See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-v0CEoRWMo
Again, dark energy has major issues
-
Dennis P Brown
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
- Real name: Dennis Brown
Again, dark energy has major issues
Well, Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder has another short vid on the issue of the Hubble Constant and looks more and more that the Super Nova data is in error (the one that the Nobel prize was given and claims the rate of expansion is accelerating. I.e. that the a dark energy, nothing more than an ad hoc idea, is not accelerating or accelerating at a significantly lower value.) And yes, I have motives that lead me to believe this acceleration aspect is no where near as large as the previous measurements claimed. So, this is interesting not just for Cosmic understanding but for my own self interest
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-v0CEoRWMo
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-v0CEoRWMo
Ignorance is what we all experience until we make an effort to learn
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15406
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Again, dark energy has major issues
For me, both the concept of dark matter and dark energy are a hokum dreamed up for what we do not understand in our still Newtonian brains.
We use neutrinos to explain so much in all nuclear reactions. We believe they have almost no mass. As they can go through planets unabated does this mean they have infinite existence? Do they respond to gravity? How fast do they travel? These are not photons, we are told. Photons and their energy degrades over time due to interactions with matter. Microscopic neutrino mass adds up over the age of the universe which is just one giant nuclear happening in a void that is not a void. We know absolutely nothing about neutrinos. But place them in the particle zoo with strange switcheroo characteristics with little distinction from black magic. In short, we know little about what we know. Magic and mysticism still plays a role in sub-nuclear particle physics, when the little Dutch boys can't find a hole in the leaking dike.
I just let the matter sit where it is, and that is really no where. Let the hokum continue, I say.
Richard Hull
We use neutrinos to explain so much in all nuclear reactions. We believe they have almost no mass. As they can go through planets unabated does this mean they have infinite existence? Do they respond to gravity? How fast do they travel? These are not photons, we are told. Photons and their energy degrades over time due to interactions with matter. Microscopic neutrino mass adds up over the age of the universe which is just one giant nuclear happening in a void that is not a void. We know absolutely nothing about neutrinos. But place them in the particle zoo with strange switcheroo characteristics with little distinction from black magic. In short, we know little about what we know. Magic and mysticism still plays a role in sub-nuclear particle physics, when the little Dutch boys can't find a hole in the leaking dike.
I just let the matter sit where it is, and that is really no where. Let the hokum continue, I say.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Dennis P Brown
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
- Real name: Dennis Brown
Re: Again, dark energy has major issues
Couldn't agree more with your point's, Richard. Dark matter is just an ad-hoc attempt to explain data that makes little sense to the Astrological community so they use a word that has no real meaning (maybe just call it an aether since it has just as much validity - lol.) Dark energy is a terrible mistake due to making an assumption about the ' not local' Universe's uniformity that turns out not to be justified (via observational data.) So an accelerating Universe is not proven and so, really lacks any direct proof. So, then why is it talked about by physicist as if it is valid? That really puzzles me. But then, they still say Black Holes have a singularity even through that has (now) been shown not to have been proven and their is strong evidence that say's otherwise (via that "so unproven" theory of thermodynamics - lol.)
Elementary particles (i.e. the zoo) is only understandable in terms of Field Theory. It is an attempt to explain real particle observations via collisions and their real particle decay products using concepts of impossible to directly observe states of matter/photons (Excluding quark based particle pairs which are certainly observable.) One then uses a concept called the 'Mass Shell' concept* to help deal with their behavior and distinguish between real vs. virtual particle/photon types.
Neutrino's are strange simply due to their extreme lack of interaction but at least these guys have the good manners to fit all aspects of what we call particles; however, that they must have mass but the theory that demands this can not account for said mass certainly creates a rather interesting problem.
As you continue to point out - physics has not had any revolutionary developments since really the 1930's (the 40's - 60's have seen some amazing advancements but not revolutions.) Maybe one is due but trying to observe something that is not there is, well, something not likely to lead anywhere.
* Beyond my understanding
Elementary particles (i.e. the zoo) is only understandable in terms of Field Theory. It is an attempt to explain real particle observations via collisions and their real particle decay products using concepts of impossible to directly observe states of matter/photons (Excluding quark based particle pairs which are certainly observable.) One then uses a concept called the 'Mass Shell' concept* to help deal with their behavior and distinguish between real vs. virtual particle/photon types.
Neutrino's are strange simply due to their extreme lack of interaction but at least these guys have the good manners to fit all aspects of what we call particles; however, that they must have mass but the theory that demands this can not account for said mass certainly creates a rather interesting problem.
As you continue to point out - physics has not had any revolutionary developments since really the 1930's (the 40's - 60's have seen some amazing advancements but not revolutions.) Maybe one is due but trying to observe something that is not there is, well, something not likely to lead anywhere.
* Beyond my understanding
Ignorance is what we all experience until we make an effort to learn
-
Daniel Harrer
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2023 11:01 am
- Real name: Daniel Harrer
Re: Again, dark energy has major issues
Dark matter is not just a hokum, the presence of electromagnetically very weakly interacting mass works out very well to not only explain current galaxies but also their early formation. And we even have several candidates, especially the already mentioned neutrinos which satisfy all the criteria for what dark matter does.