Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 295 posts

Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error

#261

Post by tsimionescu »

briantakita wrote: post #260
tsimionescu wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maxwell's equations won't help you understand how time works, so you can't run a successful GPS, for example. They also don't explain why stars introduce le sing effects. Perhaps dark matter and dark energy are indeed a wrong conclusion - Sabine Hofstadter, to take a mainstream scientist, thinks so as well, and proposes some explanations that don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Either way, physics thrives w…

Or the lensing is explainable using standard optics... https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf Here's the EU critique: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refra... The thing is there were mulitiple ways of interpreting phenomona & through certain cultural choices, a certain orthodoxy was created. The problem we are seeing with modern astrophysics is that in order to explain the workin…

When you look at pictures like [1] it's very hard to accept a kind of galactic-cluster level atmosphere that would produce that type of lensing.

You're also ignoring the observed clock differences between clocks in LEO and clocks on the ground - which happen to have the exact values predicted by GR.

And these are just some of the more neatly observable consequences of GR. There are many others that are more sophisticated to notice, but that an EU theory would have to explain rigorously before it could even be seen as an alternative theory, not to mention hoping to be accepted.

Mind you, it is very likely that GR has some holes, as does QM - after all, we do know that they are not compatible with one another. We also have dark matter and the positive cosmological constant which are iffy. We also see that the maths of GR have a singularity when analyzing what would happen in the center of a black hole, and since we know that these objects exist, it's likely that there are unknown effects that the math doesn't predict and that would prevent the mathematical singularity from forming.

But noting that a theory which has made highly successful and precise predictions has some limitations as well is by no means a reason to throw it out and start from scratch. It's much more likely, just as happened with Newtonian Mechanics, that we will find some extension of GR and QM that can successfully account for the discrepancies. Perhaps dark matter will actually be observed directly, perhaps extending the Standard Model of particle physics. Perhaps some unexpected limits similar to the speed of light will be found that can explain what happens inside a black hole. Perhaps dark energy is simply an artifact of the linear approximations we are using to solve the non-linear equations of GR [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#/media/File...

[2] http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/dark-matter-nightma...

Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error

#262

Post by shuspect »

shpeak wrote: post #236
Certhas wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point? Do you want me to explain the basics of GR and Cosmology, including the vast amounts of evidence we have for everything in HN comments? Do you think you are pointing out subtle errors in reasoning that none of the tens of thousands of physics students since the early twentieth century spotted? You don't have the decency to try to learn the basics but presume to lecture me/expect explanations? Take…

I'm trying to point out, that current evidence can be explained in different way: by kind of Tired Light Theory. TLT plays well with Pilot Wave Theory and it doesn't need epic events in the past just few galactic hours ago. I'm familiar with evidence used by expanding Universe theories and with problems in them. TLT predicts that value of "Speed of expanse" will be different when measured using different methods or f…

Number of red dwarfs is really astonishing: https://youtu.be/LOJ1XmbSKhM?t=1125

Tolman surface brightness test now looks much brighter. ;-)

Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error

#264

Post by eloff »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #181
guygurari wrote: post #125

It is hard to overstate how important the resolution of this question is to physics, and in particular to theoretical physics. The “cosmological constant problem”, that is the problem explaining the cosmological acceleration (if it exists), is arguably the most important and hardest question in high energy theoretical physics. Many theoreticians have spent significant effort studying this question, working under the…

What's more mind-boggling to me is all these thousands of scientists running around looking at the extreme oddity of multi-dimensional string theory, and nobody bothered to check if the cosmological constant is actually real. It seems like physics is really being held back by perverse incentives. And of course my pocket view that string theory will turn out to be the single largest waste of brilliant human minds in h…

I'm not a physicist, but I don't think string theory is a total waste. It agrees with our existing theories and predictions, so it can be viewed as just an alternative mathematical abstraction, and there is value in that.

Whether or not tiny vibrating strings are really at the heart of things is neither here nor there. It's about as relevant to science as god.

Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error

#265

Post by ncmncm »

empath75 wrote: post #211
ncmncm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our only recourse will be, "Well, you know, cosmologists . They don't behave like real scientists." That will sound suspiciously like "no true Scotsman", but there really is a difference between science with and without consequences. People were forced to take particle physics seriously, and cosmology slipped in on its coattails.

Cosmologists are behaving like real scientists. There is a gap in our knowledge of physics which appears to be dark matter and dark energy. That's something that needs to be resolved, one way or the other. Currently they are expending a lot of effort looking for dark matter and energy. If it ends up being wasted effort, that would be embarrassing, but it wouldn't have been wrong to look.

Announcing far and wide that the Universe is certainly 96 percent invisible stuff that has never been identified in any way is not what a real scientist would do, if it mattered in any way.

All we really know is that the equations we have don't match the universe we see. Dark-this and dark-that are no better than guesses that seem to bring things back in line with our favored theories, until some actual mechanism is identified.

Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error

#266

Post by ltbarcly3 »

cthalupa wrote: post #202
ltbarcly3 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. We have no actual evidence of a violation of the conservation of energy. What has happened here is that astrophysicists got way out on a branch. They were quite excited and came up with a theory that seemed to explain why there appeared to be increasing redshift with distance, and later that theory was shown to violate conservation of energy. Doubling down, they waved their hands and said that conservation of e…

>Doubling down, they waved their hands and said that conservation of energy must not hold at 'cosmological scales' Energy not being conserved has been experimentally verified, as noted in the article you were linked. This isn't a controversial topic, nor is it one where scientists have proposed it as a potential solution for a problem they can't conclusively solve. GR predicted it, we've verified it. >without any evi…

The example in the article is the exact thing that has been thrown into doubt.

This entire thread is because a researcher has found evidence that contradicts the only evidence we have for expansion.

I said of course there isn't expansion, the evidence is poor for it and that poor evidence is now disputed, plus expansion means a violation of energy conservation.

You come back with "look at the article, energy conservation has been shown to be violated", but the example in the article is expansion.

Circular reasoning at it's best.

Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error

#267

Post by ltbarcly3 »

ncmncm wrote: post #242
ltbarcly3 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an assumption, and while you might make a reasonable argument to try to justify it, it's still an assumption. The real problem is when we cross from 'assuming these things, which we don't really have a strong reason to assume' to 'this is the way the universe is'. Without the qualifications it's extremely misleading and loses any basis it started with.

Conservation of energy can never be more than a collection of observations. Elevate it to a principle, and you're not doing science anymore, you're doing religion. But not a fun one.

All of science is just a collection of observations combined with attempts to find patterns in those observations. Read up on Hume, Inductive Reasoning.

There is no fundamental grounding for the idea that what any of the rules we observe the universe following won't change suddenly for no reason apart from the fact that we have never seen it happen.

Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error

#268

Post by ltbarcly3 »

mr_mitm wrote: post #156
ltbarcly3 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. We have no actual evidence of a violation of the conservation of energy. What has happened here is that astrophysicists got way out on a branch. They were quite excited and came up with a theory that seemed to explain why there appeared to be increasing redshift with distance, and later that theory was shown to violate conservation of energy. Doubling down, they waved their hands and said that conservation of e…

Please read this and let me know if you are still convinced that energy must be conserved in General Relativity: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-... (edit: Nevermind, this is the same content as the Discovery article linked above, except with better formatting). In short: conservation of energy is a result from the Noether theorem, which says it must be conserved iff the laws of physics ar…

You are using circular reasoning. Energy is not conserved if the universe is expanding. I am saying of course that isn't happening, the evidence for expansion is poor and now has been shown to be unreliable. Without expansion energy is conserved. The example from your article is expansion, which it assumes to be a fact based on the poor evidence that is now invalidated.

Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error

#269

Post by briantakita »

tsimionescu wrote: post #261
briantakita wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the lensing is explainable using standard optics... https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf Here's the EU critique: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refra... The thing is there were mulitiple ways of interpreting phenomona & through certain cultural choices, a certain orthodoxy was created. The problem we are seeing with modern astrophysics is that in order to explain the workin…

When you look at pictures like [1] it's very hard to accept a kind of galactic-cluster level atmosphere that would produce that type of lensing. You're also ignoring the observed clock differences between clocks in LEO and clocks on the ground - which happen to have the exact values predicted by GR. And these are just some of the more neatly observable consequences of GR. There are many others that are more sophistic…

To your point about throwing out the baby with the bathwater, here is the strength of the EU argument:

"The EU community is a challenger to the standard gravitational model, believing space-time to be a misinterpretation of the Universe. The things we see in the Universe – from large scale filamentary structures connecting galactic clusters, to Earth’s climate and meteorology – are plasma phenomena driven by electromagnetic forces."

Note that it's still in an early phase & the physics is being figured out. This includes a heavy reliance on reproducible physical experimentation & unified models from small to large. Existing classical physical models are preferred. Custom math may come later, as one can create a Hamiltonian to model the phenomona, but the equation does not bring understanding of what is occurring without an underlying physical explanation.

> When you look at pictures like [1] it's very hard to accept a kind of galactic-cluster level atmosphere that would produce that type of lensing.

It's also difficult to accept that space-time is warped, especially without physically reproducible experiments, however we somehow trained ourselves to think this is the orthodox opinion. It was also once difficult to imagine the Earth not being at the center of the Universe.

The EU critique is that plasma is ubiquitous in space & the phenomenon has not been explored. It's only recently that we have discovered the onmipresence of plasma throughout space, which is something that Einstein did not account for in his models.

https://thedailyplasma.blog/2015/12/23/lensing-by-refraction...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_plasma

QM does have a connection with Maxwell's Equations as QEM.

https://engineering.purdue.edu/wcchew/qem_papers/QEM_NewLook...

Plasma Physics offers a way to, with physically reproducible experimentation, create a bridge with astrophysics.

There's even multiple hypothesis to explain the nature of Gravity.

Black Holes have not been directly observed & the Plasma Physics/EU explanation is that Quasars are a z-pinch in a galactic Birkeland Current.

https://www.everythingselectric.com/birkeland-currents

How do we know that the Atomic clock frequency itself is not be affected by gravity? It seems like a simpler explination than "space-time" being affected by gravity while the Atomic clock frequency remains consistent in the reference frame.

Re: Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error

#270

Post by ncmncm »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #248
trhway wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my personal favorite value for the Hubble constant is the "c" divided by the age of Universe, it results in 70.8 km/s/Mpc, right in the middle of the other 2 established Hubble constant's values, a very nice coincidence that the objects at the Universe age distance are running away exactly with "c".

A coincidence? I think it might be an identity. But that would mean that disputes about the value of the Hubble Constant are also disputes about the age of the universe, and vice versa.

Right, and that has been revised a few times recently.
Post reply on HN