Dark energy is based on a dubious assumption.

[Michael]

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html

Taken at face values, the luminosity evolution of SN is significant enough to question the very existence of dark energy. When the luminosity evolution of SN is properly taken into account, the team found that the evidence for the existence of dark energy simply goes away (see Figure 1).

Commenting on the result, Prof. Young-Wook Lee (Yonsei Univ., Seoul), who led the project said, "Quoting Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I am not sure we have such extraordinary evidence for dark energy. Our result illustrates that dark energy from SN cosmology, which led to the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, might be an artifact of a fragile and false assumption."

Ooops?

 

[Tanj]

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html



Ooops?

No Michael, not ooops, well...at least not to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of how science actually works, those of us who don't think all the experiments on this subject were done 100 years ago in some rando's lab and all future results have to be shoe horned into that outdated, erroneous world view.

 

[SkyWriting]

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html
Ooops?

You can expect when scientists get excited about something
that it's because it messes up their assumptions about things
that they shouldn't have been assuming in the first place.

So yes. They shouldn't have invented "dark energy" at all
and should have called it "unexplained results".....which is
what I always have assumed it was. And I still do.

But scientists HATE to claim that anything is unexplained
or unknown. They have unknown-a-phobia.

 

[Michael]

No Michael, not ooops, well...at least not to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of how science actually works, those of us who don't think all the experiments on this subject were done 100 years ago in some rando's lab and all future results have to be shoe horned into that outdated, erroneous world view.

I'll take a century old explanation that works in a lab over pure wild speculation any day of the week. Dark energy is just another great example of the fact that one has to make a ton of "assumptions" to even support such an otherwise random and wild claim about new forms of invisible matter and energy controlling the physical universe.

FYI a *ton* of relative "new" experiments on dark matter were done at LHC, PandaX, Xenon-1T, etc, and it failed every single one of those new "tests". So much for trying to shoehorn everything to fit into the LCDM model.

 

[Michael]

You can expect when scientists get excited about something
that it's because it messes up their assumptions about things
that they shouldn't have been assuming in the first place.

So yes. They shouldn't have invented "dark energy" at all
and should have called it "unexplained results".....which is
what I always have assumed it was. And I still do.

But scientists HATE to claim that anything is unexplained
or unknown. They have unknown-a-phobia.

That's probably true.

 

[Aussie Pete]

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html



Ooops?

Don't you know that science is infallible and only provable and observable facts are real science? Only dumb Christians believe things that they can't see and can't prove exist. Like dark energy and dark matter. Ooops again.

 

[SkyWriting]

No Michael, not ooops, well...at least not to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of how science actually works,...

 

[Michael]

Don't you know that science is infallible and only provable and observable facts are real science? Only dumb Christians believe things that they can't see and can't prove exist. Like dark energy and dark matter. Ooops again.

Ya, it's pretty amusing to hear Krauss and/or Tyson complain about religion while they're promoting numerous "invisible" things of their own. Irony overload.

 

[Michael]

FYI, here's an Arxiv link to the actual paper:

Early-type Host Galaxies of Type Ia Supernovae. II. Evidence for...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html

Ooops?

It's interesting, but far from conclusive. They claim to be able to account for a 'significant fraction' of the Hubble residual used in the discovery and inference of dark energy.

As they say in the paper, "...further observations ... are definitely required".

Any further corroboration of this result will need to be reconciled with the other indicators of accelerated expansion, such as the apparent age of the universe, baryon acoustic oscillations, the number density of galaxy clusters, etc.

 

[Michael]

It's interesting, but far from conclusive. They claim to be able to account for a 'significant fraction' of the Hubble residual used in the discovery and inference of dark energy.

As they say in the paper, "...further observations ... are definitely required".

Any further corroboration of this result will need to be reconciled with the other indicators of accelerated expansion, such as the apparent age of the universe, baryon acoustic oscillations, the number density of galaxy clusters, etc.

The whole concept of expansion "assumes" that space expansion is the sole cause of cosmological redshift which is actually a lot more "questionable" of an assumption. The point is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there's no such thing to support dark energy, or exotic forms of matter and they make up over 95 percent of the LCDM model.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The whole concept of expansion "assumes" that space expansion is the sole cause of cosmological redshift which is actually a lot more "questionable" of an assumption. The point is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there's no such thing to support dark energy, or exotic forms of matter and they make up over 95 percent of the LCDM model.

I'm just giving the current scientific situation as I understand it. From that perspective, it's your claims that are extraordinary and for which there is no extraordinary evidence ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Such is life.

 

[Michael]

I'm just giving the current scientific situation as I understand it. From that perspective, it's your claims that are extraordinary and for which there is no extraordinary evidence ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Such is life.

I suppose that translates to: "The BB is right by default, so you're wrong."

