The Start of Dark Energy and the limits of the Universe

[lateralsuz]

Although I can't find it again, I read somewhere that Dark Energy was believed to have 'begun' to form approx. 6 billion years ago - some 8 billion years after the Big Bang, and just before the origination of our solar system.

Does anyone know what evidence this notion is based on?

As Dark Energy was (at least in part) dreamt up to explain the accelerating expansion of the Universe, does this mean that the acceleration was also believed to begin 6 billion years ago?

Finally, this thinking suggests that Dark Energy must still be being generated today in vast and increasing quantities in order to maintain the acceleration.

Given the scale of that supposed production, isn't it strange that we can't detect the potential source?

The only speculation I have heard of is that Dark Energy is effectively leaking from other dimensions of existence - but there is no real evidence for other dimensions, either - it's just theory.

If we can't point to a specific source within the known Universe, then is the accelerating expansion of the physical Universe proof that there is something beyond it?

[PaulN]

Forum rules are to provide citations in the science section. Could you use a search engine and possibly find the dark energy article you refer to? Would be most helpful.

[TheVat]

Neither quintessence, vacuum energy, nor cosmological constant theories would have dark energy starting 6 gY ago. NASA has a good summary page on the topic....

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... ark-energy

Most theories have DE as intrinsic to spacetime, thus present from the beginning.

[Faradave]

That's my impression as well, which is not to say that dark energy increases linearly. As space appears to expand isotropically (same in every direction) over time, and dark energy appears proportional to volume, then dark energy will tend to increase at something like the cube of cosmological age.

[lateralsuz]

I tracked-down one reference - below

NASA Website - http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/fo ... rk-energy/



Credit: Ann Feild (STScI)
Dark Energy, Dark Matter
In the early 1990s, one thing was fairly certain about the expansion of the Universe. It might have enough energy density to stop its expansion and recollapse, it might have so little energy density that it would never stop expanding, but gravity was certain to slow the expansion as time went on. Granted, the slowing had not been observed, but, theoretically, the Universe had to slow. The Universe is full of matter and the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together. Then came 1998 and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae that showed that, a long time ago, the Universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today. So the expansion of the Universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it.
Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein's theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a "cosmological constant." Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein's theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.
What Is Dark Energy?

Universe Dark Energy-1 Expanding Universe
This diagram reveals changes in the rate of expansion since the universe's birth 15 billion years ago. The more shallow the curve, the faster the rate of expansion. The curve changes noticeably about 7.5 billion years ago, when objects in the universe began flying apart as a faster rate. Astronomers theorize that the faster expansion rate is due to a mysterious, dark force that is pulling galaxies apart.
NASA/STSci/Ann Feild

There's lots of diagrams in this article too which I tried to copy here, but they didn't seem to work. They all show patterns pointing to 7.5 billion years ago - but this doesn't change the basic premise.

[BurtJordaan]

Sorry, haven't been here for some time. Occam's razor would put inherent negative spacetime curvature that existed (or pre-existed), after the BB (coming from Einstein's cosmological constant) as the simplest explanation for dark energies' exponential expanding tendency.

Because of the high energy density of matter and radiation at that time, they overwhelmed this and slowed the initial rapid expansion down considerable over time. As the said densities dropped, the exponential expanding tendency became dominant about 5 to 7 billion years ago, as its equivalent energy density stays constant.

Hence the present slowly accelerating expansion.

[Faradave]

Nice to have you back Jorrie.

[bangstrom]

Given the scale of that supposed production, isn't it strange that we can't detect the potential source?

You have some valid conclusions and I share your skepticism about Dark Energy. I see no reason to doubt the observations but it is the conclusions about accelerated expansion that I find to be on shaky ground because the conclusions are contrary to the laws of physics and it is the conclusions about the evidence for which there is no support.

This is an old debate going back to the days of Edwin Hubble. Even Hubble never considered the redshifting of distant galaxies to be sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of an expanding universe because redshifting can have so many other possible explanations.

Sir Arthur Eddington considered the contraction of the material world in a universe of constant size to be equivalent to the theory of an expanding universe. We have no external god’s eye view of the universe that can tell us which possibility or any combination of the two is more likely because they can both be explained by the same set of observations and one explanation is the simple inverse of the other. Contraction and expansion are indistinguishable without an external reference for size. The universe may be expanding relative to the length of a meter or the meter may be growing smaller relative to the radius of the universe but the observations are the same in either case.

If the universe is expanding, gravity should be slowing the rate of expansion because expansion works against gravity but, if the universe remains the same size while all the material within is contracting, then an acceleration should be expected since contraction works with gravity and characteristically accelerates with time. The observation of an “expanding” universe favors the contraction view over expansion because accelerated contraction does not require the invention of a Dark Energy.

Christof Wetterich has a recent theory along the lines of Eddington’s “Shrinking Atom” theory or, as I like to call it, an “Inverse Expansion” theory.

https://www.science20.com/hammock_physi ... ing-118673

Wetterich's approach is not different from the standard cosmological model. All Wetterich asks us is to view the standard cosmological model from a different perspective.

Wetterich's starting point is a somewhat trivial observation:

Only dimensionless ratios as the distance between galaxies divided by the atom radius are observable."

So although the hard truth remains that the size of the universe expressed in atomic sizes is increasing, one could maintain that atoms are shrinking while the universe itself remains constant in size.

[bangstrom]

Welcome back, Jorrie.

[bangstrom]

Because of the high energy density of matter and radiation at that time, they overwhelmed this and slowed the initial rapid expansion down considerable over time. As the said densities dropped, the exponential expanding tendency became dominant about 5 to 7 billion years ago, as its equivalent energy density stays constant.

Hence the present slowly accelerating expansion.

I don't see how this is possible unless gravity is a push as well as a pull which may be a possibility. Once the initial momentum of expansion has been slowed by a high energy density of matter and radiation, it would take another influx of energy to get things going again and what would be the source of that energy?

[BurtJordaan]

Once the initial momentum of expansion has been slowed by a high energy density of matter and radiation, it would take another influx of energy to get things going again and what would be the source of that energy?

In the LCDM model, the source is empty space itself - it is working like anti-gravity. Its overall energy density is constant over time, but presently seems to be about double that of all matter added together - hence the accelerated expansion.

Einstein's general relativity predicts the existence of vacuum energy, but it makes no prediction of its density. Quantum theory does make a prediction, but its prediction seems to be 120 orders of magnitude larger than what is cosmologically observed, so there is clearly something at work that we do not understand. Hence the term 'dark energy'.

[bangstrom]

Einstein's general relativity predicts the existence of vacuum energy, but it makes no prediction of its density.

If you are referring to Einstein’s lambda-parameter, this was not predicted by relativity. It was added ad hoc to GR to achieve a static universe which was the general consensus for the state of the universe at the time.

[BurtJordaan]

If you are referring to Einstein’s lambda-parameter, this was not predicted by relativity.

Not quite, because vacuum energy is a more general concept than the cosmological constant (Lambda), which is a special case. It was soon (1920's) realized by Einstein, Friedman, de Sitter etc. that a general theory of relativity (gtr) must include all forms of energy and pressure, which includes possible negative pressure. Lambda is a special case of negative pressure and acts in opposition to gravity, almost like anti-gravity.

One must also keep in mind that cosmological solutions to the full equations of gtr (including Einstein's first one) are all simplified special cases, because the full equations are generally unsolvable without that caveat.

Einstein's "biggest blunder" was not inserting Lambda in the first place, but later "dropping" it, because without it (or something similar), gtr could make no claim of being "general". In the 1930's, in his work with Willem de Sitter, it is clear that Einstein accepted the possibility of Lambda, but thought that due to lack of evidence, its value must be zero. As we know, that was the accepted view until some 40 years after Einstein's death, when it all changed...

[bangstrom]

Lambda is a special case of negative pressure and acts in opposition to gravity, almost like anti-gravity.

Any pressure involves a vector. Gravity clearly has a vector but where is the vector for Lambda? It is my understanding that the galaxies are not being accelerated in any direction but instead it is space-time itself that is expanding between the galaxies producing the appearance of an expanding universe. A quickening in the cosmic rate of time could produce the illusion of an expanding space.

[JohnD]

I am finding this debate fascinating. Certainly I don't have the IQ or knowledge that you have but this is interesting. I wonder if I may suggest an alternative. What if it isn't about expansion of the universe of the contraction of atoms but the interaction between the different forces causing some to change sides every-so-often? Dark becomes light, etc... Wouldn't it explain what is observable?

