53.003.096). It can be used as the text for a separate, one-semester course on its subject matter, which includes the interactions of matter and radiation, and electromagnetic fields of macroscopic scale in both the strongly collisional and collisionless regimes. It covers such fields as single-fluid theory, including radiative processes; waves, shocks, and fronts; magnetohydrodynamics and plasma physics; as well as their applications to such topics as self-gravitating spherical masses, accretion disks, spiral density waves, star formation, and dynamo theory. Frank Shu is a Professor of Astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley. He received his PhD from Harvard University in 1968. Shu has written a number of expository articles for the lay public, and is the author of The Physics of Astrophysics, Volumes I and II. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Academia Sinica."

Questioning current paradigms and theories is the basis for good science.

 

[MolaKule]

Would this not suggest gravity to be more powerful than "dark energy" as witness to the Laws of Angular Momentum?

Dark matter would seem to me to be like an ancient element, "Aether":

Many old ideas are often brought forth and given new names.

On the universe expansion idea, and its effects..... I have thought about this explosion model and just cant get past two things....the first is obvious: how can their be a effect without a cause.......but the second is more based in science than anything else:

If the expansion of the universe was started by a single event, and everything that exists in the universe either existed or was created at that point......it would seem to me that the gravity caused by all that matter/mass, would be more powerful than any potential expansion event that could be created, at that time.

Cause and effect is the basic premise for science. The essence of causality is the generation and determination of one phenomenon by another.

Consider this thought experiment: Let's hypothesize that somehow, by whatever means, all energy or the entire universe is contained in a point of no size and infinite temperature. This point rapidly expands, and the energy cools. Some of the energy becomes matter – hydrogen and helium. Some of the matter condenses into stars and galaxies. Stars produce all the heavier elements which become dust. Dust condenses to form planets. In the future, the universe expands forever, and eventually dies a “heat death.” ("The Standard Model" explanation).

Would this matter not have had a starting inertia as it expands? Think of birdshot with thin rubber bands connected to the end of the barrel. At some point in time, this inertia is overcome by the restorative force of the rubber bands (gravity). As the matter collapses back toward the former central point, the matter coalesces back to infinite mass/energy and the temperature once again rises, only to repeat itself.

It seems that eventually, in this theorized view, and if energy cannot be destroyed, then we would have an oscillating universe if no outside forces are acting on it.

 

[Al]

There is a theory out there (which I subscribe to) Man now does not have the understanding/intellect to understand the total reality to understand the cosmos and the energy, particles, strings etc.

 

[Astro14]

None of the authors of the references I gave are "astro-cranks" but are professional physicists and astrophysicists. No one is dismissing Hubble's theories. Some present alternative theories or show some observational contradictions with Hubble's Law.

For example, Halton Arp was an expert in Quasars and the redshifts of galaxies but found that the redshifts of Quasars and their associated galaxies did not conform to Hubble's Law. So one of his alternative theorems/proposals was quantized redsshifts.

Arp, H., Seeing Red, Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Apeiron, Montreal, 1998.

Shau's texts: "The first volume deals with the emission, absorption, and scattering of radiation by matter, as well as covering related topics such as radiative transfer, statistical physics, classical electrodynamics, and atomic and molecular structure. Shau's Volume II is a self-contained textbook and is not dependent on Volume I (see 53.003.096). It can be used as the text for a separate, one-semester course on its subject matter, which includes the interactions of matter and radiation, and electromagnetic fields of macroscopic scale in both the strongly collisional and collisionless regimes. It covers such fields as single-fluid theory, including radiative processes; waves, shocks, and fronts; magnetohydrodynamics and plasma physics; as well as their applications to such topics as self-gravitating spherical masses, accretion disks, spiral density waves, star formation, and dynamo theory. Frank Shu is a Professor of Astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley. He received his PhD from Harvard University in 1968. Shu has written a number of expository articles for the lay public, and is the author of The Physics of Astrophysics, Volumes I and II. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Academia Sinica."

Questioning current paradigms and theories is the basis for good science.

Questioning new theories and paradigms is part of the peer review process.

A critical part of good science.

Never said any of them were cranks, however, I’m not buying what they’re selling just yet.

 

[MolaKule]

On the universe expansion idea, and its effects..... I have thought about this explosion model and just cant get past two things....the first is obvious: how can their be a effect without a cause.......but the second is more based in science than anything else:

Consider this axiom: nothing can create itself because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence – a logical absurdity.