The claim that "dark energy" exists and makes up 70 percent of the universe is the extraordinary claim, not the "lack of belief" in it's existence. There are *plenty* of *empirically demonstrated* (ordinary) causes of photon redshift that have nothing to do with exotic forms of matter or energy.

 

[sjastro]

It's interesting, but far from conclusive. They claim to be able to account for a 'significant fraction' of the Hubble residual used in the discovery and inference of dark energy.

As they say in the paper, "...further observations ... are definitely required".

Any further corroboration of this result will need to be reconciled with the other indicators of accelerated expansion, such as the apparent age of the universe, baryon acoustic oscillations, the number density of galaxy clusters, etc.

The paper was in trouble even before it was published from a most unlikely source.
Whereas the luminosity evolution forms the basis to question the existence of dark energy, the alternative argument from the source suggests by factoring in the peculiar velocities of galaxies when measuring the light curves of type 1A supernovae, does away with the need of dark energy.
Even though both papers do not contradict each other they cannot both be right otherwise the data is over corrected which leads to a Universe that is most likely rapidly decelerating.
Both papers do agree however the Universe is still expanding but not accelerating.

This leads to the point the OP is under the mistaken impression as usual of thinking that problems with LCDM strengthen the case for a static Universe.

For example from the OP's link.

In a static Universe the Hubble residual is zero as there is no expansion in the time frame it takes for a photon to reach the observer.
This would result in the data clustering around the dotted horizontal line at 0.0.
So assuming the data is correct rather than strengthening the case of a static Universe it contradicts it.

 

[Michael]

The paper was in trouble even before it was published from a most unlikely source.
Whereas the luminosity evolution forms the basis to question the existence of dark energy, the alternative argument from the source suggests by factoring in the peculiar velocities of galaxies when measuring the light curves of type 1A supernovae, does away with the need of dark energy.
Even though both papers do not contradict each other they cannot both be right otherwise the data is over corrected which leads to a Universe that is most likely rapidly decelerating.
Both papers do agree however the Universe is still expanding but not accelerating.

This leads to the point the OP is under the mistaken impression as usual of thinking that problems with LCDM strengthen the case for a static Universe.

For example from the OP's link.

In a static Universe the Hubble residual is zero as there is no expansion in the time frame it takes for a photon to reach the observer.
This would result in the data clustering around the dotted horizontal line at 0.0.
So assuming the data is correct rather than strengthening the case of a static Universe it contradicts it.

I haven't read both papers yet, but assuming that you're correct about their findings not contradicting one another, it is technically possible that they both could be true.

Both papers only further demonstrate the inherent weakness of the dark energy argument. Depending on how one chooses to subjectively interpret the SN1A data, not only is it possible that the universe isn't accelerating at all, but it's technically possible that it's even decelerating.

It's also worth noting that both papers apparently assume that expansion is the underlying cause of redshift, yet neither of them finds evidence of acceleration, so even a subjective interpretation of redshift as being caused by expansion doesn't automatically result in the need for dark energy.

So much for any claim that there's "objective" evidence of dark energy. The whole metaphysical concept is built on quicksand, and it's 70 percent of the whole LCDM model!

When was the last time the LCDM model actually passed a real "test"?

 

[Michael]

To me at least, this a major problem for the LCDM cosmology model. Both of these recent SN1A studies seem to demonstrate that it's possible to interpret the SN1A data in a way that does *not* require the existence of exotic forms of "dark energy".

Now of course the Nobel Prizes have already been awarded for the "discovery" of dark energy, and all the cosmology videos for the last two decades have claimed to have "discovered" dark energy based on SN1A data, but the bottom line is that the most recent SN1A studies simply don't support any such claim!

Dark energy makes up 70 percent of LCDM model and yet the primary set of data used to support the dark energy claim just went up in smoke in *two different ways*! Now what?

I suspect that the brooms will now come out again, and yet *more* damning evidence against the LCDM model will simply be swept under the rug and astronomers will just pretend it doesn't matter.

The LCDM model is the modern day equivalent of Ptolemy. Ever more complicated models are put forth, simply to avoid embracing empirical physical alternatives and allowing the LCDM model to die a natural scientific death.

I can't even think of a recent "test" the the LCDM model has actually "passed". Rather, it's been one major failed test after another after another. Exotic dark matter? Billions spent over the last two decades looking for it and nothing has been found. Dark energy? It's based on scientific quicksand, not to mention the fact that it violates the conservation laws of physics.

 

[sjastro]

I haven't read both papers yet, but assuming that you're correct about their findings not contradicting one another, it is technically possible that they both could be true.

They cannot both be true.
In fact on further reading of the Colin et al. paper, the authors conclude the observer is no longer a Copernican observer.
In your link the Copernican principle is not affected.

Both papers only further demonstrate the inherent weakness of the dark energy argument. Depending on how one chooses to subjectively interpret the SN1A data, not only is it possible that the universe isn't accelerating at all, but it's technically possible that it's even decelerating.

