Study finds possible alternative explanation for dark energy
phys.org
phys.org
They have an alternate theory of relativity that they point out agrees with the usual one for many types of data. However their theory does not include a theory of gravity, and an extension of their theory to a theory of gravity seems unlikely to give us some of the odder confirmed effects of general relativity, like frame dragging.
Until you have an actual theory of gravity that matches those experiments (and not just special relativity), you can wave your hands all you want, but you have no real business discussing things like why cosmologists believe that a contribution from dark energy to the stress energy tensor creates the acceleration of the universe that is the simplest explanation of current observation.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model for a random starting place that can actually inform you.
Dark matter is a kind of matter that accounts for
most of the matter in the entire universe. Dark
matter is one of the greatest mysteries in modern
astrophysics.
...
the total mass–energy of the known universe
contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter
and 68.3% dark energy. Thus, dark matter is
estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter
in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter
constitute 95.1% of the total content of the
universe.
And it doesn't get any better at the subatomic level. I've previously [2] commented on that. How about a theory combining general relativity with quantum mechanics? The best attempt I've seen so far is from slashdot:
Your momma so fat even if I'd entangle
with her no information would be able
to leave her event horizon.
Nobody has managed to put gravitation
and QM together yet, and you want to
do it in a your-momma-so-fat-joke? Wow.
Given that the rate of expansion is a measure of distance over time wouldn't the net effect be identical?
I guess the argument is that dark energy is in fact a manifestation of the physical rules of our universe, but in the end doesn't that violate the laws of energy conservation? Effectively if we observe acceleration of distant parts of the galaxy due to present time traveling slower relative to historic, where does the energy that causes the acceleration come from?
This is reminiscent of Feynman's explanation about magnetism [1] in that it leads back to the original question.
I guess the argument is that dark energy is in fact a manifestation of the physical rules of our universe, but in the end doesn't that violate the laws of energy conservation?
Effectively if we observe acceleration of distant parts of the galaxy due to present time traveling slower relative to historic, where does the energy that causes the acceleration come from?
What?
Maybe the reporter messed up, but this flies directly in the face of relativity which states there is no such thing as absolute movement.
And saying:
> Absolute Lorentz Transformation ... "preferred reference frame" ... linked to centers of gravitational mass.
Doesn't help in the slightest because it is completely wishy-washy. There is no limit to the centers of gravitational mass.
There is the center of my body, my house, the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, (the universe too?? possibly not). What makes one center more important than another?