Comments on: New theory eliminates need for dark energy

By: Max

Max — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 02:56:37 +0000

Just to put it all in perspective.

Reminds me of the final “zoom out scene” in “men in black”

By: wayne

wayne — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 22:52:58 +0000

Diane–
…oh yeah– humans are masterful at overlaying our constructs onto Reality. For my money, it’s going to be some manifestation of entanglement.

The paper is here–
“Concordance cosmology without dark energy”
http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/press/Cosmology/slx012.pdf
(But I have not yet had a chance to ponder it.)

At this point I would shill for Dr. Penrose’ new book, and this fresh lecture:

Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the new Physics of Reality
Roger Penrose at the Royal Institution
March 2017
https://youtu.be/iH4XJHJ8AOw

By: Diane Wilson

Diane Wilson — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:52:24 +0000

Wayne,

I think that physics and cosmology are oblivious to our paradigms, but our paradigms can surely blind us to reality. Even Einstein had trouble accepting some of the implications of relativity. That was pretty much the end of his career as a physicist, so he made a career change into being Einstein.

I’m reminded of an old joke about a mathematician and a statistician facing off in court. The statistician says that the mathematician is insane. The mathematician says that a statistician can never be sure.

By: wayne

wayne — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:15:01 +0000

Diane–
Totally agree the “dark-anything” moniker is unproductive and just smacks of “insert unknown term here.”
(Not a fan of the concept of “inflation” either, but it does now strike me as possibly fitting in with this new idea, and with a less magical-bent to it.)
–I’m an old Behavorist from the late 70’s, and we were big on paradigm shifts in psychology. I have no clue how that works in Physics/Cosmology.
Just as an interested amateur, I tend to think the success of the whole Lamda CDM theories have inadvertently blinded us to some Fundamental Thing we are missing in all this.

Not a string theory guy, but a lot of the Math is intriguing and solves other/different problems, and I’m partial to Dr. Penrose, in that he handles Entropy & Infinity, & some other pesky issues.

(fascinating topic)

By: Diane Wilson

Diane Wilson — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:48:03 +0000

And the one thing that we know about dark matter is that “dark matter” is short-hand for “there’s something going on here, but we have no idea what it is.”

Paradigm changes, indeed. So if multiple paradigms change at once, is that a paradigm quake, or is it quantum paradigmatics?

By: LocalFluff

LocalFluff — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:20:16 +0000

Inter-clustural structure is only one of several independent proofs of dark mass. There’s also the rotation rate of galaxies, galaxy clusters as gravitational lenses and bullet galaxies. No one alternative theory fits them all. There might be more than one phenomena involved here. It’s anyway promising that they find ways to try to juggle with this invisible giant.
-Mirror mirror in the sky, tell me why most mass’ so shy!

By: wayne

wayne — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:15:31 +0000

pzatchok-
good stuff.
Dr. Susskind has been consistently preaching we are in a paradigm shifting zone, and maybe this is it.
Haven’t delved into this development yet, but just quickly referencing your open vs. closed thought; even if the universe is open, Dr. Penrose’s cyclic-theory handles that quite well, if one is partial to that, as I am. (given I only play a cosmologist on the interweb.)
This gets into the isotropic vs. orthotropic perspective as well.

Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
Roger Penrose
https://youtu.be/TIZCkg0Zs8Y
(the quick 3:31 version)

By: pzatchok

pzatchok — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:49:47 +0000

Someone just slayed the dragon.

I wonder if this new model eventually allows for a closed universe instead of an ever expanding one?