 

[burbguy82]

Consider this axiom: nothing can create itself because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence – a logical absurdity.

I guess that is the real difference. Logical and theoretical.

I once was told years ago, that if you were to put all the elements into a box, that eventually, everything thing that has, or ever would come into existence would....in that box. In other words, in that box, eventually a turtle would transform into a race car engine.

While the above seems possible, to some, not me.....I have a hard time that if you had all the parts to an engine, in a box, premade, it would ever, eventually, by luck, build itself. Even with outside stimulus, it would never happen, could never happen. An absurdity in short.

It also seems to me, that in the moment, of the "big bang" existence and non existence would not exist, being as the element of time would not exist, of course until it did.....but before that "time" existence would not be a thing......to your point, an adsurdity.

It seems that eventually, in this theorized view, and if energy cannot be destroyed, then we would have an oscillating universe if no outside forces are acting on it.

I would think that the "heat loss" would really be more a matter of the same amount of energy, concentrated in a larger area. I mean if energy only changes to another form, rather than being lost, and the universe is expanding......it would seem like the amount of space would "dilute"....so to speak. not sure i am saying that right.

 

[MolaKule]

I guess that is the real difference. Logical and theoretical.

I once was told years ago, that if you were to put all the elements into a box, that eventually, everything thing that has, or ever would come into existence would....in that box. In other words, in that box, eventually a turtle would transform into a race car engine.

While the above seems possible, to some, not me.....I have a hard time that if you had all the parts to an engine, in a box, premade, it would ever, eventually, by luck, build itself. Even with outside stimulus, it would never happen, could never happen. An absurdity in short.

It also seems to me, that in the moment, of the "big bang" existence and non existence would not exist, being as the element of time would not exist, of course until it did.....but before that "time" existence would not be a thing......to your point, an adsurdity.

I would think that the "heat loss" would really be more a matter of the same amount of energy, [spread out over] a larger area. I mean if energy only changes to another form, rather than being lost, and the universe is expanding......it would seem like the amount of space would "dilute"....so to speak. not sure i am saying that right.

You hit upon the concept of entropy. If entropy increases, then the available energy to do work would decrease, so my oscillating universe, which is not new and has been proposed before, would violate the concept of entropy. I was waiting for someone to bring up entropy.

Thus, the amount of "work" available for expanding the universe has to decrease at some point to zero if the universe is conjectured to experience a "heat" death.

As the universe continues to expand forever, energy will continue to go from a useable to a useless form. Energy is useable when there are temperature differences at different locations; the flow of thermal energy (heat) can be used for useful work. But, in the standard model, energy eventually comes to equilibrium and no useful energy will remain. This is called “heat death.” At that point, all stars will have long ceased as their available fuel is exhausted. Black holes form and grow, and low-level electromagnetic radiation pervades all space. Even further in the future, black holes themselves may “leak” Hawking radiation and “evaporate” leaving only radiation in equilibrium. No life will be possible.

 

[burbguy82]

Thus, the amount of "work" available for expanding the universe has to decrease at some point to zero if the universe is conjectured to experience a "heat" death.

Entropy, again in my limited understanding, describes the tendency of stuff to die, for lack of better words or maybe get less complex?

This law would seem to be in conflict with the mentioned, "oscillation model", wouldnt it?

 

[MolaKule]

As I mentioned in post #17,

from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.2192

"On the cosmological constant, A is well-known, Einstein introduced the cosmological constant to the field equations of general relativity because of his assumption of a universe of “spatial structure and density that was constant over time. ...he added the term in order to counterbalance the attraction of gravity, giving a universe of cylindrical curvature that was static in time. Thus the ‘cosmological constant’ allowed Einstein to postulate a finite universe of closed spatial geometry whose radius could be calculated from the density of matter.10..."
Emphasis mine."

In post #10 I said:

"In most cosmological models, it is assumed that at any given time, all of the universe is filled with matter of the same average matter density and at the same average pressure. This assumption of "homogeneity" is otherwise known as the cosmological principle."

If I read this correctly, Einstein was basing his GR model's cosmological constant Lambda (A), on the cosmological principle.

"Karl Popper criticized the cosmological principle on the grounds that it makes "our lack of knowledge a principle of knowing something". He summarized his position as: the "cosmological principles" were, I fear, dogmas that should not have been proposed." Wiki.

