The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests

Mar 23, 2023
17
0
30
Is this new? I thought this already was a way to throw out the need for a dark matter and dark energy. Isn't that why protons decaying is something we want to observe?
 

Aby

Jun 20, 2023
3
2
15
"In this picture, these particles arise from a field that permeates space-time."

How is this different from the Higgs Field?
 
Jun 20, 2023
1
0
10
As an amateur observer I have a couple of issues with the assertion that the universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion based on increasing red shift at its distant regions.

If the red shift is the same in all directions, does that mean we are at the center of the universe?

The raw data that is observed at those great distances is many billions of years old.
 
Jun 20, 2023
2
1
10
If the universe is static, then General Relativity, which forbids a static universe, is fundamentally wrong. Given that it's among the most confirmed theories in the history of science, that seems wildly unlikely. And the notion of particle masses fluctuating over time completely blows up Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, nuclear physics, cosmology, and chemistry just off the top of my head, so pardon me if I take it less than seriously.
 

Aby

Jun 20, 2023
3
2
15
As an amateur observer I have a couple of issues with the assertion that the universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion based on increasing red shift at its distant regions.

If the red shift is the same in all directions, does that mean we are at the center of the universe?

The raw data that is observed at those great distances is many billions of years old.
Actually, they theorize the red-shift will be observed wherever you go in the universe because it is supposedly expanding in all directions.

I have another theory: Quantum Mechanics proves that particles form and annihilate each other in vacuum space. This process would create a slight "resistance" to the travelling photons and cause dispersion over distances of billions or trillions of light years, effectively causing energy loss and therefore a frequency shift. None of the astronomical simulations account for this Quantum Mechanical effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leynir

Aby

Jun 20, 2023
3
2
15
If the universe is static, then General Relativity, which forbids a static universe, is fundamentally wrong. Given that it's among the most confirmed theories in the history of science, that seems wildly unlikely. And the notion of particle masses fluctuating over time completely blows up Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, nuclear physics, cosmology, and chemistry just off the top of my head, so pardon me if I take it less than seriously.
Actually, GR is only partly confirmed: if you look at the galactic lensing, or black-hole lensing, it turns out that there are variations / deviations from GR that Astrophysicists cannot explain. Similarly GR doesn't work on galactic scales and that is why they have to insert Dark Matter to obtain simulation results that match observations. However, in 20 years of experiments, Dark Matter is nowhere to be found.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnnyreddogg
An international team’s project using cosmic microwave background data inferred a Hubble constant of 67, substantially less than the 73 or 74 based on actually measuring the expansion (by analyzing how the light from distant supernova explosions has dimmed over time).

When this discrepancy first showed up a few years ago, many experts believed it was just a mirage that would fade with more precise measurement. But it hasn’t.

“This starts to get pretty serious,” Adam Riess said at the astronomy meeting. “In both cases these are very mature measurements. This is not the first time around for either of these projects.”

One commonly proposed explanation contends that the supernova studies are measuring the local value of the Hubble constant. Perhaps we live in a bubble, with much less matter than average, skewing expansion measurements. In that case, the cosmic microwave background data might provide a better picture of the “global” expansion rate for the whole universe. But supernovas observed by the Hubble telescope extend far enough out to refute that possibility, Riess said.

“Even if you thought we lived in a void…, you still are basically stuck with the same problem.”

Consequently it seems most likely that something is wrong with the matter-energy recipe for the universe (technically, the cosmological standard model) used in making the expansion rate prediction. Maybe the vacuum energy driving cosmic acceleration is not a cosmological constant after all, but some other sort of field filling space. Such a field could vary in strength over time and throw off the calculations based on a constant vacuum energy. But Riess pointed out that the evidence is growing stronger and stronger that the vacuum energy is just the cosmological constant. “I would say there we have less and less wiggle room.”

Another possibility, appealing to many theorists, is the existence of a new particle, perhaps a fourth neutrino or some other relativistic (moving very rapidly) particle zipping around in the early universe.

“Relativistic particles — theorists have no trouble inventing new ones, ones that don’t violate anything else,” Riess said. “Many of them are quite giddy about the prospect of some evidence for that. So that would not be a long reach.”

Other assumptions built into the current cosmological standard model might also need to be revised. Dark matter, for example, is presumed to be very aloof from other forms of matter and energy. But if it interacted with radiation in the early universe, it could have an effect similar to that of relativistic particles, changing how the energy in the early universe is divided up among its components. Such a change in energy balance would alter how much the universe expands at early times, corrupting the calibrations needed to infer the current expansion rate.

