Dark Energy, Schmark Energy

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. 

 

Inflationary Quantum Hot Big Bang

So many people believe the Hot Big Bang hypothesis (HBB) because there is an overwhelming amount of incontestable evidence in its favor. There will be Nobel Prizes for some investigators who were most responsible for its discovery and proof.

Those who disbelieve and diss the work that has already lead to its acceptance by the vast majority of physical scientists continually demonstrate, they truly prove well beyond any reasonable doubt, nothing more than their own ignorance!

There are at least three utterly independent lines of logic that support the Hot Big Bang hypothesis of cosmogenesis. The first is measurements of cosmic distances by redshifts, by relativistic redshifts, no less, by the way. The second is measurement of cosmological distances by means of luminosity.

If the speed of light is not constant, the only plausible objection to the redshift conclusion put forth so far, then the luminosity data acts to back the same argument. If luminosity somehow gets disqualified, the redshifts take up the burden. One has to debunk BOTH simultaneously to have a hope of knocking the HBB off its pedestal.

But wait! There is the data from at least three separate probes of the cosmic microwave background. This huge data set also suppports the HBB hypothesis. Furthermore, the very existence of the cosmic microwave background is near perfect proof of the HBB hypothesis all by itself!

There is not the chance of a snow storm in Hades to cross-off all three lines of reasoning without self-contradiction.

Specially designed spectrometers are used to measure redshifts. They may use electronics or photographic film and involve the use of prisms or diffraction gratings. They depend on measurements of wavelength.

But, on the other hand, light intensity for photometric luminosity measurements can be done with a simple photocell or it may use photographic film or light sensitive transistor sensors. The latter are arrays of a particular kind of light sensitive Charge Coupled transistor logic gate assembled as a single Device on a small silicon crystal wafer or "chip" - CCDs. The relative brightness of identifiably defined bright stars or galaxies is used to calibrate the method. It is completely independent of wavelength.

These three approaches each have interferences and weaknesses that have to be accounted for. But, they result in measurements that have been subjected to mathematical, rigorous statistical error analysis which tells the investigator how good her data is and how reliable her conclusions from it may be. This depends on an accurate assessment of where there may be certain kinds of error or inaccuracy in the data. Taken one step at a time, however, this is not so very difficult to do.

In the physical sciences, measurements that are within 95% confidence limits are the norm. This means that all subsequent measurements done in the same way will be likely to give results that deviate very far from the average only 5% of the time. Confidence limits of 98% are common.

But outright interferences are another matter. These much degrade the reliability of many astrophysical measurements. But, investigators are certain that they have identified all potential killer interferences. It would be the near impossible task of detractors to somehow reinstate them for all three lines of argument. This too must be done without self-contradiction.

But, of course, they do not do this. Instead, they rely on specious and hairbrained substitute hypotheses of their own. They prove nothing at all except the naysayers' total ignorance of the true nature and proper practical application of the scientific method.

Either kind of distance measurement results in descriptions of both nearby and very distant galaxies as receding from one another at a rather constant rate. Edwin Hubble was the first to reason that one may extrapolate from this apparently constant recession rate, called H naught or H subscript zero, to earlier times when the galaxies must have been much closer together.

But, Fred Hoyle hypothesized that this could be happening in a universe that constantly renews itself by the steady formation of new stars and galaxies through quantum fluctuations that produce new hydrogen atoms. This is called the Steady State Hypothesis (SSH).

The only real alternative, so far, to the SSH, is the HBB. This hypothesizes that by extrapolating backward in time far enough, the galaxies would have had to spring from an apparently infinitely dense, infinitely hot, single point, a singularity. We cannot comprehend what this means so, philosophically it is undesirable.

The sudden appearance of the universe as a single, ultradense point of some kind of quantum hybrid between matter and light (which would have had to be more like light) resulted in what is the misnomer of the "Hot Big Bang". This hypothetical HBB is NOT an explosion. It is the appearance of a bubble of matter/energy in a pure vacuum of spacetime somewhat similar to the phase change that occurs when water boils to form bubbles of steam.

It is quite well established that a "pure" vacuum is anything but empty. Quantum mechanics is the best, most fully validated principle or set of principles in all of science. Experiments are going on all the time in hundreds of laboratories all around the world that have yet to find any discrepancy. We are constantly learning new things about it, however.

