Dark Energy Gets Weirder: Mysterious Force May Vary Over Time
For the second time in as many decades, the LCDM interpretation of photon redshift as being related to (caused by) expansion has failed a second major test of that concept. The original big bang model predicted that the universe should be slowing down and *decelerating* over time due to gravity.
SN1A studies however demonstrated that prediction was incorrect if in fact photon redshift is related to expansion rather than inelastic scattering/tired light as Hubble himself suggested and preferred as an explanation for redshift.
To 'fix" the failed prediction of the expansion interpretation of redshift, astronomers made a dubious and problematic choice to violate the conservation of energy laws by adding a new hypothetical form of energy called "dark energy" to their model. Dark energy violates the conservation of energy laws of physics by remaining at a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume, thereby constantly adding new energy to the overall system.
Unfortunately however, it turns out that distant quasars cannot be explained by "dark energy" remaining at a constant density throughout the expansion process. Instead, dark energy would actually have to *increase* in density over multiple exponential increases in volume to "fix" their second major failed prediction in just the last two decades.
Keep in mind that Edwin Hubble did *not* prefer the expansion interpretation of redshift. Instead he preferred a static universe and a "tired light"/inelastic scattering explanation for photon redshift of distant objects in space. He simply assumed that photons transferred some of their momentum to the medium of spacetime.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402608000089
Sci-Hub | Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas. Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics, 120(10), 473–478 | 10.1016/j.ijleo.2007.12.004
Chen has already demonstrated an empirical cause/effect link in the lab between the number of free electrons that are present in a plasma and the amount of redshift that is observed when passing photons through a plasma medium. There are empirically verified ways to explain photon redshift without violating any known laws of physics and without introducing any new and exotic forms of energy.
Considering that this is the second major predictive failure of the LCDM model of expansion in just the last 20 years, it's time that astronomers revisit Hubble's preference for a tired light solution to the redshift observation. The expansion interpretation of redshift simply doesn't seem to be particularly useful or correct at predicting observations at higher redshifts.
For the second time in as many decades, the LCDM interpretation of photon redshift as being related to (caused by) expansion has failed a second major test of that concept. The original big bang model predicted that the universe should be slowing down and *decelerating* over time due to gravity.
SN1A studies however demonstrated that prediction was incorrect if in fact photon redshift is related to expansion rather than inelastic scattering/tired light as Hubble himself suggested and preferred as an explanation for redshift.
To 'fix" the failed prediction of the expansion interpretation of redshift, astronomers made a dubious and problematic choice to violate the conservation of energy laws by adding a new hypothetical form of energy called "dark energy" to their model. Dark energy violates the conservation of energy laws of physics by remaining at a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume, thereby constantly adding new energy to the overall system.
Unfortunately however, it turns out that distant quasars cannot be explained by "dark energy" remaining at a constant density throughout the expansion process. Instead, dark energy would actually have to *increase* in density over multiple exponential increases in volume to "fix" their second major failed prediction in just the last two decades.
Keep in mind that Edwin Hubble did *not* prefer the expansion interpretation of redshift. Instead he preferred a static universe and a "tired light"/inelastic scattering explanation for photon redshift of distant objects in space. He simply assumed that photons transferred some of their momentum to the medium of spacetime.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402608000089
Sci-Hub | Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas. Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics, 120(10), 473–478 | 10.1016/j.ijleo.2007.12.004
Chen has already demonstrated an empirical cause/effect link in the lab between the number of free electrons that are present in a plasma and the amount of redshift that is observed when passing photons through a plasma medium. There are empirically verified ways to explain photon redshift without violating any known laws of physics and without introducing any new and exotic forms of energy.
Considering that this is the second major predictive failure of the LCDM model of expansion in just the last 20 years, it's time that astronomers revisit Hubble's preference for a tired light solution to the redshift observation. The expansion interpretation of redshift simply doesn't seem to be particularly useful or correct at predicting observations at higher redshifts.
Last edited:
