Is Einstein Wrong about Dark Energy and Gravity's Cosmological Constant?
Dark matter and energy may not actually exist according to a new study and theory that has passed it's first test.
Accelerated Expansion of the Universe, Big Bang
Dark Energy
Why do people think dark matter exists to begin with?
The universe looks like it's expanding faster now than in the past, according to 1998 Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae. Something is causing an acceleration they say. The name for whatever that is, is so-far called dark energy.
Changes in the Rate of Expansion over Time
There are (at least) 4 reasons to accept the theory of dark energy, which the above is one:
- cosmic microwave background
- expansion of the universe
- scale of the universe
- age of the universe
Lambda-CDM cosmological model
Dark Matter
Dark matter is not known either. It's not visible, hence called "dark". Why is there the idea that there is even dark matter? Scientists calculated 68% dark energy, leaving 32% for the rest, presumably matter, but they could only account for 5% of matter, leaving 27%, meaning there was again something else, and this time it was called dark matter to complement dark energy.
Merging Galaxy Cluster Abell 520
Why Could Einstein Be Wrong?
Einstein posited the cosmological constant as a something, and energy present in the fabric of space itself, meaning space wasn't empty. A competing theory of gravity might put a stinger in how we understand gravity.
Margot Brouwer at Leiden University, the Netherlands, and her astronomer colleague looked at the distribution of matter in over 30,00 galaxies and might be able to explain away the unseen dark matter.
The team studied gravitational lensing of the galaxies to measure how much dark matter would be required to bend the light. They found a way to account for the lensing with a new model of gravity.
Gravitational Lensing
Calculations Revised
The current calculation for dark matter models need four free parameters that are adjusted to make the calculations, model and theory match and fit the observations. Whereas this new model by Brouwer doesn't need this variable trickery.
The shape and color of the background galaxies were used in statistical algorithms to infer a lensing profile of the foreground galaxy. It's like projecting an image onto a warped transparent surface, and trying to figure out what the properties of the warped surface are by looking at the projection from the other side, at least that's how they analogize it.
The most crowded place in the Milky Way
Taking this new way of lens profiling, and applying it to some newer models based on newer discoveries that outdate Newton's and Einstein's model of gravity, it turns out the calculations do better than with the current accepted model for gravitational lensing.
One alternative model for the gravity and the universe is from Erik Verlinde based on quantum mechanics, relativity, information and string theory, and another similar model by Mordehai Milgrom which has already gained some fame, called Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). They both do better with Brouwer's study.
If more validation is granted, this could revise our models for gravity and more. The problem with this is that often new discoveries are denied due to people having vested interest in supporting a current model. It will be interesting to see where this research goes. Physicists and theoretical physicists are going to battle it out again!
Thank you for your time and attention! I appreciate the knowledge reaching more people. Take care. Peace.
References:
- First test of rival to Einstein’s gravity kills off dark matter
- First test of Verlinde's theory of Emergent Gravity using Weak Gravitational Lensing measurements
- Dark Energy, Dark Matter
- Lambda-CDM model
- How do scientists calculate the percentage of dark energy in the universe?
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider:
me for more content to come!
@krnel
2016-12-15, 5:05pm
Thanks for the information, it is always exciting for me to come across such news. Namaste :)
Thanks for putting together this compilation. Exciting times...
Verlinde's idea of gravity as entropic pops into my thinking from time to time ... love that you mention him here: )
Well said. I guess many of today's theories will be changed or scrapped in the future. So many from the past already have. People used to believe the world was flat everything orbited around us.
Can't wait to see what they discover next.
And to think that people were put in prison or killed for such ideas.
It is flat, and everything does rotate around us. You can go outside and look up. Its really that easy. There are three seperate motions that would move the sky, the earths rotation at 1,000+ mph at the equater, the earths theoretical orbit around the sun at 66,000 mph and the sun's orbit in the theoretical galaxy some 666,000mph. Yet, the sky moves 360degrees in 24 hours is all that is seen in real life. The earths tilt is 23.4 degrees right? Well, using thier math, couldnt you also suppose that the earths tilt might also be 66.6 degrees if you measured the other angle? Seems oike alot of "666" stuff in the math of heliocentrism. Check out the flat earth theory if you want your mind truely blown. #flatearth #globeheads #666 #space #geocentrism
Total theory start to finish. Big bang theory is non-sense, thats long pass that people actually believed that. Alot of people have already opened thier eyes to the reality of the geocentric and stationary flat earth. I would suggest watching a video about it. Youtube ODD REALITY 's channel, or type it in google for a fast search. The globe earth cant stand on nasa cgi pictures and nonsense unprovable theories. Physics is plain, and simple. You feel stationary, because you are. Please check it out, you dont have to agree with it, but none the less, whats the harm in getting some more information to possibly debunk the flat earth theory? #flatearth #globeearth #geocentrism #heliocentrism
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the first half of Dec 16. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $3.70 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Dec 16 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
I am not sure about this, since the key will come from data that will tell us what theory is likely and which one is not.
I also do not understand this statement about vested interests and so on. People are generally very open minded and consider all alternatives as soon as they are meaningful. Verlinde's work has been cited more than 500 times, and Milgrom's works more than thousands of times. Isn't this a proof of being open? :)
Here is my real question. I have not understood this number of four parameters. There are many particle physics models of dark matter and on top of that, one also needs to consider the astrophysical models. The number of free parameters is way above four. Do you have precision about that?
LOL... well I'm no expert in this... but google can find you answers. Did you try?...
http://maths.dur.ac.uk/YTF/2014/TalkSlides/KarlNordstrom.pdf
I thought you knew, that was I asked (haven't read all of this yet).
However, the four parameters you have found on google are the traditional four parameters of particle physics models for dark matter. There is nothing you can do to reduce them further, except plugging the theory into a more fundamental one. But then you are trading those free parameters by others and the model starts to be more complicated. I am pretty convinced those are not the four parameters mentioned in your post (I cannot fund any reference to them in the scientific paper actually :p )
Anyway, I will check myself over the week end :)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I don't know. I did some research, but not that deep ;)