dark energy probably doesn't exist and universe might not be expanding at accelerating rate

[Ex-User (14663)]

This video talks about a new paper that basically suggests that the Nobel-winning paper which concluded the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate and explained that with "dark energy" was based on erroneous inference


The gist of it is this: in order to measure the rate of expansion, the earlier Nobel-winning paper looked at red shift of light from supernovae. However, they had a pretty small sample size of supernovae and they were all observed from the same direction. The problem here is that since they are all form the same direction, the red shift will also depend on the movement of our galaxy relative to the supernovae. This new paper looked at supernovae light from all directions, and found that you get different conclusions based on which direction you look. In particular if one accounts for movement of our galaxy, then the data is consistent with no acceleration of expansion, and in fact as it says in the paper it's even consistent with deceleration.

That's pretty embarrassing if you ask me – not only does one make the classical pre-Copernican error of thinking we are central reference frame in the universe, but one invents a new type of matter from it and then it turns out it's all false due to a biased sample.

the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.04597.pdf

 

[redbaron]

i've been skeptical of the concept of dark energy for quite a while

i've read through the paper but i'm still thinking about it. i think it's not really an embarrassment so much. it's still an important step in the discovery process to see that the universe is expanding from our frame of reference and realistically, was all that was available at the time.

there's a lot of ins and outs of it but fmpov there's not a whole lot of use in attaching an emotive perspective to inaccuracies in science. we learn, we improve our understanding and we move forward. a caution against using a limited frame of reference, definitely.

a willingness to be wrong is imperative to effective science imo.

it's a good thing to ponder. i might revisit this thread when i've thought about it more and what implications it holds. there's a lot of cosmology that's not actually dependent on the universe expanding perpetually, and indeed there are universal models that deviate from the "flat" model of the universe.

it's possible that this will make the idea of a "closed" universe a lot more commonly accepted and plausible: something that would simplify other concepts in cosmology, but isn't accepted because it isn't consistent with the apparent faster-than-light expansion of the universe.

 

[scorpiomover]

That's pretty embarrassing if you ask me – not only does one make the classical pre-Copernican error of thinking we are central reference frame in the universe, but one invents a new type of matter from it and then it turns out it's all false due to a biased sample.

If you read up on a history of science, this is pretty common in scientific history.

This video talks about a new paper that basically suggests that the Nobel-winning paper which concluded the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate and explained that with "dark energy" was based on erroneous inference

Dark energy is necessary for a completely different reason, namely the Dirac Sea. Matter is thinly spaced. Without it, space is thin.

Thin space behaves exactly as you'd expect, such as when you're throwing a frisbee around in the air. So space is thinner than the density of a frisbee.

But if space is thin compared to heat and light, then heat and light would traverse space like a frisbee and not like waves of energy. We wouldn't get the nice-looking continuity of force & energy propagation with gravity and the other forces.

So space is thinner than a frisbee, but dense enough that it can act as a medium to carry e-m waves.

 

[Rebis]

Similar to the concept of the Ether in early science, dark energy facilitates why we cannot see the end of the universe as dark energy is a repulsive energy wave that repels photons. I think dark energy was always going to be a hypothetical force because we wouldn't be able to observe through beaming photons at matter, only to be observed indirectly.

It is embarrassing, I'll have to read the paper.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[sushi]

I am beginnning to think most cosmologists/astrophysicists are smoking pot, they say and theorize one thing now, and completely contradict themselves several months later with another new theory.

you get far more accurate data when you are actually in space, because our frame of reference is still earth centered, and we have to guess about stuff trillions of miles away in outer space.

the best frame of reference is outer space and empty space itself, not on earth.

Dark energy is just something that try to explain why the universe is expanding and goes the oppostie of gravity.

 

[sushi]

i was right, someone was smoking pot

 

[sushi]

trying to fingure the laws of space while stuck on earth physics and laws, limitations.

anything becomes a telescope speculation guessing the unreachable.

the only way to resolve this is mass migration or send smarter satilites with AI into space.

i am not disagree with the opening but i think the attempts are becoming more and more futile.