It’s not the first time that determining the Hubble constant has provoked controversy. Edwin Hubble himself initially (in the 1930s) vastly overestimated the expansion rate. Using his rate, calculations indicated that the universe was much younger than the Earth, an obvious contradiction. Even by the 1990s, some Hubble constant estimates suggested an age for the universe of under 10 billion years, whereas many stars appeared to be several billion years older than that.

Hubble’s original error could be traced to lack of astronomical knowledge. His early overestimates turned out to be signals of a previously unknown distinction between different generations of stars, some younger and some older, Riess pointed out. That threw off distance estimates to some stars that Hubble used to estimate the expansion rate. Similarly, in the 1990s the expansion rate implied too young a universe because dark energy was not then known to exist and therefore was not taken into account when calculating the universe’s age.

So the current discrepancy, Riess suggested, might also be a signal of some astronomical unknown, whether a new particle, new interactions of matter and radiation, or a phenomenon even more surprising — something that would really astound a visitor from another universe.

See: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/speed-universe-expansion-remains-elusive

Recent efforts to measure the Universe further from Earth, like the SH0ES project led by Nobel laureate Adam Riess, have used Cepheids alongside Type Ia supernovae, which was used as a standard candle by Nobel Prize winning Saul Permutter's team when they extrapolated the ever faster expansion rate.. There are also other methods to measure Hubble's constant, such as one that uses the cosmic microwave background - relic light or radiation that began to travel through the Universe shortly after the Big Bang. The problem is that these two measurements, one nearby using supernovae and Cepheids, and one much farther away using the microwave background, differ by nearly 10%. Astronomers call this difference the Hubble tension, and have been looking for new measurement techniques to resolve it. But, the data from a magnified, multiply imaged supernova, which was discovered by a team of astronomers, including Dr Or Graur at the University of Portsmouth, provides insight into a longstanding debate in the field and could help scientists more accurately determine the Universe's age and better understand the cosmos.
Hartmann352
 
Last edited:
Apr 9, 2023
3
1
10
What a wonderful article. Nothing in science is ever completely "proven", though many things can be disproven. There is only ever, at best... tons of supporting evidence and no good alternative theories to evaluate and compare.

So a whole new way to look at things that causes many inconsistencies with and among current theories is spectacular. Yay for mathematical transformations! Ok maybe that was a little geeky.

However if this holds, who knows what else might pop out of the math.
 
Jun 21, 2023
25
7
55
As an amateur observer I have a couple of issues with the assertion that the universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion based on increasing red shift at its distant regions.

If the red shift is the same in all directions, does that mean we are at the center of the universe?

The raw data that is observed at those great distances is many billions of years old.
Every observer in the universe is at the center
 
Jun 21, 2023
25
7
55
Actually, GR is only partly confirmed: if you look at the galactic lensing, or black-hole lensing, it turns out that there are variations / deviations from GR that Astrophysicists cannot explain. Similarly GR doesn't work on galactic scales and that is why they have to insert Dark Matter to obtain simulation results that match observations. However, in 20 years of experiments, Dark Matter is nowhere to be found.
It's confirmed at our scale, it just seems to not apply at the galactic scale.
 
Jun 21, 2023
1
0
10
2023-06-21 - Thanks, Hartmann352 !
In your comment, what caught my attention is :
"So the current discrepancy, Nobel laureate Adam Riess suggested, might also be [...] new interactions of matter and radiation [...]."
In the same way as the nature of a 'tsunami' is not water, the very nature of radiation is neither wave nor corpuscle, but a dynamics described by QED.
This to illustrate that up to now we do not scientifically master the ontogenesis of our quantum world.
A general rule: as we never observed any thing being absolutely static, immutable, unchanging in the world we scientifically have access to,
any attempt to introduce dynamics and all their properties in our theories might be closer to what we are seemingly observing.
Specially with an astronomical amount of relativistic particles.

Astronomy draws up an inventory of observable states after all previous events occured, like a detective coming very late on the crime scene.
And as part of our tangible world, nothing is more versatile than good science.

We may be wandering about at an even greater scale than Hubble’s original error:
you remind us that the signals he used lacked distinction between different generations of stars, this would have twisted his estimation of the universe expansion rate.
... but introducing generations of stars is tricks of the dynamics trade. And forgetting to introduce dynamics is an unappreciated trick of the light.

Best regards,
Dominique
 
Jun 21, 2023
3
0
10
Another theoretical and unobserved opinion. Acceleration has already been proven by observation and sound science.
It seems to me that astrophysics is mostly theoretical. For example, the theory of accelerated expansion being caused by dark energy is meant to explain a set of observations. This includes the observation that distant objects' spectra are red-shifted more than can be explained by Einstein's or even Hubble's view of the universe. Lombriser presents a different explanatory theory that has some advantages. Namely, his theory doesn't posit the existence of something that has exactly one quality (accelerating expansion), then give it a woo-woo name (dark energy), and finally call that woo-woo a scientific explanation of the observations.
 
Last edited:
Jun 21, 2023
3
0
10
I have another theory: Quantum Mechanics proves that particles form and annihilate each other in vacuum space.
What you are describing is called vacuum energy. The problem is, other observations about vacuum energy (the Casimir effect, et al.) don't match the energy required to explain the observed spectra shift.
 
Jun 21, 2023
1
1
10
Expansion of the universe IS a total mirage! We've been saying this for years but main stream science to too proud to admit this.

It's as simple s this: The universe is infinite in time and space. The Universe IS 100 PERCENT STATIC!

If main stream science cannot come to grip with this fundamental reality, they have NO BUSINESS pushing their crap to the lemmings who gobble it up.

Plain and simple... It's a BIG, INFINITE UNIVERSE! Time for main stream science to pull up their BIG BOY PANTS and deal with reality in a mature scientific manner. STOP flinging endless and ridiculous "theories" that don't come close to describing reality!

Cephas Absolutely Knows the Truth!

New research looking at the cosmological constant problem suggests the expansion of the universe could be an illusion.

The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests : Read more
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnnyreddogg
Jan 15, 2023
119
6
605
New research looking at the cosmological constant problem suggests the expansion of the universe could be an illusion.

The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests : Read more
Fascinating. It seems most of life is an illusion. My take is that the universe is a sphere much like what nature shows us is predominant.
So, everything is expanding in reality, but galaxies and all matter are moving toward the other side so to speak like tectonic plates floating and colliding in titanic "big bangs".
The entire opposite sphere is not detected but everything is being attracted to this side. The universe appears flat in such an expanse.
And why not? The sphere points to an answer of everything. Now to address what is inside.
hing is New research looking at the cosmological constant problem suggests the expansion of the universe could be an illusion.

The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests : Read more
 
Apr 4, 2023
9
2
35
.... in 20 years of experiments, Dark Matter is nowhere to be found.
20 years? Fred Hoyle was calling what was then known as the "missing mass" an embarassment to astronomy in the 1970s, since Zwicky had first turned it up about 40 years earlier at that point.
 
Apr 4, 2023
9
2
35
Picture caption: "Astronomers use the light from distant stars, such as the Helix Nebula seen here, to measure the apparent expansion of the universe."

No they don't. The Helix Nebula is in our Milky Way galaxy and has nothing to do with measurements of the expansion (apparent or otherwise) of the universe, which is done on distant galaxies (not stars).
 
Jun 26, 2023
4
0
10
Then shouldn't we have detected that some Stars have Disappeared from our Viewpoint ?
1) Are some objects no longer in view?
2) Have optics and our learning to see with sound increased our viewing capability enough to overcome expansion?
3) Since expansion isn't slowing but speeding up thanks to Dark Matter, is there a point where DM, due to increasing speed and/or volume of disappearing matter, has a detrimental effect on the Universe? The Universe is supposed to be Infinite but if DM increases by some great order of magnitude could that alter expansion?
 
Jan 15, 2023
119
6
605
If the universe is constantly expanding. And if it is Accelerating that expansion.
Then shouldn't we have detected that some Stars have Disappeared from our Viewpoint ?
If the universe is constantly expanding. And if it is Accelerating that expansion.
Then shouldn't we have detected that some Stars have Disappeared from our Viewpoint ?
They aren't? We must not have the current ability to view this. At present it's a little dicey even though the horizon is being expanded all the time. The dawn of time will perpetually be discovered.
I'm still, as a beginning novice, maintaining the universe is twice as large as the stated descriptions, and that it is a spherical shape. It falls in perfectly with observed natural shapes throughout the cosmos.
I can easily take this to the rational conclusion; that is my story, and I'm sticking with it.
 
Jun 28, 2023
1
0
10
Expansion of the universe IS a total mirage! We've been saying this for years but main stream science to too proud to admit this.

It's as simple s this: The universe is infinite in time and space. The Universe IS 100 PERCENT STATIC!
If the universe is static and infinite in time and there is only a finite amount of hydrogen in every finite area of the infinite universe, shouldn't all stars had burned out an infinitely long time ago?

Regarding the news in the original post: So, is the universe expanding or not? How can we be 100% sure that the redshift is caused by the expansion, not by something else, creating an illusion of expansion?

Saying general relativity would be wrong if the universe isn't expanding is an invalid argument, as far as I know. Although General Relativity is proven at solar system scales, it isn't proven at galactic scales and it seems that General Relativity doesn't work at galactic scales.

So, what do you think about those news, people?