On the contrary now that the two papers are found to contradict each other it weakens the argument there is no dark energy.

It's also worth noting that both papers apparently assume that expansion is the underlying cause of redshift, yet neither of them finds evidence of acceleration, so even a subjective interpretation of redshift as being caused by expansion doesn't automatically result in the need for dark energy.

You are stating the obvious; before dark energy was introduced into the model the BBT was still a metric expanding model where expansion was occurring but slowly decelerating.

So much for any claim that there's "objective" evidence of dark energy. The whole metaphysical concept is built on quicksand, and it's 70 percent of the whole LCDM model!

What's the objective evidence for the cause of gravity?
Like dark energy we see its effects yet using your own standards no one has "reproduced" the cause of gravity in the lab such as detecting gravitons.
By your own logic gravity must also be a metaphysical concept.

When was the last time the LCDM model actually passed a real "test"?

From 2018.
The measured deuterium hydrogen ratios in the early universe using Lyman-alpha forest spectra when the light of distant quasars pass through hydrogen gas is spectacularly close to the LCDM predictions.

Is this good enough for you?

How does a static universe with redshift caused by scattering compare?
This is yet another example of a test which clearly indicates the Universe cannot be an infinitely old static Universe as deuterium should be absent it is used up in the production of helium nuclei.
In fact due to increasing entropy it is difficult to explain how an infinitely old static Universe can exist with stars, gas and galaxies in the first place.
Then there is the problem a static universe actually requires a form of "metaphysical" dark energy to prevent it collapsing under gravity.

The presence of Thomson scattered photons in astrophysical and laboratory plasma kills the idea that redshift is caused by scattering stone dead.
Thomson scattering tells you that there is no guarantee a photon particularly a low energy photon, is going to lose energy when scattered.

Given you are very much aware of the criticisms of your model from past exchanges, your decision to ignore the criticisms and continue to regurgitate the same material over and over again indicates you are in self denial.

 

[Michael]

Even though both papers do not contradict each other...................

They cannot both be true.
In fact on further reading of the Colin et al. paper, the authors conclude the observer is no longer a Copernican observer.
In your link the Copernican principle is not affected.

Um, the first paper that I cited doesn't even mention the Copernican principle. So how do you figure that results in any particular contradiction?

On the contrary now that the two papers are found to contradict each other it weakens the argument there is no dark energy.

Wait a minute! You first said that they *do not* contradict each other, and now you're claiming that they do. Which is it? What does the Copernican principle have to do with anything related to the paper that I cited?

What's the objective evidence for the cause of gravity?

Well, for starters, the existence of mass consistently results in gravity. Whether it's related to a curvature of spacetime or something else, it's definitely "caused" by mass.

Like dark energy we see its effects yet using your own standards no one has "reproduced" the cause of gravity in the lab such as detecting gravitons.

GR theory doesn't require the existence of gravitons to begin with.

By your own logic gravity must also be a metaphysical concept.

No, by my own logic only a claim about gravity which requires the existence of gravitons would be a "metaphysical" concept.

From 2018.
The measured deuterium hydrogen ratios in the early universe using Lyman-alpha forest spectra when the light of distant quasars pass through hydrogen gas is spectacularly close to the LCDM predictions.

Meh. The sun emits (and presumably all suns emit) deuterium in solar wind.

The Abundance of Deuterium and He3 in the Solar Wind

How does a static universe with redshift caused by scattering compare?

Pretty well in most "tired light" models.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...tory-a_Discussion_in_Terms_of_New_Tired_Light

Then there is the problem a static universe actually requires a form of "metaphysical" dark energy to prevent it collapsing under gravity.

Um, no. The non-zero constant that Einstein introduced to explain a static universe could be caused by anything, including ordinary EM fields. It need not be composed of a new form of exotic energy.

The presence of Thomson scattered photons in astrophysical and laboratory plasma kills the idea that redshift is caused by scattering stone dead.

No, it simply demonstrates that Thomson scattering can't be the *whole* cause of cosmological redshift. Since I never suggested such a thing, it's no skin off my nose.

Given you are very much aware of the criticisms of your model from past exchanges, your decision to ignore the criticisms and continue to regurgitate the same material over and over again indicates you are in self denial.

Actually your comments simply demonstrate that you're simply misrepresenting my beliefs or don't understand them well.

 

[Michael]

FYI, Sabine Hossenfelder has a pretty good video explaining the paper that sjastro referred to.

It's actually a very good explanation of the paper's findings, and she also explains the reason why the original paper and claim about the existence of dark energy is blown out of the water by a (much) larger data set.

 

[Michael]

By the way, Sabine has a relatively new video out that discusses the state of affairs in physics in 2020. In the video she (briefly) explains the basics of the second dark energy paper (the one I posted initially), as well as discussing the state of low energy SUSY theory (naturalness) and LIGO. It's short and to the point.