[BurtJordaan]

Any pressure involves a vector. Gravity clearly has a vector but where is the vector for Lambda?

On cosmic scales, neither gravity nor pressure is represented by a vector. In which direction would it be if it was?

A quickening in the cosmic rate of time could produce the illusion of an expanding space.

Do you have any mainstream references for this? It seems to fly in the face of accepted theory and observation.

Note that speculation is not discussed in the science section - we have the 'personal theories' section for that.

[Faradave]

What if it isn't about expansion of the universe of the contraction of atoms but the interaction between the different forces causing some to change sides every-so-often? Dark becomes light, etc... Wouldn't it explain what is observable?

There's not enough here yet to form an opinion. Follow your fascination. Keep reading until you can flesh out a more detailed hypothesis. Then, as Jorrie suggests, drop it on us in Personal Theories.

[bangstrom]

What if it isn't about expansion of the universe of the contraction of atoms but the interaction between the different forces causing some to change sides every-so-often? Dark becomes light, etc... Wouldn't it explain what is observable?

Yes, the right changes among the physical constants could explain the observation of an expanding universe provided they conform to physical observations and mathematical theory.

Even if expansion theory is correct, the expansion of space should cause a rescaling of the other dimensional constants and their components. For example, if space expands, time must also quicken if the constants c, Newton’s G, and Planck’s h are to remain constant. Conversely, a universal quickening of time could appear as an expansion of space. We can observe long term changes in the cosmos by observing light from distant galaxies but we usually can’t identify the cause of change and no one parameter can change without inducing changes in our measurements of the others.

[bangstrom]

On cosmic scales, neither gravity nor pressure is represented by a vector. In which direction would it be if it was?

Gravity has a vector towards the greatest concentration of mass even on cosmic scales where galactic clusters serve as gravitational attractors because of their mass.

What evidence do we have for a “pressure” forcing the expansion of the universe?

A quickening in the cosmic rate of time could produce the illusion of an expanding space.

Do you have any mainstream references for this? It seems to fly in the face of accepted theory and observation.

Note that speculation is not discussed in the science section - we have the 'personal theories' section for that.

I don't see where you find a scenario of quickening time leading to the appearance of an expanding space contrary to theory or observation. A redshift can indicate a recessional velocity, an expansion of space, a slower rate of time at the point of emission relative to a faster rate of time at the point of reception, or any combination of these. The distant galaxies show no direct evidence of recessional velocities, or expanding space. All we can say with certainty is that they appear redshifted. This is what we observe and anything beyond that is speculation.

Consider an example from GR of what happens when an object enters and emerges from a gravitational well. The object entering the well shows evidence of time slowing and distances shortening from the perspective of an outside observer as it descends into the well and the opposite happens when an object emerges- time quickens and space expands- relative to an outside observer but space and time remain unchanged for an observer on the object itself. A local observer on the object should find the opposite changes in emissions coming from the remote observer. Light from the remote observer should appear blueshifting as the observer enters the well and redshifting as they leave.

In the Big Bang scenario, we are like an observer emerging from a gravity well with the “bottom” of the well being our highly dense big bang origin and the distant galaxies as surrounding observers. We can’t observe changes taking place locally but we can observe light from distant galaxies as being uniformly redshifted in all directions.

We don’t observe any particular direction of motion for our own galaxy and we can presume that the same observation applies to all galaxies if the universe is truly curved and four dimensional. The redshifting we observe in distant galaxies is not necessarily indicative of motion but it is the pattern of change we can expect from a decline in the strength of gravity.

This has prompted some physicists to propose cosmologies based on the premise of a gradual decline in the strength of the gravitational constant G rather than redshifting due to recessional velocities. A decline in the strength of gravity should appear as a quickening of time and the apparent expansion of space just as observed when an object emerges from a gravity well but no motion is necessary to complete this explanation.

The conventional view of an expanding universe imposes a 3D geometry on what is a 4D event.

[BurtJordaan]

Bang, you wrote:

The distant galaxies show no direct evidence of recessional velocities, or expanding space. All we can say with certainty is that they appear redshifted. This is what we observe and anything beyond that is speculation.

Not quite speculation. General relativity says that on cosmic scales there must have been either metric expansion or metric contraction in the past. All observations agree with metric expansion, meaning that clusters of galaxies are getting farther away from each other, as expressed in proper distance units (that of a tape measure or meter stick).

The gravitational redshift that you are referring to does not apply at cosmic scale, because all clusters are approximately at the same gravitational potential in an overall approximately flat space. Cluster form relatively small gravitational wells, with distant light going in and out of many such wells, but suffers negligible change in frequency due to that (blueshifted on the way in and redshifted on the way out). Overall, light is simply redshifted due to Hubble's law, directly proportional to the changing proper distance of the source. We observe light all the way to the time of the CMB radiation release, 13 billion years ago and observations support the above.

There is also no evidence that the gravitational constant (G) or the speed of light has changed over cosmic time. We observe distant objects moving/orbiting according to the same law and the same two values that we see today, within experimental errors of course. Don't be fooled by the problems of pinning down the precise value of G, which seems to fluctuate in the tens of parts per million - which is utterly negligible when considering cosmic time and distances.

[bangstrom]

Not quite speculation. General relativity says that on cosmic scales there must have been either metric expansion or metric contraction in the past. All observations agree with metric expansion, meaning that clusters of galaxies are getting farther away from each other, as expressed in proper distance units (that of a tape measure or meter stick).

Relative to, What, is the universe expanding?

The gravitational redshift that you are referring to does not apply at cosmic scale, because all clusters are approximately at the same gravitational potential in an overall approximately flat space. Cluster form relatively small gravitational wells, with distant light going in and out of many such wells, but suffers negligible change in frequency due to that (blueshifted on the way in and redshifted on the way out).

A gravitational redshift, as I explained, blueshifts on the way in and redshifts on the way out. We observe a cosmological redshift but no corresponding blueshift. A cosmological redshift is characteristic of motion out of a gravitational well where time quickens and space expands but we have no evidence that our galaxy or any other is either "moving out" or being accelerated in any direction. On the other hand, a decline in the strength of Newton’s G could also produce the appearance of emergence from a gravitational well and the redshifting of distant galaxies without the necessity of any actual motion.

Changes in space and time can also explain the observation of a cosmos progressively redshifting with distance with no need for the galaxies to be receding from each other. The only “motion” would be a rescaling of the constants.
The idea of the many galaxies moving away from a common center appears to be a holdover from the time the universe was thought of as a 3D sphere and this is incompatible with the idea of a 4D universe of curved spacetime.

Overall, light is simply redshifted due to Hubble's law, directly proportional to the changing proper distance of the source. We observe light all the way to the time of the CMB radiation release, 13 billion years ago and observations support the above.

I understand what you mean but I have a personal complaint whenever someone claims that the universe follows our laws. Redshifting is not due to Hubble’s law since it was happening before Hubble's time and Newton’s law does not cause gravity.
Also, Hubble was never convinced that recessional velocities were the correct explanation for galactic redshifting.

There is also no evidence that the gravitational constant (G) or the speed of light has changed over cosmic time.

If space is expanding then time must be accelerating if c and G are to remain constant. We have no way of observing whether c is changing or not but a progressively changing value for c is one of the less popular explanations for explaining why the universe appears to be expanding without actually expanding.

We observe distant objects moving/orbiting according to the same law and the same values that we see today, within experimental errors of course.

The rotation of distant objects is not observed to be the same as local objects. That is why we have speculation about “dark” matter altering the patterns of rotation.

Don't be fooled by the problems of pinning down the precise value of G, which seems to fluctuate in the tens of parts per million - which is utterly negligible when considering cosmic time and distances.

The same can be said about an expanding universe where the assumed expansion can not be observed locally.

[BurtJordaan]

Bangstrom asked:

Relative to, What, is the universe expanding?

The universe is observed to be spatially flat, or so close to it that it makes no difference. Reading that together with all the other observational evidence, can only mean that it is spatially infinite, or so large that it does not matter if it isn't. Also observed is that it is homogenic and isotropic on the large scale. All of these means all observers, wherever they may be in this infinite space, will see themselves as the center of the expansion.

A gravitational redshift, as I explained, blueshifts on the way in and redshifts on the way out.

Gravitational cosmological redhift that we observe is not the classical gravitational type. As I wrote some posts back, the large scale cosmos is essentially at the same gravitational potential, with the clusters small pockets of lower potential that the distant light may pass through, but with the blue/redshift influences largely canceling out.

Redshifting is not due to Hubble’s law since it was happening before Hubble's time and Newton’s law does not cause gravity.

Yea, but Hubble's law is just a name for the observation/discovery. Of course such 'laws' do not cause the effect!

Don't be fooled by the problems of pinning down the precise value of G, which seems to fluctuate in the tens of parts per million - which is utterly negligible when considering cosmic time and distances.

The same can be said about an expanding universe where the assumed expansion can not be observed locally.

This is totally different. We can measure expansion only on the large scale, because there is no cosmic expansion in gravitationally bound structures, like super-clusters of galaxies and smaller. "G" we measure locally, in the lab, in the solar system in our galaxy and even in our super-cluster. We cannot measure it on the large scale, but all collaborative evidence points to a constant G over cosmic timescales.

On a general note: it is fair game to ask questions about and discuss the published cosmological theory, but it is frowned upon here when someone tries to discredit the accepted theory. Although this is a chat forum, we as moderators in the science sections have a duty to protect the 'canonical' science, otherwise this may become an irrelevant site for the spread of scientific knowledge.

Everyone is welcome to post their own (well substantiated) ideas in the 'Personal Theories' subsection, but for the sake of good order, let's stick to discussing generally accepted science here.

[bangstrom]

Bangstrom asked:

Relative to, What, is the universe expanding?

The universe is observed to be spatially flat, or so close to it that it makes no difference. Reading that together with all the other observational evidence, can only mean that it is spatially infinite, or so large that it does not matter if it isn't. Also observed is that it is homogenic and isotropic on the large scale. All of these means all observers, wherever they may be in this infinite space, will see themselves as the center of the expansion.

I am familiar with the theory but how does that answer the question, “Relative to, What, is the universe expanding?"

Gravitational cosmological redhift that we observe is not the classical gravitational type. As I wrote some posts back, the large scale cosmos is essentially at the same gravitational potential, with the clusters small pockets of lower potential that the distant light may pass through, but with the blue/redshift influences largely canceling out.

Yes, and I noted earlier that an observer sees light blueshifting on the way into a gravity well and redshifting on the way out.

We observers see light from distant sources redshifting so we have an observation consistent with that of an observer emerging from a gravity well. This means that our cosmic gravitational density is declining but it does not mean that our galaxy or the many others are in motion away from each other. Distant redshifting is the observation and radial motion away from a gravitational center is the presumed cause but it lacks supporting evidence beyond redshifting which does not necessarily indicate recessional velocities.

Don't be fooled by the problems of pinning down the precise value of G, which seems to fluctuate in the tens of parts per million - which is utterly negligible when considering cosmic time and distances.

The same can be said about an expanding universe where the assumed expansion can not be observed locally.

This is totally different. We can measure expansion only on the large scale, because there is no cosmic expansion in gravitationally bound structures, like super-clusters of galaxies and smaller. "G" we measure locally, in the lab, in the solar system in our galaxy and even in our super-cluster. We cannot measure it on the large scale, but all collaborative evidence points to a constant G over cosmic timescales.

Cosmic expansion could cause a decline in our gravitational density or it could be caused by a decline in the strength of Newton’s G. How can we be certain that G is constant over cosmic time scales? This is just a rephrasing the same question. How can we be certain that deep space redshifts are recessional velocities and not the result of some other source of redshifting?

[BurtJordaan]

Bang, this is taking way more time that I have available, and I have no expectation that scientific mainstream answers will satisfy you, but I will give it one more try.

I am familiar with the theory but how does that answer the question, “Relative to, What, is the universe expanding?"

The short answer is: relative to any inertial frame, wherever you may choose one. This is essentially what "space is relative" mean. The long answer is, well, very long...

In a nutshell, some 99.9% of everything that we observe on a large scale agrees with general relativity (gr), to a degree that is not rivaled by any other theory. 'Occam's razor' then makes it very easy to pick gr as the most probable and simplest explanation. Yes, we can speculate on other interpretations of the data, but every single one of them so far ran into seemingly insurmountable fundamental difficulties.