 

[KrisZ]

If one considers we’re in a simulation, a lot of things make more sense.
To save on the computing power, the “laws of physics” are fully modeled in our solar system, but the further away we look, they start to break up and don’t make sense, and the distance objects/galaxies aren’t rendered properly.

This is pretty much exactly how video games operate. The game engine only renders what the user is looking at, or interacting with. Everything else is sort of suspended and awaits the user.

 

[MolaKule]

Entropy, again in my limited understanding, describes the tendency of stuff to die, for lack of better words or maybe get less complex?

This law would seem to be in conflict with the mentioned, "oscillation model", wouldnt it?

Post #27: "You hit upon the concept of entropy. If entropy increases, then the available energy to do work would decrease, so my oscillating universe, which is not new and has been proposed before, would violate the concept of entropy. I was waiting for someone to bring up entropy."

 

[burbguy82]

Post #27: "You hit upon the concept of entropy. If entropy increases, then the available energy to do work would decrease, so my oscillating universe, which is not new and has been proposed before, would violate the concept of entropy. I was waiting for someone to bring up entropy."

Ok. Then why is that model even entertained by some?

 

[MolaKule]

If one considers we’re in a simulation, a lot of things make more sense.
To save on the computing power, the “laws of physics” are fully modeled in our solar system, but the further away we look, they start to break up and don’t make sense, and the distance objects/galaxies aren’t rendered properly.

This is pretty much exactly how video games operate. The game engine only renders what the user is looking at, or interacting with. Everything else is sort of suspended and awaits the user.

I don't believe we're living in a simulation and I don't believe video games are a good analogy to the reality in which we are living.

 

[MolaKule]

Ok. Then why is that model even entertained by some?

Good question. The cyclic or oscillating universe theory is a cosmological theory model that combines the Big Bang and the Big Crunch as part of an infinite, cyclical event. This theory speaks of a universe that has no end.

The problem with the cyclic model is that ignores the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy always increases within an isolated system, and never the reverse. Thus, as time progresses, entropy increases until it reaches its maximum—the heat death or as some call it, the "Big Rip."

As the Universe evolved, entropy increased, as dictated by the second law. If the Big Crunch were to happen, we'd see a decrease in entropy as conditions in the Universe would recede back to how they were at t=0. The Universe's entropy can never decrease, thus the universe could never get back to t=0.

I brought up the Cyclic Universe theory to show 1) that there are other theoretical models of the universe and 2) many of these models lack a comprehensive understanding of the details of the physics or purposely ignore those physics to push a specific pet hypothesis.

 

[burbguy82]

The problem with the cyclic model is that ignores the second law of thermodynamics.

Hmmm. I would think that any accepted model, or model accepted enough to merit further conversation or for that matter, funding, would not be ignoring such a fundamental law. As I "understand", we have laws that have been displayed for us to observe, and to just not look, is a massive failure.

many of these models lack a comprehensive understanding of the details of the physics or purposely ignore those physics to push a specific pet hypothesis.

I do not know how scientists make money.......but I would assume that the pushing of such an hypothesis would be to make money, or gain grants, etc.

What other reason would someone have to do so?

 

[MolaKule]

What other reason would someone have to do so?

Some scientists choose to work in industry and some stay in academia. Those who choose to stay in academia teach, get grants to set up labs to further their research and write papers on the results of their research.

I can tell you, teaching and mentoring is a very satisfying endeavor and is habit forming. If you stay in academia, you won't get wealthy as there are few perks.

I found satisfaction by going into industry AND teaching.

A minor reason would be the ego of those holding such positions.

 

[benjamming]

What other reason would someone have to do so?

That topic is not allowed on BITOG.

 

[JimPghPA]

I'll play amature cosmologist for a while here.

Infinity is a hard concept to wrap your brain around. And IF all that is out there aproaches infinite or is infinite, then all we have and ever will observe, is less then the smallest fraction we can imagine, of what is out there.

Some take a stab at what happened during the an extremely brief time after the zero time of the beginning, and think in terms of tremendous temperatures and pressures, and some even of what gravatitional forces might have been. It's possable that such forces did not exist yet. Temperature of what? Pressure acting on what? Gravity acting on what? If the smallest of particles did not yet exist, then what would such forces act on? The very way things interact would not exist if there were no things.

I have a couple of ideas, and please feel free to add your constructive critizism. Seriously, I'm not offended. I know I'm not a math genius, and I have not sat through hundreds of hours of lectures by leading cosmologist.

