The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is Dark Energy as an alternative to Einstein incorrect?  (Read 2585 times)

Offline distimpson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
    • Kansas Meteorite Museum & Nature Center
Rather profound, anyone familiar with this line of research? If so, your views please.

Article in Lab Equipment: http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2013/01/dark-energy-alternative-einstein-incorrect?et_cid=3034467&et_rid=54652410&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.laboratoryequipment.com%2fnews%2f2013%2f01%2fdark-energy-alternative-einstein-incorrect

222.04 Proton to Electron Mass Ratio Constraints on Cosmology and New Physics
Rodger I. Thompson1, 2
1Univ. of Arizona, 2Steward Observatory.

presented Tuesday at 221ST MEETING OF THE
AMERICAN ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
6-10 January 2013
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA
« Last Edit: 11/01/2016 09:05:46 by chris »


 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Rather profound, anyone familiar with this line of research? If so, your views please.

Article in Lab Equipment: http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2013/01/dark-energy-alternative-einstein-incorrect?et_cid=3034467&et_rid=54652410&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.laboratoryequipment.com%2fnews%2f2013%2f01%2fdark-energy-alternative-einstein-incorrect

222.04 Proton to Electron Mass Ratio Constraints on Cosmology and New Physics
Rodger I. Thompson1, 2
1Univ. of Arizona, 2Steward Observatory.

presented Tuesday at 221ST MEETING OF THE
AMERICAN ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
6-10 January 2013
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA
I wish I knew the physics well enough to form an educated opinion, but I don't. At least not right now. I did, however, e-mail this to a physics acquantance of mine cosmology. He knows his stuff about as well as anybody does nowadays. I'll report what he says if he responds. Usually he never responds since he's always a busy little beaver. Most of my discussions with him are in his office. Every great great once in a while does he respond. However I forwarded it to some other people I know who are very knowledgeble in cosmology.
 

Offline distimpson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
    • Kansas Meteorite Museum & Nature Center
thank you, definitely outside my area of expertise. interested to hear what comes from the specialists in this area. it is always amazing (to me) when the very large and very small realms of physics converge on the same subject.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
I keep coming back to this one :)

It's interesting. A little like the search for Higgs, isn't it?
Narrowing down the regime. If it exist that is.
 

Offline distimpson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
    • Kansas Meteorite Museum & Nature Center
yep, me too. how the universe came to be and what is its fate are questions that will haunt humans as long as they exist. do such questions even make sense? every fractional increase in knowledge is a huge treasure, what a wonderful puzzle.
 

Offline Spaskiba

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Not sure exactly how a dimensionless number has anything to do withdissmising Einstein field equations as incomplete, it's far more likely our understanding of dark energy is just wrong. Which personally I think the case is that there is no such thing as dark energy but an illusion, until I work my math to a better degree my ideas worth nothing :/
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is Dark Energy as an alternative to Einstein incorrect?
« Reply #6 on: 11/01/2016 13:32:34 »
I always thought dark energy was an artifact of the assumption, there was no preferred reference in the universe. To explain this, say you had two space ships, in deep space. One ship has mass M and the other has mass 2M, with relative velocity V. Without landmarks, the no preferred reference assumption allows us to assume either is moving; arbitrarily pick one as the reference. We will pick the one we are on since this makes it easier.

The assumption does not allow us to do a proper energy balance. If the first ship was in motion it will have kinetic energy 1/2mv2. If the second was in motion it will have kinetic energy 1/2(2M)v2=mv2. This is double the energy. If we assume the smaller ship is in motion, but the larger ship was the one in motion (the one that used its trusters for the velocity), we have lost energy from the universe. The problem this creates is the lost energy, due to the no preferred reference assumption, will show up eventually, but will not appear to be connected to anything visible. All the rest of the universe is consistent with our original reference assumptions; by default. We  infer dark energy by this extra energy affect, but we can't see anything in the lab.

Energy conservation implies preferred references, as well as even a center of the universe, since arbitrary reference and no center can violate energy conservation, by adding or subtracting energy. No preferred reference works for velocity, and can tell use about the expansion, but it can create a problem with energy balances. 

The train moving past the station at velocity V, allows us to assume either the train is moving, or the entire station and all the landscape as far as the eye can see, is moving. If the train is moving we can look out the window of the train, and even see the sky moving; sky has kinetic energy. The need for dark energy implies we tend to pick a lowest energy reference, thereby needing 73% dark energy to account for the lost energy.

Solution to the problem;

A red shift implies higher energy photons appearing to become lower energy photons; relative to our reference. What this means is the energy can be stronger than what we see, since what we see has been modified by a Doppler shift.

As an analogy, say the train station has a siren at a certain pitch. This siren is huge and its sound can be heard for miles in all directions. The siren uses 10,000 watts of power. I am on a moving train and as I pass the station, I open my window. Since I am moving away, the pitch drops due to the Doppler shift; the sire appears red shifted to me. I assume the energy needed to move the speaker is X, based on this lower pitch. But in reality, since the original sound is all over the countryside, at the original higher pitch, the actual global broadcast, is a better measurement of its total energy.

