Inflationary Relativity Proposal Debunks Need For Dark Energy

Fermilab’s Kolb called the authors’ proposal the most conservative explanation for the accelerating universe. “It requires only a proper accounting of the physical effects of the ripples beyond our cosmic horizon,” he said.

Data from upcoming experiments will allow cosmologists to test the proposal. “Whether Einstein was right when he first introduced the cosmological constant, or whether he was right when he later refuted the idea will soon be tested by a new round of precision cosmological observations,” Kolb said. “New data will soon allow us to distinguish between our explanation for the accelerated expansion of the universe and the dark energy solution.”

This work by Edward W. Kolb of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Chicago (USA): Sabino Matarrese of the University of Padova; Alessio Notari from the University of Montreal (Canada); and Antonio Riotto of INFN (Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare) of Padova (Italy) is reported in an INFN press release.  INFN (Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare), Italy’s national nuclear physics institute, supports, coordinates and carries out scientific research in subnuclear, nuclear and astroparticle physics and is involved in developing relevant technologies.  Fermilab, in Batavia, Illinois, USA, is operated by Universities Research Association, Inc. for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, which funds advanced research in particle physics and cosmology.

3 thoughts on “Inflationary Relativity Proposal Debunks Need For Dark Energy”

  1. I understand that space is expanding and that space is infinite. So where or what is holding this infinite amount of space ? Even with the M-theory, what holds the membranes ?

    Yes I am sober !

  2. Edwin may have discovered an redshift-to-apparent-velocity relation at the time, but the interpretation was still up for grabs. In the early forties, he drew up a paper which cast some doubt on the actual-velocity interpretation. If the redshifts were due to actual recessional velocities, there would be dimming due to constantly-increasing volume of interposing space for the photons to cover, which would form a curve. Instead, the redshift/luminosity plots averaged out to an approximate straight line.

    With the mounting evidence that far areas of the universe are more complex than expected, and high-redshift quasars are becoming increasingly hard to dissociate from low-redshift galaxies, I predict that the age of the universe will increase considerably, and the interpreted velocities of the galaxies will become much lower.

    Otherwise, we are going to be stuck with increasingly weird theories like dark energy and increasing acceleration.

    I think we will discover the universe isn’t quite as odd as that in the macro sense :)

  3. In asking the question, “what is holding this infinite amount of space,” you are implying that all objects must be contained by something else (whatever that entails. Ever think about the things that “contain” friction? gravity? just a picometer of space? I can’t either.). Can you point me to a proof of this? Or perhaps some compelling evidence? I don’t recall reading that theorem or postulate in any of my physics books.

Comments are closed.