Groping in the Dark
"Observing Dark Energy," a symposium held at the Omni Tucson Golf Resort and Spa 18-20 March, 2004. After a long and dicey journey, the student enjoyed a suite with front door facing the swimming pool and back door facing golf courses. She also enjoyed the chance to present a paper ask her puzzling question about 4.507034%. She was deeply disappointed that there was no "dark energy" to observe. 4 years later they've still not made any progress.
Last week the Space Telescope Science Institute held a "Symposium on Dark Energy." Even the revered Ed Witten was at a loss to explain it or even point the way toward an explanation. The assembled big brains can not even agree on a strategy. The proposed Joint Dark Energy Mission must be chosen from at least three competing candidates. (This is "Joint?") The hypothesis of repulsive energy leads to a divergence of solutions. A tiny industry has grown up around "dark energy" theories. Even if JDEM is launched it will not return a single wave or particle of DE, just an "equation of state." An unsuccessful idea would keep many theorists busy for decades with their non-success.
The May 10 issue of NEW SCIENTIST spotlights the work of astrophysicists Jean-Phillipe Uzan, Chris Clarkson and George Ellis. Their proposal would look at high-redshift quasars in different parts of the sky to see if expansion is uniform. Some theorists like David Wiltshire have suggested that different regions of the Universe expand at different rates. NEW SCIENTIST continues:
"If this is true, the case for dark energy would start to look shaky. Dark energy is thought to be accelerating the expansion of the universe. But if expansion rates differ over areas of space rather than time, it would scupper dark energy models that assume acceleration is uniform."
Ruth Durrer of the University of Geneva in Switzerland likes the idea. "It could have a profound effect on the interpretation of the apparent acceleration," Durrer says. "It could help us get rid of dark energy."
You go, girl! A lot of smart people are uncomfortable with DE, and they are coming out of the woodwork. If the model is not questioned, science could run around in epicycles for decades. JDEM is a nice idea, but even with it there will be no solution involving "dark energy."
GM = tc^3, a child could figure it out.
Labels: dark energy
posted by L. Riofrio at 8:03 AM
14 Comments:
Latest on faint young sun problem. Still a problem!
Cool! Reminds me of a conference I went to on the Gold Coast in 2004, where the organisers gave the best rooms to the students.
HI carl. Yes, that was also in New Scientist, perhaps I should have mentioned it.
For kea: Queensland is one of my favourite places, a true Surfers Paradise! The climate is very similiar to Hawaii.
A child could figure it out? Seems to me that there have ben around 100 billion children throughout history before you came along, Louise. ;)
You really need a slam-dunk test of your theory. Perhaps something that postulates that the speed of light is constant, and then falsifying the postulate.
This comment has been removed by the author.
So how is $M$ defined in your equation - presumable $M = \rho V$? What is the volum $V$?
I wonder if you would happen to know about the Dynamic Universe model by Tuomo Suntola. Somehow your VSL theory reminds me about the DU model, even though I can not claim to really understand either.
Thank you, Ed. The job now is getting word out to the 6 billion alive today. Neither Kea nor I get the kind of press that Ed Witten gets.
The many points of supernova data, lunar laser ranging and the "Faint Young Sun" all indicate not only that c is changing but that it changes in the amounts GM=tc^3 predicts.
For yy: Volume of a 3-sphere is 2\pi^2 R^3. Note again that initial density and stable density (after matter formation) are different by 4.507034%, exactly the measured percentage of baryons.
Thanks for that Louise. There's a problem then. After matter formation, your formula gives a mass
$M = \rho V = 2\pi^2 \rho R^3(t)$
but you also stated in your article that $\rho = (6\pi G t^2)^{-1}$ and $R(t) = (GM)^{1/3} t^{2/3}$. Taking the cube of $R(t)$ and solving for $M$,
$M = R^3(t) (G t^2)^{-1}$
Substituting $(G t^2)^{-1} = 6\pi\rho$ gives
$M = 6\pi G \rho R^3(t)$,
a clear contradiction with the other formula for calculating $M$. This has nothing to do with the matter formation, since the formulae for $R$, $V$, $\rho$ and $GM = tc^3$ hold at late times, after the matter formation is all over.
Different by 4.507034%, as stated in the post and previous comment. The propoprtion of baryonic matter can not be predicted by any other Theory.
Sorry, but no. This is not a prediction of anything, it's just a flat-out mathematical inconsistency.
That's all I have to say. I wish you the best of luck with your career, but I don't think this theory is correct.
The root fundamental is to answer the question what constrains the speed of light. Put another way, what is the minimum amount of information needed to predict the speed of light, ex ante, much as one can predict the velocity of a ball rolling down an incline given a finite set of information?
If the speed of light is slowing down one asks why?
If the speed of light is slowing down then this calls into question the validity of the value of every other variable in your equation. You can't have the value of a constant change without considering whether the value of other constants would also change.
I actual enjoy your blog. It is one of the better one's on the Web.
Snapping out,
d
Yoyo, so are you willing to make a bet on the next digit? We could do with some funding.
Great pool! It remember me movies as scarface and others.
Post a Comment
<< Home