View Full Version here: : Adios Darkness ?
25-10-2011, 08:21 AM
Now here's one that sounds like it has some legs … its falisfiable and doesn't involve having to interpret data through the CDM model ...
Annila has taken another look at the way light propagates away from Supernova and viewed it from the older (but largely forgotten concept) of 'least free energy consumption'. The idea makes use of the decreasing energy density along the path of propagation of an emitted photon.
Using this method, he has explained the apparent universe expansion without the need for Dark Energy, it also seems to account for the degree of light deflection around galaxies (presently explained by Dark Matter) ... all without the need for an interpretive model.
A second look at supernovae light: Universe's expansion may be understood without dark energy (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-supernovae-universe-expansion-understood-dark.html)
A worthwhile read. A very interesting approach.
25-10-2011, 11:50 AM
Very interesting Craig.
Smacks of the "tired light" approach and calls into question Olbers' paradox maybe???
I often wonder about our observation that the universe is expanding (let alone enjoying varying rates of acceleration) and that our opinion of what is happening is due to a corruption of data via something we have not taken into account... but we could not have that could we?:rolleyes:
I was reading up on the most distant super nova and one wonders what may corrupt that light given that it has been travelling for maybe 10 billion years.
I doubt if folk will like the implications of the approach...
I do like the quote from Bertrand Russell:)
25-10-2011, 01:23 PM
I dunno Alex …
This guy's ideas seem to come from a network analysis perspective on Thermodynamics. He's come at it all from the laws of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. The concepts also seem to address deterministic and chaotic physical system behaviours. From the abstract of one of his papers: "Natural Games" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1656)
Here's the abstract of the paper underpinning the article in my OP:
Just looks like an alternative view on empirically observed phenomena. He doesn't seem to be challenging any mainstream theories ..
Just seems like a fresh approach but still working from within the mainstream tenets ?? :shrug:
Craig. A most interesting line of research.
There has been so much time and energy gone into building models around dark energy and dark matter on the assumption that they do in fact exist.
An explanation that could sort out this messy conglomeration of theory by explaining observations in terms of simpler physics would be a remarkable turn-around and a massive leap forward.
In my mind, it would put the understanding of the operational physics of the universe back within the grasp of the human mind.
25-10-2011, 01:43 PM
It seems like a refreshing change for the better, eh ?
He doesn't seem to be cherry-picking or turning a blind eye to anything observable .. which is what caught my eye.
There must be something marginal in his ideas .?. but I can't see it yet ...
It all seems to be a little too 'natural' ??
..I mean .. that can't be right ..?.. coming from a counterintuitive perspective, that is … ;)
25-10-2011, 02:04 PM
Craig I do like the idea (not tired light) but the authors theory... is it a theory yet?
But Rob if we have a remarkable turn-around and a massive leap forward doesnt that mean we are really moving backwards:D I have never been happy with dark matter or dark energy really as you may already suspect ... not that my atitude has anything to do with anything.
But as you say it would put the understanding of the operational physics of the universe back within the grasp of the human mind.
There is so much to think about with supernova apart from this... their contribution to "us" is extrodinary ... if you think about it we probably would not be here if not for their contribution to the creation of elements more complex than H... makes me feel rather old when I think about where the atoms in my body started out.
I for one hope this (or something similar) turns out to be correct. It just seems like a cleaner explanation.
25-10-2011, 08:43 PM
I found Annila's paper here. (http://www.helsinki.fi/%7Eaannila/arto/light.pdf)
(At least, I think this is the same paper published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, mentioned in the article).
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.