Finally a theory based on good observation.

Please not this does not discredit DE -- it discredit the theories that have been used so far to create it. DE still exists and is still unexplained but now the theories about it have to have a lot more refinement.

Except for one, El Nose, the simple CC (proposed by Einstein with a slightly different value to explain the steady state universe assumed at the time).

I think this is great science, however, I suspect that trying to use the 'cosmological constant' in dark matter's place is just another crutch for not yet knowing the underlying principles causing these effects.

In essence, I believe the CC is no better a band aid than DM.

@Gawad and El Nose - Please note that this does not necessarily discredit DM. It could be argued that it puts such constraints on DM as to drop us right on top of the place that we need to look (in the 2 inch squared patch).

For the rest of you, I'm discussing all sides of this article (Pro and Con), so put away your partisanship...

Euh, Guy...who said anything about DM?

Euh, Guy...who said anything about DM?

Mybad, please read "DE" everywhere I put "DM" and Carry on.

Another note, does anyone know who "Lite" is. Is it you Gawad?

Except for one, El Nose, the simple CC (proposed by Einstein with a slightly different value to explain the steady state universe assumed at the time).

But so far as I understand it - and I freely admit I may be totally wrong in this as I'm not a physicist - Einstein's Cosmological Constant has no associated notion of "why". (I think this is what guy was saying.) The point of the various DE theories was not only to give a number but to provide some idea of the "why" of the number's existence.

Of course, if we do in fact live in a simulation, maybe there is no "why" and it's just that that's what "they" decided on to increment the simulation's storage or memory space... :-)

@Kron:

Einstein's CC allowed for a steady-state universe, without his equations predicted a universe that would continue to expand or would collapse.

@Kron:

Strickly speaking...as far as the article itself, Thompson isn't proposing a theory at all, but Nose is correct when he lauds the proper use of observation to constrain DE theories.

Also, you're quite right that the CC isn't a DE theory as such, but what matters here is that whatever DE actually is it seems to *act as* a simple CC rather than as a rolling/tracking field that predicts either an eventual collapse or "big rip".

@That_Guy:

Sorry, that should have been obvious in retrospect. It's just that DM and DE are so often confused that I didn't pick that up.

And no, I'm not Lite and have no idea who or who else they may be. The only other nick I've ever used on Physorg was "Athabasca" and that was a couple of years ago and only for a couple of test posts.

Euh, Guy...who said anything about DM?

Mybad, please read "DE" everywhere I put "DM" and Carry on.

Another note, does anyone know who "Lite" is. Is it you Gawad?

The silent rater "lite" is none other than the loquacious TheGhostofOtto1923 as well as "FrankHerbert" and the less-used "arfarfarfarf". TheGhostofOtto1923 and his sockpuppets have pissed in the pool for many of us. Take a look at MY ranking page.

The only distant light we can observe is that which has passed between all the gravity wells of intervening matter. It appears stretched in inverse proportion to the effect of gravity. Could they be two sides of a contiguous process, where the universe is not expanding, only our measure of intergalactic space? Think in terms of the rubber sheet analogy of gravity; Mass pushing in creates an equal outward pressure on the rest of the sheet. This would explain why space on the largest scales, as measured by COBE and WMAP, appears flat.

We will never get out of perplexity as long as the main concept or the main model we rely on is defective. I know, most or all of you won't like this, but the main problem of this all is due to "The BB theory" and space expanding concept.

We are now like going astray on our way but insisting that we all are still on the very right track. Then we find all explanations to our situations throw confusions.

Actually, getting stick with Newton's Laws and Newton's words, we still can explain the cosmological fact that most sky objects redshift. One strong objection that I find difficult to defend my model base on your fanaticism is you tightly grasping; the theory (to me, it is just theory) saying that matter can't travel faster than light. To me, compressed atom structure matters really can travel faster than light.

With CARM (away from BB theory); the accelerating of sky objects to spread away in cosmos (not accelerating expansion), DE and DM are all just find and logical.

Einstein's CC is not an explanation. It is a single parameter that fits observations

Einstein's CC is not an explanation. It is a single parameter that fits observations

If you want to, you can take that same logic to every theory we have. Electromagnetism is not an explanation. It is a single parameter (coupling constant) that fits observations.

One key thing to remember is that, by following Einstein's postulates of general relativity, there are only two possible interaction terms that can be covariantly written down: the normal GR mass-energy tensor curvature of spacetime, and a cosmological constant term. Both come with a coupling constant which is not determined by the theory itself, but are parameters. In fact, all theories we have have some parameters that are not predicted by the theory.

(Phys.org)—Research by University of Arizona astronomy professor Rodger Thompson finds that a popular alternative to Albert Einstein's theory for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe does not fit newly obtained data on a fundamental constant, the proton to electron mass ratio.

It is quite difficult to visualize how the proton to electron mass ratio involved the acceleration of the expansion of the universe! Maybe understanding what electron and proton are and where do they come from (below) could help us to understand the matter.
http://www.vacuum...=4〈=en

DE and DM will always exist, we may find better explinations for them, but they will always be a part of nature.

Would be nice to figure out how to generate DE.

DE is negative energy. Matter is positive energy.

Matter and Dark Energy are created together, and the total energy sums to zero, just as it always has done.

Would be nice to figure out how to generate DE.

Simple. Just expand vacuum.

Bad press release, the cosmological constant is currently the most popular alternative for dark energy anyway.

And this is just wrong: "Physicists trying to calculate the value from known physics, however, get a number more than 10 to the power of 60 (one followed by 60 zeros) too large – a truly astronomical number." From known physics you get a factor 10^-120 of the natural (i.e. ~ 1 in normalized terms), it is then you assume supersymmetry it gets up to 10^-60 of the natural, not finetuned, value.

Einstein's cc was a spacetime curvature, today's observation is a negative pressure effect so comes out on the other, matterenergy, side as an energy with the opposite sign.

@ El Nose, Kron: Different things. This is DE, and in the standard cosmology the best fit comes out as the cosmological constant, same as here. And the theory so far used to predict a cc is a (constant) vacuum energy.

@ that_guy, dirk_bruere, A2G: Neither DE or its constant CC form are "band aids", "not explanations", "not for sure", "place holders" or something else folk physics, they are unambiguous observations constrained by the well tested standard cosmology.

@brodix: There is no metric problem, that was the whole point with introducing relativity. And standard cosmology has extended GR much more than earlier observations.

@yash17: The inflationary standard cosmology is the first self-consistent cosmology, and the December WMAP 9 year release has decreased the uncertainty to < 1.5 % on parameters. It is highly unlikely a self-consistent theory and its observations will be replaced. More detailed, certainly.

@vm: Science sites is not the place to present crackpot ideas. Take it to the crackpot sites.

@Kron: Your balance equation doesn't work. DE is a constant, independent of the matter content.

There are in principle 5 ways to see that the universe is zero energy (AFAIK):

1) Classically the inflationary standard cosmology (SC) is efficiently flat space, which translates to a near zero energy density sum over energies.
2) SC is future eternal (no rip or crunch), so must be a zero energy system to not change.
3) The two possible ways to start inflation is a fluctuation or past eternal inflation. The latter works as 2) above, the former is most likely a near zero energy fluctuation.
4) During inflation and future eternity the universe is adiabatically expanding with zero or virtually zero matter content, so approximates an empty de Sitter universe. Zero energy.
5) [TBC]

[C]

5) You can't define energy except as a local approximation in a GR space such as SC. (Eg redshift shows energy loss over cosmological distances.) But you can study so called FRW universes as systems, and their behavior is only describable by a zero energy system. (Se Tonioni et al papers, which I have zero energy to google for right now.)

SC is an FRW universe.

@A2G: He may not be smarter, but at least he's dealing with it a couple of notches up from the pop-physics level you seem to mired in. And, yes, in particular Kaku has a long established pop-physics record,so does NASA's stuff that is put out for the public: that's its whole point-not to mislead, mind you, but it's still (astro)physics lite. If you want to get a serious gip on DE you're going to have to actually put in the hard work of graduate level GR and QM...for starters. No other way around it.

I wish someone had recorded Prof. Thompson's lecture. I'd like to find more information about it.

I think you better go back and study your standard cosmology a bit more to see that what you just said is total BS. You are not as wise as you think you are.

DE is an admitted place holder by most of the world's leading astrophysicists. You can believe whatever you want but this is not what the commonly accepted understanding of the DE issue is.

Here is what NASA says about it.

"What Is Dark Energy?

"More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery"

So I guess you are smarter than NASA Torbjorn. or not.

It is now a fact that what Torbjorn_Larsson_OM is saying is true. You won't find it in a text book because the info that solidified it beyond a doubt was released a few months ago; they don't write graduate level cosmology texts that fast.

I wouldn't say "wiser", but more informed than an outdated press release by NASA designed for middle schoolers

In dense aether model the Universe doesn't expand, because it predicts, the red-shift is wavelength dependent: at the wavelength of CMBR it disappears completely and for radiowaves the Universe collapses instead. The scattering of surface ripples is wavelength dependent as well. But at the moment, when scattering happens, the surface ripples are losing their energy and they do transform into waves, which scatter even more. This effect is responsible for accelerated scattering of both surface ripples, both light waves
in the vacuum and it leads to so-called dark energy.

Einstein didn't predict the dark energy with his "cosmological constant" - instead of it he attempted to introduce exactly the opposite effect with it: the steady state universe model - not the universe expanding with accelerated speed.

