**Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof**

**DARK ENERGY, SCHMARK ENERGY**

There
is no excuse for the current mad rush to a messy consensus and the cockeyed
conclusion that some weird stuff some call dark energy makes up the bulk of the
universe. Dark energy is truly miraculous and qualifies as a supernatural
explanation of deep space observations!

Since
there is no experiment that could confirm or deny the existence of dark energy,
it cannot be considered as a contender. Extraordinary proof is out of the
question but, it is among the most extraordinary claims ever made. Its
disqualification as a viable hypothesis under the rubric of the Scientific
Method means that we must start from scratch.

Those
with the ability must recalculate the main assumption that underlies the dark
energy hypothesis. Let the theoretical chips tumble where they may and the
intellectual trees drop where they will.

This
dark energy hypothesis is designed to explain just one observation that is
currently looked upon from the so called "weird science" perspective.
This particular peek at reality is from a point of view that is based on just
one interpretation of the real distances to type 1a supernovae. They are now
interpreted to be farther away than their redshifts would indicate. But, an
estimate of the most serious interference to this interpretation, that there
may be much more or much less "grey" dust in the early universe than
was initially thought, must be in error.

This
currently calculated observational result and theoretic premise is that there
was not enough extra dust to cause the redshift effect. But, the effect itself is a result of an
interpretation that may itself also be wrong.

This
apparent "phenomenon" is that since these exceedingly distant
supernovae are farther away than the distances indicated by their redshifts,
then the universe "must" have begun expanding at an accelerating rate
in recent epochs. The only thing that we seem able to think of that might
explain this strange interpretation is this unscientific postulate of dark
energy.

For
various reasons, all subsequent observational interpretations may well have
been biased to favor the assumption of dark energy to begin with, so it may not
be too surprising that they do indeed tend to prove it.

There
has been no effort to go back and reinterpret "grey dust"
observations nor to recalculate the relative theoretic prevalence of
"metals" in the earliest phases of the universe's development. If
mathematical assumptions are changed sufficiently, the concentration of heavier
nuclei could easily rise to the point that more dust formed than is now
thought. Presto! There was much more dust present to dim the images and the
supernovae in question are as nearby as their redshifts indicate. The manner in
which the assumptions must be jiggered may well lead to a bigger paradigm
shift, a more profound revolution, than dark energy itself. If weird science is
for what governments will pay, a bonanza is waiting to be won.

Furthermore,
gravitational redshifts have been totally neglected. Relativistic redshift is
distinct and is applied to the data. But, the young universe was very much more
dense and its much more intense gravitational field would have influenced any
light traveling on a trajectory that would tend to have it escape - that would
have it end up in our eyes.

Why
there is not much more skepticism about the contradiction between luminosity
distances and redshift distances in the first place completely escapes me!

Still,
some critics of dark energy do not seem to have a clue. For instance, some
confuse Doppler redshifts with relativistic redshifts. It makes a difference!

Regarding
those extremely distant type 1a supernova results, there is indeed much more to
Relativity than relativistic redshifts. The gravitational field in the early
universe must have been VERY much greater than it is now. So an additional
Einsteinian gravitational redshift should be added to all light traveling on an
"outward" or escape trajectory, that is, toward our eyes in space and
time. But this is not done. If this correction was carefully applied, then the
redshift data would be translated to the same coordinates as the dim supernova
results and the discrepancy would disappear.

Regardless,
dark energy is not necessary. How then do we account for a very nearly flat
universe if dark energy does not add to the total mass/energy inventory?

Easy.

The
observable universe would be situated within a polydimensional surface or
"brane" of an extraordinarily large black hole or something much like
a black hole that may be in motion. Its total dimensionality could well be
significantly higher than superstring/M-theory implies. There may be evidence
of 11 dimensions in our universe because our very existence means that this,
our cosmos, resamples the superdimensional volume of the interior of this
theoretically invisible "Dark Pit" or "Dim Seed".

Clearly,
it would not be not black. Still, no matter falls out of its event horizon, the
surface where events occur, where things happen. No matter disappears into it,
so, it does not generate a whole spectrum of radiation on the way in. The Dark
Pit would be completely beneath visibility. But, we may deduce its presence
and, perhaps, devise tests for the hypothesis of its existence.

If
we cannot do this, then it is a nonstarter and the idea must be rejected, in
strictest accordance with the scientific method.

The
mass of the Dim Seed or Dark Pit would be many times the total estimated mass
of the observable universe, whatever may be required to make up for the total
energy/mass deficit. The curvature of its surface would be very nearly flat, as
theory and observation require, but not exactly flat. The tiniest variations
from flatness, though they may show up within the error tolerances of
measurements, could be real, in other words.

In
order to make its surface flat enough without exceeding the mass limit implied
by the matter/energy shortfall, it would be spinning very fast. Residual
anisotropy that has in fact been discovered that is not accounted for by our
laboratorys' proper motion through the cosmos could be due to this rotation.
This means that our universe would be spinning too, of course, and not
necessarily at the very same rate or direction. By analogy, the spin rates of
the sun are nonuniform. Precise measurements of the residual cosmic anisotropy
(RCA) could nail down the probable spin rates. This idea may also have
implications pointing to the real nature of mass and of matter itself.

There
may not have been a Big Bang either, this may imply. If this Dark Seed's
dimensionality could include several orthogonal dimensions of time, its shape
might still be like a flattened sphere or nearly flat pancake, but what is
regarded as expansion of our universe, even acceleration of expansion, may just
be due to its turbulent rotation in time. With a correct more detailed model,
the properties of the Cosmic Microwave Background might be accurately
predicted. Then the cyclic model of cosmogony may still make more sense.

The
idea of multiple dimensions in time is not such an outlandish proposal. All
spatial dimensions may just as well be described as time dimensions because of
the limit on the speed of light. The word "spacetime" means
equivalence between space and time just as surely as E=mc^2 means equivalence
between matter and energy. In certain cases like this, it may be more
enlightening to think of certain dimensions in terms of a time reference
instead of a distance or length definition.

The
Wiz's Dark "Horse Matter" is another even deeper and weightier mass
of a different kind (and of a different color, of course). We all seem to like
Alan Guth's inflationary universe scenario but we also seem to be unwilling to
carry the implication of his ideas to their logical end. He postulates that the
universe began as a quantum virtual particle that sprang into existence in an
extremely high energy state largely because the whole field of spacetime was
excited. It was a "false vacuum".
This quantum spacetime just naturally existed in such a very high energy
excited state because, statistically, this is the most probable initial
condition.

We
cannot ignore the statistical nature of quantum mechanics here either.
Analytically, not only must there be an antiparticle "out there"
somewhere, the particle/antiparticle pair must generate interference particles,
+/- and -/+. Statistically, they must be just as real as terra firma itself.
For, as we all know, repeated observation, even of the surface of the Earth,
gives only a statistical result. I can interpret what I see only because I have
seen images like it several times before. I can regard a blue streak in the
image as a river only because I have seen rivers up close and have even swum in
them. If I compare my preceptions with those reported by others, the picture
gains another layer of statistical importance. We gain a consenus only
statistically.

Furthermore,
since we imply by this line of thinking that there is a reality outside this
universe, there must be particles naught- and naught+, -naught and +naught, representing the zeroth,
or "nonexistent" states. Such entities may be nonexistent only from
the perspective of a certain aspect of the meta-cosmos of which ours may be
merely a subuniverse.

They
would all have mass. They should still be "close" enough for their
gravitational influence to be felt within our particular version of this
ultraverse. If a count is made of the possible quantum states that this
scenario implies, the inferred energy/mass inventory, as a percentage, comes
out just right.

All
this can be easily expressed algebraically. I have a discourse on the quantum
operator algebra of this concept that shows that it is rigorously logical. I
will furnish a copy on request.

Or
else - to say the same thing, actually - the Many Worlds "multiverse"
hypothesis may be true. But the number of interference and mixed existence
states may be much larger than what I may imply above. The gravitational
influence of Many Worlds would be felt within galaxies that rotate faster than
we think they should. Either of these two approaches lead to the conclusion
that we observe only a small fraction of the matter that is really there. That
is, unless we do careful rotation rate studies on as many galaxies as we can.

I
am sure this has all been thought of before, but it bears repeating, especially
because it solves problems that we never anticipated that it would. For
instance, it answers the question of why there is not any antimatter in our
universe. Well, there is, except that all we can see of one is its contribution
to gravitational effects on the rotation rates of most spiral galaxies.

And,
it gives us a solid mechanism to explain those amazing galactic rotation rate
profiles explicit in observations. These fit the concise mathematical treatment
of the MOND effect (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics). Moreover, this mechanism does
the job while preserving relativity.

If
deep space observations constitute quantum statistical effects, such
observations must include an aspect of Heisenberg uncertainty. The unseen
Multi-Quantum or Many Worlds phantom galaxies would not all rotate on the same
axis nor in exactly the same positions nor orientations. Surely, a simple,
straightforward statistical distribution of directions, rates and orientations
could be found that precisley duplicates the MOND phenomenon. A distribution
of such distributions would enable
hypotheses that explain just exactly why some galaxies fail to show the effect.
So, the exceptions would prove the rule, perhaps.

Remember,
this discussion refers to both dark energy and dark matter. Reference is made
to an hypothetical Dark Pit and to a quantum multiverse. They must be aspects of the same entity. But,
I have finally run out of words to describe it! Surely, if these ideas have any
merit, superstring theory will have something to say about it. Can superstring
theory handle a mere brane with 11 dimensions? Is this theory scalable? Am I
talking about the inneffable M-theory?

Returning
to reality, why neglect easy solutions like this in favor of complex and
difficult ad hoc postulates that raise more questions than they solve?

In
future posts I will explore this and present my most favored model for the
inflationary expansion of the universe. It shows how the data should properly
be interpreted.

The
main thing, though, is that dark energy is unnecessary.

## No comments:

Post a Comment