Because of the spectacular success of quantum mechanics, it is quite plausible that the universe resulted from a quantum fluctuation in an otherwise empty vacuum of spacetime. This notion has further implications too. For instance, formation of a long lived virtual particle means production by a high energy state vacuum called a "false vacuum". Virtual particles are ordinarily produced in particle/antiparticle pairs that self-annihilate almost immediately. The main way that virtual particles produce real particles that last a substantially long time is by means of their location very very near the event horizon of a black hole. This implies that the observable universe may be part of a much larger polydimensional surface of an even larger black hole that is undergoing expansion.

The potential observation of some sort of direct evidence for this could help solve the problem of missing mass without invoking dark energy. The data seem to imply that the total mass inventory of the full universe may be many times the experimentally verified mass inventory for the observable universe.

By the way, Fred Hoyle's SSH has been shown to be false. For one thing, the power law or energy distribution that the CMB would have to follow would be all wrong.

There is a much higher probability that a "particle" or matter/energy bubble will appear by quantum fluctuation in a very very high energy state than at a lower one by mere statistical chance. So, it is plausible that the universe began in such an extremely energetic condition that it enclosed the stupendous quantity of matter/energy that we see today.

Quantum particles are often characterizable as single points whose exact location cannot be well known. Still, they are describable as points. Statistically, this is not a problem. But, we have only one universe to study. It is mathematically incorrect to apply probabilistic principles to individual events. So, we have a subtle philosophical problem here.

Nonetheless, I think that the HBB has a lot going for it and Alan Guth has solved the most serious objections to the idea with his inflationary universe scenario. Philosophically, the inflationary HBB is now the most tenable scenario of cosmogenesis.

The universe did not have to arise from an infinitely dense and energetic origin, only from an exceedingly high and intense one. There is no objection from a religious perspective either.

Cosmogony and cosmogenesis cannot be discussed adequately and our brothers' question cannot be answered fully unless we include a word about philosophy and the religious perspective on this question. Only an intolerant atheist would disagree.

This thread cannot and should not be restricted to atheists!

God said (it was written into the nature of spacetime) "Let there be light!". And there was light. Or a light-like "stuff" that begat the whole rest of creation. It is written that God spoke. His Word was His Son and vice versa, as St. John declared. We share in the nature of the Son of God, therefore in the nature of God Himself.

We are Responsible, as God is Responsible for the existence of spacetime and for the existence of existence itself. Some philosophical concepts can indeed be referred to themselves, after all.

This is the real metaphorical significance of Jesus' whole message! You can indeed believe in theistic evolution of both life and the universe itself. Christians have nothing to fear from modern science as long as they keep an open mind.

http://neocosmology.blogspot.com/

http://neochristianity.blogspot.com/

http://hometown.aol.com/nuchristianrabbi/

http://www.luckyboyproductions.org/ Available May, 2007.

I hope that it may be judged that this comment has enough "redeeming social and intellectual importance" that these citations to my websites may be forgiven. They are not advertisements. I do not sell anything.

Gary Kent

The Skeptical Cosmologist

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

A few prominent astrophysicists and cosmologists have hijacked the process of the scientific method by their skillful use of the media. Technologically illiterate journalists are their accomplices. There is no excuse for the current mad rush to a messy consensus and the cockeyed conclusion that some weird stuff they call dark energy makes up the bulk of the universe. Dark energy is truly miraculous stuff and qualifies as a supernatural explanation of deep space observations!

Bunk!

Those with the ability must recalculate the main assumption that underlies the dark energy conclusion. This conclusion is based on the interpretation of the real distances to Type 1A supernovae. They are interpreted to be farther away than their redshifts would indicate. An estimate of the most serious interference to this interpretation, that there may be much more dust in the early universe than was thought, must be in error.

The currently calculated assumption is that there is not enough extra dust to cause the effect. 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 some prominent astrophysicists can think of that might explain this is this unscientific postulate of dark energy. All subsequent observational interpretations are biased to favor the assumption of dark energy to begin with, so it is not surprising that they tend to prove it.

There has been no effort to go back and recalculate the relative prevalence of "metals" in the earliest phases of the universe's development. If mathematical assumptions are changed sufficiently, the concentration of heavy nuclei could easily rise to the point that more dust formed than was thought. Presto! There is much more dust present to dim the images and the supernovae in question are as close by as their redshifts indicate.

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

These so-called scientists are so gullible that I think they should not be allowed to refer to themselves as having a Ph.D. They have not done their professional homework. They neglect easy solutions in favor of a complex and difficult ad hoc theorem that raises more questions than it solves!

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

There is no dark energy.