 

[dragula]

dark energy probably exist and universe might be expanding at accelerating rate

newsflash

 

[scorpiomover]

I am beginnning to think most cosmologists/astrophysicists are smoking pot,

I heard that a lot of academics and scientists smoke pot together. It helps them think up new ideas.

they say and theorize one thing now, and completely contradict themselves several months later with another new theory.

Physics isn't easy. But science is highly competitive now. Scientists live by "publish or perish". They have to keep publishing, or they lose their career, and they can't get published without getting a grant, which is very difficult to get now, because it's so competitive.

So scientists have to do something to keep their names famous, to keep getting published, in order to stay in their career.

you get far more accurate data when you are actually in space, because our frame of reference is still earth centered, and we have to guess about stuff trillions of miles away in outer space.

the best frame of reference is outer space and empty space itself, not on earth.

It's more that the atmosphere blocks out 90% of the data. That's good for us, because 90% of those cosmic rays would kill life. But it's bad for science.

Dark energy is just something that try to explain why the universe is expanding and goes the oppostie of gravity.

Much like the Holographic Principle explains why black holes are swallowing data and thus violating the principle of conversation of mass/energy.

 

[dragula]

Much like the Holographic Principle explains why black holes are swallowing data and thus violating the principle of conversation of mass/energy.

Black holes swallow structured information, but the information itself is not lost (and is released as hawking radiation, thus the mass/energy conserved).

https://physicsworld.com/a/information-not-lost-in-black-holes/

 

[Daddy]

I liked the jokes in the comments section more than the video.

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician go for a walk in the countryside. They espy a black sheep in the distance. The astronomer immediately proclaims, "All sheep are black!" The physicist thinks for a moment and suggests, "Some sheep are black." The mathematician ponders awhile and says, "There exists a sheep such that one of its sides is black."

The accountant would ask: "How many sides do you want this calf to have?"

Maybe the world needs more philosophers.

 

[scorpiomover]

Much like the Holographic Principle explains why black holes are swallowing data and thus violating the principle of conversation of mass/energy.

Black holes swallow structured information, but the information itself is not lost (and is released as hawking radiation, thus the mass/energy conserved).

https://physicsworld.com/a/information-not-lost-in-black-holes/

The Holographic Principle was invented in order to justify that position. This is no different.

 

[scorpiomover]

I liked the jokes in the comments section more than the video.

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician go for a walk in the countryside. They espy a black sheep in the distance. The astronomer immediately proclaims, "All sheep are black!" The physicist thinks for a moment and suggests, "Some sheep are black." The mathematician ponders awhile and says, "There exists a sheep such that one of its sides is black."

The accountant would ask: "How many sides do you want this calf to have?"

Maybe the world needs more philosophers.

Sadly, even though Leibniz said that you need to know mathematics to understand philosophy, many philosophers are not mathematicians.

 

[dragula]

Much like the Holographic Principle explains why black holes are swallowing data and thus violating the principle of conversation of mass/energy.

Black holes swallow structured information, but the information itself is not lost (and is released as hawking radiation, thus the mass/energy conserved).

https://physicsworld.com/a/information-not-lost-in-black-holes/

The Holographic Principle was invented in order to justify that position. This is no different.

Could you explain this statement? I’m curious.

 

[scorpiomover]

Much like the Holographic Principle explains why black holes are swallowing data and thus violating the principle of conversation of mass/energy.

Black holes swallow structured information, but the information itself is not lost (and is released as hawking radiation, thus the mass/energy conserved).

https://physicsworld.com/a/information-not-lost-in-black-holes/

The Holographic Principle was invented in order to justify that position. This is no different.

Could you explain this statement? I’m curious.

1) Shannon developed information theory, which showed that the universe could be described as a digital VR, where the properties of particles and waves in the universe could be described as quantities.

2) Entropy was then explored in this light. Entropy had previously been described in various ways, such as the level of disorder in a system.

In terms of information theory, this would mean that as entropy increased in a system, there was less order, and so less information was required to fully represent the entire system.