If we had a BB and if the universe is expanding in an accelerated way, we; earth, are going faster than the anything original. The oldest things are the slowest things. The oldest things are the large sirens, broadcasting to the universe, and the earth is on the train hearing a red shifted version of this original sound. This should account for the lost energy. Use the big sirens are the base reference and use the energy they broadcasted. 
« Last Edit: 11/01/2016 13:37:48 by puppypower »
 

Offline Alohascope

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is Dark Energy as an alternative to Einstein incorrect?
« Reply #7 on: 15/01/2016 22:25:49 »
Isn't everything in the universe in motion?  Is there anything with mass at rest?
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is Dark Energy as an alternative to Einstein incorrect?
« Reply #8 on: 15/01/2016 22:46:28 »
Isn't everything in the universe in motion?  Is there anything with mass at rest?
Is there even anything without mass at rest?
 

Offline alysdexia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is Dark Energy as an alternative to Einstein incorrect?
« Reply #9 on: 17/01/2016 17:23:20 »
Rather profound, anyone familiar with this line of research? If so, your views please.

Article in Lab Equipment: http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2013/01/dark-energy-alternative-einstein-incorrect?et_cid=3034467&et_rid=54652410&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.laboratoryequipment.com%2fnews%2f2013%2f01%2fdark-energy-alternative-einstein-incorrect

222.04 Proton to Electron Mass Ratio Constraints on Cosmology and New Physics
Rodger I. Thompson1, 2
1Univ. of Arizona, 2Steward Observatory.

presented Tuesday at 221ST MEETING OF THE
AMERICAN ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
6-10 January 2013
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

Quote
The new physics model of dark energy that Thompson tested predicts that the fundamental constants will change by a small amount. Thompson identified a method of measuring the proton to electron mass ratio in the early universe several years ago

I don't know of any relation between these two properties.  Any inflection in the Hubble flow could be the crossing of negative matter towards us.

I always thought dark energy was an artifact of the assumption, there was no preferred reference in the universe.

only now?

Quote
To explain this, say you had two space ships, in deep space. One ship has mass M and the other has mass 2M, with relative velocity V. Without landmarks, the no preferred reference assumption allows us to assume either is moving; arbitrarily pick one as the reference. We will pick the one we are on since this makes it easier.

The assumption does not allow us to do a proper energy balance. If the first ship was in motion it will have kinetic energy 1/2mv2. If the second was in motion it will have kinetic energy 1/2(2M)v2=mv2. This is double the energy. If we assume the smaller ship is in motion, but the larger ship was the one in motion (the one that used its trusters for the velocity), we have lost energy from the universe.

Add the masses.

Quote
The problem this creates is the lost energy, due to the no preferred reference assumption, will show up eventually, but will not appear to be connected to anything visible. All the rest of the universe is consistent with our original reference assumptions; by default. We  infer dark energy by this extra energy affect, but we can't see anything in the lab.

effect
No, this is all a red[shift] herring.

Look up the diametric drive.

Quote
If we had a BB and if the universe is expanding in an accelerated way, we; earth, are going faster than the anything original.

faster -> swifter.  Nothing can go fast; fast is not going.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is Dark Energy as an alternative to Einstein incorrect?
« Reply #10 on: 18/01/2016 10:26:07 »
I always thought dark energy was an artifact of the assumption, there was no preferred reference in the universe. To explain this, say you had two space ships, in deep space. One ship has mass M and the other has mass 2M, with relative velocity V. Without landmarks, the no preferred reference assumption allows us to assume either is moving; arbitrarily pick one as the reference. We will pick the one we are on since this makes it easier.

The assumption does not allow us to do a proper energy balance. If the first ship was in motion it will have kinetic energy 1/2mv2. If the second was in motion it will have kinetic energy 1/2(2M)v2=mv2. This is double the energy. If we assume the smaller ship is in motion, but the larger ship was the one in motion (the one that used its trusters for the velocity), we have lost energy from the universe. The problem this creates is the lost energy, due to the no preferred reference assumption, will show up eventually, but will not appear to be connected to anything visible. All the rest of the universe is consistent with our original reference assumptions; by default. We  infer dark energy by this extra energy affect, but we can't see anything in the lab.

Energy conservation implies preferred references, as well as even a center of the universe, since arbitrary reference and no center can violate energy conservation, by adding or subtracting energy. No preferred reference works for velocity, and can tell use about the expansion, but it can create a problem with energy balances. 

The train moving past the station at velocity V, allows us to assume either the train is moving, or the entire station and all the landscape as far as the eye can see, is moving. If the train is moving we can look out the window of the train, and even see the sky moving; sky has kinetic energy. The need for dark energy implies we tend to pick a lowest energy reference, thereby needing 73% dark energy to account for the lost energy.

Solution to the problem;

A red shift implies higher energy photons appearing to become lower energy photons; relative to our reference. What this means is the energy can be stronger than what we see, since what we see has been modified by a Doppler shift.

As an analogy, say the train station has a siren at a certain pitch. This siren is huge and its sound can be heard for miles in all directions. The siren uses 10,000 watts of power. I am on a moving train and as I pass the station, I open my window. Since I am moving away, the pitch drops due to the Doppler shift; the sire appears red shifted to me. I assume the energy needed to move the speaker is X, based on this lower pitch. But in reality, since the original sound is all over the countryside, at the original higher pitch, the actual global broadcast, is a better measurement of its total energy.

If we had a BB and if the universe is expanding in an accelerated way, we; earth, are going faster than the anything original. The oldest things are the slowest things. The oldest things are the large sirens, broadcasting to the universe, and the earth is on the train hearing a red shifted version of this original sound. This should account for the lost energy. Use the big sirens are the base reference and use the energy they broadcasted.

I am not sure if what you are saying is valid but it is an interesting point.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is Dark Energy as an alternative to Einstein incorrect?
« Reply #10 on: 18/01/2016 10:26:07 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums