The Universe Might Be Expanding a Lot Slower Than We Thought
motherboard.vice.com
The Universe Might Be Expanding a Lot Slower Than We Thought
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: The Universe Might Be Expanding a Lot Slower Than We Thought
#2This will probably reflect in a lower estimate to the amount of dark energy in the universe, if it's confirmed
Re: The Universe Might Be Expanding a Lot Slower Than We Thought
#3This will probably reflect in a lower estimate to the amount of dark energy in the universe, if it's confirmed
I'm hoping this whole "dark energy" and "dark matter" thing will go away entirely.
I highly suspect that both theories are the result of an "error cascade" - i.e. erroneous but at the time quite legitimate assumptions/thought/theory made early on, subsequently create errors in later assumptions/thought/theory.
The article mentioned is a case in point.
I'm a layman when it comes to astronomy and maths with no formal qualifications in astronomy - but I do like reading articles on the subject - and to me, Something Is Not Quite Right about the concepts of dark energy or dark matter
Re: The Universe Might Be Expanding a Lot Slower Than We Thought
#4This will probably reflect in a lower estimate to the amount of dark energy in the universe, if it's confirmed
I'm hoping this whole "dark energy" and "dark matter" thing will go away entirely. I highly suspect that both theories are the result of an "error cascade" - i.e. erroneous but at the time quite legitimate assumptions/thought/theory made early on, subsequently create errors in later assumptions/thought/theory. The article mentioned is a case in point. I'm a layman when it comes to astronomy and maths with no formal q…
Since 'gravity of the universe' doesn't exist (because there is no center of mass of the universe) also its alleged counterpart 'dark energy' makes no sense. I described it in my article http://goo.gl/uQNo5L and in two PDF (links in the subtitle there).
Re: The Universe Might Be Expanding a Lot Slower Than We Thought
#5This will probably reflect in a lower estimate to the amount of dark energy in the universe, if it's confirmed
I'm hoping this whole "dark energy" and "dark matter" thing will go away entirely. I highly suspect that both theories are the result of an "error cascade" - i.e. erroneous but at the time quite legitimate assumptions/thought/theory made early on, subsequently create errors in later assumptions/thought/theory. The article mentioned is a case in point. I'm a layman when it comes to astronomy and maths with no formal q…
I'm hopeful too, though I don't have any theories myself about how both ideas could be wrong, as I'm also just a layman. I do justify my hopes by pointing to Luca Lusanna's work[0], though, because I don't believe in using "Something Is Not Quite Right" feelings when it comes to physics, as quantum electrodynamics can initially have that feeling too but it's very well supported experimentally and I think one can get used to it.
[0] I've been vaguely aware of Lusanna (http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+Lusanna_L/0/1/0/all/0/1) for some number of years now, who has an interesting (and mostly unintelligible to me as I'm sadly not familiar enough with conformal geometry nor most of the relevant physics) set of papers suggesting dark matter be thought of as a Relativistic Inertial Effect.
Re: The Universe Might Be Expanding a Lot Slower Than We Thought
#6To see what this means for the cosmological parameters, the best place to look is Figure 15 of the journal article [1]. The effect of the distance bias pushes for a higher value of Omega_M (the fraction of the energy density of the universe in matter) and a lower value of w (a term which characterizes the equation of state of dark energy). The currently accepted values for these two parameters are roughly Omega_M = 0.3 and w = -1. If w = -1, it means that dark energy is consistent with a cosmological constant, which is more-or-less the simplest form of dark energy (not that we really know what it is). Going to w Also, here is a nice discussion of the equation of state of dark energy:
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March04/Carroll/Carroll4....
Re: The Universe Might Be Expanding a Lot Slower Than We Thought
#7This will probably reflect in a lower estimate to the amount of dark energy in the universe, if it's confirmed
I'm hoping this whole "dark energy" and "dark matter" thing will go away entirely. I highly suspect that both theories are the result of an "error cascade" - i.e. erroneous but at the time quite legitimate assumptions/thought/theory made early on, subsequently create errors in later assumptions/thought/theory. The article mentioned is a case in point. I'm a layman when it comes to astronomy and maths with no formal q…
I'm a graduate student in astronomy and I think it's extremely unlikely that dark energy or dark matter will go away. The concern of an "error cascade" was legitimate when these ideas were first proposed and many astronomers were skeptical of both dark matter and dark energy for long while. But over time there have been a number of independent lines of evidence pointing to the existence of both dark matter and dark energy. It's possible some comedy of errors could have lead to the spurious detection of dark matter or energy through one of these measurements, but very unlikely that it would be mimicked in other, independent measurements.
Re: The Universe Might Be Expanding a Lot Slower Than We Thought
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm hoping this whole "dark energy" and "dark matter" thing will go away entirely. I highly suspect that both theories are the result of an "error cascade" - i.e. erroneous but at the time quite legitimate assumptions/thought/theory made early on, subsequently create errors in later assumptions/thought/theory. The article mentioned is a case in point. I'm a layman when it comes to astronomy and maths with no formal q…
Since 'gravity of the universe' doesn't exist (because there is no center of mass of the universe) also its alleged counterpart 'dark energy' makes no sense. I described it in my article http://goo.gl/uQNo5L and in two PDF (links in the subtitle there).
Space itself expanding, ie inflation, doesn't require the universe to have a center of mass.
Re: The Universe Might Be Expanding a Lot Slower Than We Thought
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm hoping this whole "dark energy" and "dark matter" thing will go away entirely. I highly suspect that both theories are the result of an "error cascade" - i.e. erroneous but at the time quite legitimate assumptions/thought/theory made early on, subsequently create errors in later assumptions/thought/theory. The article mentioned is a case in point. I'm a layman when it comes to astronomy and maths with no formal q…
I'm a graduate student in astronomy and I think it's extremely unlikely that dark energy or dark matter will go away. The concern of an "error cascade" was legitimate when these ideas were first proposed and many astronomers were skeptical of both dark matter and dark energy for long while. But over time there have been a number of independent lines of evidence pointing to the existence of both dark matter and dark e…
Care to share some examples of dark energy evidence? If the evidence is a measurement of expansion, then it doesn't necessarily support the existence of dark energy.
Re: The Universe Might Be Expanding a Lot Slower Than We Thought
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since 'gravity of the universe' doesn't exist (because there is no center of mass of the universe) also its alleged counterpart 'dark energy' makes no sense. I described it in my article http://goo.gl/uQNo5L and in two PDF (links in the subtitle there).
Space itself expanding, ie inflation, doesn't require the universe to have a center of mass.
Exactly. Thanks for your affirmation. .. And space itself expanding doesn't require 'dark energy' and has nothing to do with momentum, acceleration etc.