Thus, each particle of matter and each wave of energy represented its own form of order, and thus, information within the system that is the universe.

This in turn meant that as matter and energy was absorbed by a black hole, more information passed into the black hole.

3) Hawking developed the No-Hair Theorem, which showed that black holes can be defined completely by 3 quantities.

That in turn meant that no matter how much matter/energy was inside a black hole, it only ever required 3 quantities to fully represent it.

So then all the extra information that was represented by the matter/energy that passed into the black hole, didn't increase the total information needed to represent the black hole virtually, and so the information that was represented by the matter/energy disappeared.

4) As each particle of matter and each wave of energy represented its own form of order, and thus, information within the system that is the universe, if any of that information disappeared, that would mean in turn that the matter/energy effectively disappeared, which would violate the law of conservation of mass/energy.

This caused a big stink in the physics community, as it would have meant that one of the most fundamental of principles of physics was not true. Everything else had been built on it. It was like smashing the bottom of a 20-storey high rise. Everything above collapses. All of the scientific theories built on the principle of conservation, would have come crashing down.

This was known as the Black Hole Information Paradox. It was a paradox, because the No-Hair Theorem meant that information was not preserved, while the conservation laws meant that they were preserved.

5) The Holographic Principle suggested that as matter/energy passed into the event horizon of a black hole, time dilation meant that its movement towards the centre of the black hole slowed down. As the effects of a black hole increase infinitely as mass/energy approaches the centre of a black hole, that effectively suggested that, as per Captain Dylan Hunt's ship in the SF series Andromeda, all matter/energy slows down to such a rate that it all gets trapped in the event horizon.

So then, even though the matter/energy is trapped within the event horizon, it still has its structure and thus its information, and retains both for infinite time, getting ever closer to the centre of the black hole, but never reaching a point at which gravity crushes it to the point at which it loses its structure and loses its information.

6) It's called the Holographic Principle, rather than a Hypothesis, or a Theory, because a Scientific Hypothesis is something you test to see if it's true, and a Scientific Theory is something that you've tested and found to be true.

Neither of which were true about the Holographic Principle, as no-one knew if it was true, and no-one wanted to test it, in case it turned out to be false, as then the entirety of physics would collapse.

It sounds like a bodge job. But then physicists felt that every one of their beliefs was under threat.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I guess this relates to point 5, but I've always wondered what the issue is, considering that from every observer frame outside a black hole time dilation at the even horizon is infinite, thus nothing actually ever goes inside it (unless you go inside the black hole with it)

 

[dragula]

Thank you very much scorpiomover. It will take a moment for me to go over the material. Appreciate it.

 

[Daddy]

I liked the jokes in the comments section more than the video.

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician go for a walk in the countryside. They espy a black sheep in the distance. The astronomer immediately proclaims, "All sheep are black!" The physicist thinks for a moment and suggests, "Some sheep are black." The mathematician ponders awhile and says, "There exists a sheep such that one of its sides is black."

The accountant would ask: "How many sides do you want this calf to have?"

Maybe the world needs more philosophers.

Sadly, even though Leibniz said that you need to know mathematics to understand philosophy, many philosophers are not mathematicians.

I probably don't know what you mean here. But given that the mathematician said "There exists a sheep such that one of its sides is black" rather than "There exists a sheep such that only one of its sides is black" I can surmise that you are suggesting the mathematician is the most accurate and precise because he only modeled what was known at the time.

That's interesting. I'd like to say I disagree with that, but I suppose a large part of wisdom is in making the least assumptions about what is known and unknown. Maybe Leibniz is right.

 

[dragula]

I guess this relates to point 5, but I've always wondered what the issue is, considering that from every observer frame outside a black hole time dilation at the even horizon is infinite, thus nothing actually ever goes inside it (unless you go inside the black hole with it)

The observer will notice one peculiar change, which is one of the quantities of the black hole changing: the mass of he Black Hole, observed by the change of the Schwarzschild radius. As the object is falling within the BH, the size of this surface radius will increase (this off course is only really observable when we are talking about large objects and is observable mostly by a change of Gravitational curvature). With large objects falling into the BH, spin would also increase (and electric charge, the third quantity would slightly alter as well).