That said, we now know that gravity travels at the speed of light or darn near that speed. So, in realizing gravity takes time to reach an object, if objects ( or the fundimental particles that end up making them ) have an initial time of existence then before that time they were not producing gravitional effects on other galactically distant objects.

So, "Ultra Deep Space, Ultra Deep Time, effects of Gravity" could be increasing over time as more distant gravity pulls, finally reach objects we can observe. So it makes perfect sense that we would see objects accelerating in the rate that they are accelerating, away from each other. It's simply that over time, more ultra deep space, ultra deep time, gravity, first gravity pulls are finally acting on observable objects. Actually, I should say we are seeing effects that happened on observable objects, since it took time for the views of them to reach us.

Once "Ultra Deep Space, Ultra Deep Time, Gravity", finally reaches and acts on any objects, it continues to act on it until the originator causing that pull has itself accelerated with respect to the other object(s) to be accelerating away greater than the speed of light with respect to the object(s) it is acting on, IF the combination of space expansion and the object(s), ever move away from each other that fast. And even if that ever happens, there may be a time delay before it stops acting. But that's something complex.

And after that, "additional", ultra deep space, ultra deep time, gravity, also had first acting occure, again accelerating the rate of accelerating.

And so on, and so on, with ever increasing first acting, and the following continuing pulls of each.

So we see accelerating of the accelerating.

In general we have no way of knowing how long Ultra Deep Space, Ultra Deep Time, Gravity, has been traveling before it acts on objects. And while gravition forces decrease with respect to distance cubed, if the originating mass aproaches infinity, the end resulting forces can be great, even when separations of galactic distances are involved.

-------------------

A totaly different but related idea, since infinity is such an almost impossable concept to wrap ones brain around:

We tend to think of the creation of our observable cosmos as having an expansion period followed by additiinal periods during each having creations of different levels. Getting back to the concept of infinity. Might it be possible that, that initial period and those that followed, expanded outward, and still are doing so, now. Just because we occupy a section that has undergone those changes, and everything we observe also has, does not mean that those changes are no longer occurring further out from the origin.

Imagine that all we see was created in a plank second, but the ability to generate like that exists all along on some expanding outer boundary, and continues to create, followed by continued expansion. Again, infinity is a hard concept to wrap your mind around. If every plank seconds since time zero, additional equivalent creations have and are still happening at all outer boundary, the total creation would truly aproach infinite with respect to what we can observe.

Again, infinity is a hard concept to wrap your brain around.

---------------------

These are just some ideas I have about what MIGHT be going on. I do claim them, as I have originated them on my own, unless of course someone else I have no knoledge of has previously expressed them.

Please feel free to add you're constructive
criticism.

These things beg for experiments to prove or disprove them, if such experiments can ever be done.

I'll add that I wonder if: Ultra Deep Space, and Ultra Deep Time can not both be infinite because if both were, would not the gravity then be infinite pulls from all directions that would rip apart everything?

 

[burbguy82]

That topic is not allowed on BITOG.

Why would it not be allowed on BITOG?....

....Academics coming up with endless theories first and then wasting time and money trying to prove them.....in other words creating a self sustaining whirlpool of money?

It is a big problem, IMO.

Teaching people things that are in contradiction to known truths, such as Entropy, are very wasteful, in time and money. It hampers intellectual growth and really doing stuff in the real world.

Adding to known processes, and improving on them is why we have so much cool stuff today, imagine if people only studied stuff that was contradictory to known processes. We would never get anywhere, and have a bunch of idiots running amuck, with blue hair, quoting videos claiming that they made a perpetual motion machine, and sugar is good for you.........

....wait, we have that now.

 

[JimPghPA]

Why would it not be allowed on BITOG?....

....Academics coming up with endless theories first and then wasting time and money trying to prove them.....in other words creating a self sustaining whirlpool of money?

It is a big problem, IMO.

Teaching people things that are in contradiction to known truths, such as Entropy, are very wasteful, in time and money. It hampers intellectual growth and really doing stuff in the real world.

Adding to known processes, and improving on them is why we have so much cool stuff today, imagine if people only studied stuff that was contradictory to known processes. We would never get anywhere, and have a bunch of idiots running amuck, with blue hair, quoting videos claiming that they made a perpetual motion machine, and sugar is good for you.........

....wait, we have that now.

Wait, you mean the earth isn't flat?