For people who are thinking a bit more schematically it would be important to note, that the geometry of black holes is described with the same space-time metric, like the geometry of the observable Universe - it's just inverted inside out (FLRW metric vs Schwarzchild metric). Some extensions of general relativity predict the existence of dark matter around black holes - therefore it's logical, the same models will predict the existence of similar artifact at the boundary of observable Universe, i.e. the dark energy.
There are multiple ways, how to derive at least portion of dark matter effect from general relativity: for example with introduction of extradimensions and mass-energy equivalence into general relativity equations.

If you guys are so much smarter then the rest of us then tell us how I do what you see in these videos. If you are really smart you will be able to do that. But I bet you are not that smart.

http://www.youtub...point777

I can't understand what your asking because you type like my local neighborhood crackhead speaks.

I can read heavy science no problem. Where are these proven facts that we all would like to know? You throw insults with zero backing except for the cop out that "you wouldn't understand".

I smell BS. Give a real meaningful answer or all know what you are really about. Anyone who tells someone I could tell you but you wouldn't understand has always in my experience been a BS artist regardless of their position or degrees.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7231

http://lambda.gsf...aphy.cfm

go for it. Any crackpot who types up 4 responses in less than a minute like you did and then pretends as though we aren't replying when we are in fact at work, is not worth replying to. But I thought I would give you the info in case someone who understands cosmology and physics is reading these and laughing their a$$ off at how ignorant you are while simultaneously pretending you know what you're talking about.

"as matter annihilates, space is created."
The result of annihilating matter is light, which is what radiates out across that intergalactic space and the redshift of which says it is expanding. What happens when light/energy turns back into matter, wouldn't the opposite be true; That space is being 'annihilated?" Thus gravity would be the vacuum left by this energy condensing into matter, not just a mysterious property of matter. There is no dark matter to be found around galaxies, but there is lots of cosmic rays and other forms of radiation. Then on the denser scales, fusion continues to turn matter into ever heavier elements.
Two sides of the same coin; Matter contracts, energy expands.
As for why the redshift; What keeps photons of light from expanding when released? Wouldn't they, being light, expand out to fill/create space? Then the received photon is a sample of the light, not a particular photon traveling billions of lightyears.

@Torbjorn_Larsson_Olv: "Einstein's cc was a spacetime curvature, today's observation is a negative pressure effect so comes out on the other, matterenergy, side as an energy with the opposite sign."

Is there definitive proof that the matter-free intergalactic voids do not show a very slight inverse spacetime curvature )(, i.e. opposite in sign to that associated with aggregations of matter () ?

There are two explanations for red shift. If you remove velocity then that leaves the other reason. So why is the rate of time increasing as the universe ages?

"@yash17: The inflationary standard cosmology is the first self-consistent cosmology, and the December WMAP 9 year release has decreased the uncertainty to < 1.5 % on parameters. It is highly unlikely a self-consistent theory and its observations will be replaced."

Thank you.
Please notes: All cosmological observation data (not including theories) used to get the BB theory also match with CAR model, if you accept compressed atom structure matters can travel faster than light.

And please add the following parameters for your uncertainty measurement:

1. Out of around 59 sky objects having z > 5, there are 27 % located at around between Ursa Major & Leo. Ursa Major & Leo is suspected as the location of Universe nucleus in CAR model.
2. An object has an apparent superluminal motion of 4 times the speed of light relative to the galaxy center. (http://en.wikiped...sier_82) & (http://www.jb.man...stery/).
3.

3. NGC 3314a & b NGC 3314b (Hydra). "This is a pair of spiral galaxies, one superimposed on another, at two separate and distinct ranges, and unrelated to each other. It is a rare chance visual alignment", (http://en.wikiped...laxies).
Cloud and rain model is happy with this observation (belated light effect indication of sky objects with z around > 1.4) at that galactic coordinate.
4. No way that the space expansion concept matches with Newton's laws & Newton's words and you have certainly noticed that, whilst CAR model is totally obedient to Newton's laws.
5. BB theory still puzzles over dark matter & dark energy orientation. CAR model definitely expects there are such kinds of things at cosmos.
6. BB theory isn't obedient to the following nature's facts: Pattern equality fact of nature & Pattern stability fact of nature. Cloud and rain model is actually derived from the above 2 nature's facts.

"The constant was reinstated with a different value that produces the observed acceleration of the universe's expansion. Physicists trying to calculate the value from known physics, however, get a number more than 10 to the power of 60 (one followed by 60 zeros) too large – a truly astronomical number."

Seriously. Bad. Writing.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

I just noticed that no one at Phys.org or from the school dared put their name on this poorly written press release from the University of Arizona. Good call.

And I am sorry that you cannot answer a simple question put to you with a simple answer. Anyone with experience in any field knows what that means. You still didn't tell us how I do what I do. How I repel a non magnetized steel ball with a static magnetic field. Tell us all how that was done and how it does not fit into what we see in the observable universe. Prove me wrong with facts, not crackpots remarks. You have revealed your true level of understanding.

You don't know what "crackpot" means; do you?
You obviously didn't read the papers or have any knowledge whatsoever of the modern concept of dark energy.