This would mean, while time dialation becomes infinite for an object falling within the BH to the outside observer by the law of physics (and thus observes that this object will freeze in time as it approaches the Schwarzschild radius, that same observer will also observe the same object dissapearing within the Black Hole as the radius grows (observed by the object slowly fading away).

Thus we are stuck with a paradoxal observation: The object exists and does not exist at the same time to the outside observer. The paradox lies within the concept of time dialation itself.

In reality, if we were to follow the object falling into the BH (thus being within the same observable frame of reference), we'd observe the object actually falling into the black hole (as we are falling into it as well). However, "our" information would be lost as well as we would not be able to escape the gravity well of the BH as well. Thus the information observed result would be lost within the black hole.

We do however have one additional observation: information is also leaked out from the BH as matter falls into it in the form of antimatter particles leaking away from that matter. Thus we are also increasing information within the Universe surrounding the BH while the object is falling into it. (as the BH is part of this Universe as well).

And in extent we would could also state, as a (Supermassive) Black Hole would increase in size towards the size of the Universe, that the whole Universe eventually would be taken within and as such projected as a Holographic version on the Surface of this SMBH. But that's taking the concept to a far (unrealistic) extremity.

For both phenomena, it is important that we are able to observe these processes happening from our limited single earthen outsider perspective; by the importance of gravitational wave observation through LIGO et al. and particle smashing / particle observation experiments through CERN et al. to confirm these extreme cases of our current theories (relativity and quantum).

Disclaimer: stating everything from what I recall from what I've read so far, if there are mistakes, feel free to correct. I'm not a mathematician either, sadly.

Some links:

https://www.space.com/23011-black-holes-hair-gravity-theory.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric

PBS Spacetime video's covering above topic (do subscribe to the channel, it's great):

https://www.gpb.org/television/shows/pbs-space-time/episode/54fc69c5-6b6f-4bc8-8181-481bd3d436a3
https://www.pbs.org/video/our-antimatter-mirrored-time-reversed-universe-nhe075/

 

[dragula]

And in extent we would could also state, as a (Supermassive) Black Hole would increase in size towards the size of the Universe, that the whole Universe eventually would be taken within and as such projected as a Holographic version on the Surface of this SMBH. But that's taking the concept to a far (unrealistic) extremity.

This statement is wrong, so I have to correct it (but I don't know the right description for this principle yet).

 

[ZenRaiden]

I do not know much, but pretty much every science article kept saying that dark energy was some place holder and not actual fact, so an article saying that its not right does not exactly sound surprising.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

The observer will notice one peculiar change, which is one of the quantities of the black hole changing: the mass of he Black Hole, observed by the change of the Schwarzschild radius. As the object is falling within the BH, the size of this surface radius will increase (this off course is only really observable when we are talking about large objects and is observable mostly by a change of Gravitational curvature). With large objects falling into the BH, spin would also increase (and electric charge, the third quantity would slightly alter as well).

This would mean, while time dialation becomes infinite for an object falling within the BH to the outside observer by the law of physics (and thus observes that this object will freeze in time as it approaches the Schwarzschild radius, that same observer will also observe the same object dissapearing within the Black Hole as the radius grows (observed by the object slowly fading away).

it sounds a bit strange to me that you could see the effects of an object crossing the event horizon (e.g. increased shwarzchild radius) before the object has crossed the event horizon. It also sounds like you would be receiving light from events at or beyond the event horizon, which by definition should not be possible.

 

[dragula]

it sounds a bit strange to me that you could see the effects of an object crossing the event horizon (e.g. increased shwarzchild radius) before the object has crossed the event horizon. It also sounds like you would be receiving light from events at or beyond the event horizon, which by definition should not be possible.

Yep, that's exactly the conundrum of the whole information paradox. You do not see the object crossing the event horizon, what you see is remnant information (eg. the light) of the object falling towards the event horizon.

The object itself has already entered the Schwarzschild radius, but you as an external observer are not aware of that event. Only when the radius increases you will be made aware of the event.