Perhaps No Need for Dark Energy

Nimblebrain Forums - Not logged in

Topic Cosmology / Alternative Cosmology / Perhaps No Need for Dark Energy (2004 hits)

By Mike Petersen Date 2011-10-24 16:57 Edited 2011-11-09 09:43

I really liked this article, not just because I happen to agree with it, but also because the author has made a testable hypothesis.

A Second Look at Type1a Supernovae Light

Here is a quote from it:

The standard model of big bang cosmology (the Lambda-CMD model) is a mathematical model, but not a physical portrayal of the evolving universe. Thus the Lambda-CDM model yields the luminosity distance at a given redshift as a function of the model parameters, such as the cosmological constant, but not as a function of the physical process where quanta released from a supernova explosion disperse into the expanding universe.

I hope some tests will be forthcoming.

By Jade Annand Date 2011-11-09 06:01

Those gosh-darned Finns ;)

Sounds like a good retread and consolidation of some older ideas - I was intrigued at the chatter it has generated.

One thing that did confuse me a little bit:

Annila said:

On-going expansion of the universe is not a remnant of some furious bang at a distant past, but the universe is expanding because energy that is bound in matter is being combusted to freely propagating photons, most notably in stars and other powerful celestial mechanisms of energy transformation.

Thus, today’s rate of expansion depends on the energy density that is still confined in matter as well as on the efficacy of those present-day mechanisms that break matter to light. Likewise, the past rate of expansion depended on those mechanisms that existed then, just as the future rate will depend also on those mechanisms may emerge in the future.

I didn't quite grok how combustion is supposed to drive expansion here.

Topic Cosmology / Alternative Cosmology / Perhaps No Need for Dark Energy (2004 hits)