New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
backreaction.blogspot.com
New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
1–10 of 109 posts
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#2> Two years ago, I told you about a paper by Subir Sarkar and his colleagues, that showed if one analyses the supernovae data correctly, without assuming that the cosmological principle holds on too short distances, then the evidence for dark energy disappears. That paper has been almost entirely ignored by other scientists.
Is this a case of science advancing one funeral at a time? We have to wait for the dark energy "establishment" do die off?
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#3Not knowing much about the subject: cosmological principle appears to say that laws of physics are uniform in space. Then, with known matter and forces, this leads to some structure, with fluctuations, and hence some scale over which matter is uniformly distributed.
If we calculate such a scale and find matter is still not uniform at that scale, wouldn’t the first conclusion be that there are missing terms in either matter or interactions (or both)? Rather than saying that laws of physics are not space-homogeneous.
The article itself states that the length scale where the c10l principle kicks in is derived from a particular model for matter and interactions (lambda CDM).
I think there is plenty of discrepancies between standard model and observations (most of them small). We don’t know what dark matter is, either. So to me the interesting point wouldn’t be, is the model wrong, but how is it wrong?
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#4n 2004, New Scientist, published an open letter from Eric Lerner and about 30 other scientists,[1] criticizing the Big Bang theory, and noting that Big Bang theory requires Dark Matter to exists.
«Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.»
Can we finally abandon Big Shrink (BS) theory? It's obvious now that Oort cloud of Shapley attractor just collided with Dipole Repeller cloud [2].
[1]: https://www.plasma-universe.com/an-open-letter-to-the-scient...
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#5> Two years ago, I told you about a paper by Subir Sarkar and his colleagues, that showed if one analyses the supernovae data correctly, without assuming that the cosmological principle holds on too short distances, then the evidence for dark energy disappears. That paper has been almost entirely ignored by other scientists. Is this a case of science advancing one funeral at a time? We have to wait for the dark energ…
There is more evidence for dark energy. Discrepancies in redshift vs distance are just one, and there are interestingly also other explanations for it.
IIRC in lambda-CDM, if you don’t have dark energy, the whole universe just looks very different, eg the structures of galaxies, groups and supergroups etc are not the same.
It might still be wrong, but more nails are needed for this coffin.
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#6Not knowing much about the subject: cosmological principle appears to say that laws of physics are uniform in space. Then, with known matter and forces, this leads to some structure, with fluctuations, and hence some scale over which matter is uniformly distributed. If we calculate such a scale and find matter is still not uniform at that scale, wouldn’t the first conclusion be that there are missing terms in either…
Per Sabine H on YouTube ( https://youtu.be/JETGS64kTys ), the cosmological constant might be smaller than called for in current cosmology. That would agree with some other observations.
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#7Not knowing much about the subject: cosmological principle appears to say that laws of physics are uniform in space. Then, with known matter and forces, this leads to some structure, with fluctuations, and hence some scale over which matter is uniformly distributed. If we calculate such a scale and find matter is still not uniform at that scale, wouldn’t the first conclusion be that there are missing terms in either…
[deleted]
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#8> Two years ago, I told you about a paper by Subir Sarkar and his colleagues, that showed if one analyses the supernovae data correctly, without assuming that the cosmological principle holds on too short distances, then the evidence for dark energy disappears. That paper has been almost entirely ignored by other scientists. Is this a case of science advancing one funeral at a time? We have to wait for the dark energ…
> without assuming that the cosmological principle holds on too short distances
There's still the problem of colliding galaxies showing a weakly interacting centroid that's shifted compared to the masses but interacts with the visible masses. If truly are variation in the local constants, then one has to explain why these variations shows inertia, at such point it starts looking more and more like matter
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#9> Two years ago, I told you about a paper by Subir Sarkar and his colleagues, that showed if one analyses the supernovae data correctly, without assuming that the cosmological principle holds on too short distances, then the evidence for dark energy disappears. That paper has been almost entirely ignored by other scientists. Is this a case of science advancing one funeral at a time? We have to wait for the dark energ…
Is this related to MOND?
Re: New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology
#10> Two years ago, I told you about a paper by Subir Sarkar and his colleagues, that showed if one analyses the supernovae data correctly, without assuming that the cosmological principle holds on too short distances, then the evidence for dark energy disappears. That paper has been almost entirely ignored by other scientists. Is this a case of science advancing one funeral at a time? We have to wait for the dark energ…
There is more evidence for dark energy. Discrepancies in redshift vs distance are just one, and there are interestingly also other explanations for it. IIRC in lambda-CDM, if you don’t have dark energy, the whole universe just looks very different, eg the structures of galaxies, groups and supergroups etc are not the same. It might still be wrong, but more nails are needed for this coffin.
MOND lead to less paradoxes/mispredictions than dark matter/energy