Now you may ask "what are these" difficulties? Long story - written up in thousands of scientific papers, some of which were later scientifically refuted, but there are so many that could not be refuted, that we have to accept the inevitable conclusion: the only plausible explanation of the observed cosmic redshift is a universe expanding according to gr. Expanding "relative to what" is what I have said above: "relative to any inertial frame, wherever you may choose one."

I can understand the frustration of readers that want a simple, concrete answer to such a simple question, but 'cooking up' some ordinary down-to-earth toy models/examples to help explain a deep underlying complexity, also leads to confusion. An example is my efforts with The Infinite Cosmic Lattice post some long time ago.

I still use the lattice pic as my avatar, so perhaps it is still a useful crutch... ;-)

[bangstrom]

Bang, this is taking way more time that I have available, and I have no expectation that scientific mainstream answers will satisfy you, but I will give it one more try.

I don’t have much time for writing either which is why my participation in this form is so sporadic. Your explanations fail to change my views because our views are so closely aligned there is hardly any difference between them. I don’t know exactly where our views diverge and I suspect it works both ways but I assume it is not because we are not familiar with the same basics.
Three things I would like to make clear. One is that the Standard Model BB Theory includes GR but it is not GR so rejecting the Standard Model is not rejecting GR. My only objection to the SM is its use of distant galactic redshifts as straight forward recessional velocities.
Also, I don’t trust any conclusions that only work from a single point of view. GR, like all mathematical models, can be considered from a variety of points of view which is what makes it relative. The mainstream may pick one point of view as more workable but that does not mean that all other possibilities within the same model are wrong. Examining a model from more than a single point of view is the best means of testing the correctness any model second only to direct observation. This is the value of alternative models.

I am familiar with the theory but how does that answer the question, “Relative to, What, is the universe expanding?"

The short answer is: relative to any inertial frame, wherever you may choose one. This is essentially what "space is relative" mean. The long answer is, well, very long...

I am completely satisfied with your short answer so there is no need to explain because I hold the same view. I also think of the universe as a lattice but I don’t know if mine is the same as yours. My lattice is a 4D sphere of curved space time geodesics of the sort described by Riemann and it is infinite in the same way a circle is infinite. I see your lattice model is also infinite but is it infinite in the same way?

'Occam's razor' then makes it very easy to pick gr as the most probable and simplest explanation.

GR is OK but it is the Standard BB Model that fails Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor does not pick the simplest explanation but the one with the fewest assumptions. A few assumptions are necessary as givens to any model but Occam’s razor does not condone adding more assumptions from outside science to make the model conform to observations.
Astronomical observations indicate a universe that is much larger and older than indicated by the interpretation of galactic redshifts as recessional velocities. The assumptions in violation of O’s razor are Guth’s inflation period and dark energy. Guth’s inflation would not be necessary if the universe is recognized to be older than current estimates and, if dark energy is to be believed, that alone should tell us that there is more to Hubble redshifts than inertially driven recessional velocities.

I can understand the frustration of readers that want a simple, concrete answer to such a simple question, but 'cooking up' some ordinary down-to-earth toy models/examples to help explain a deep underlying complexity, also leads to confusion. An example is my efforts with The Infinite Cosmic Lattice post some long time ago.

I still use the lattice pic as my avatar, so perhaps it is still a useful crutch... ;-)

I have taken a quick look at your lattice model and I see a few points where our views may diverge.

[BurtJordaan]

My only objection to the SM is its use of distant galactic redshifts as straight forward recessional velocities.

It may be that it was taken as a simple movement through space at the time of Hubble making the discovery, but we have come a long way since then. Expansion of space 'carries' the galaxies in the modern parlance. It is simply the proper distances between galaxies that increase over time, so-called metric expansion of space.

Astronomical observations indicate a universe that is much larger and older than indicated by the interpretation of galactic redshifts as recessional velocities.

How so? The standard interpretation of the cosmological model gives an age of 13.8 billion years and a size tending to infinite. I know of no observation that challenges this.

I see your lattice model is also infinite but is it infinite in the same way?

Mine is spatially infinite, but there is no infinite past, just (possibly) an infinite future.

[bangstrom]

How so? The standard interpretation of the cosmological model gives an age of 13.8 billion years and a size tending to infinite. I know of no observation that challenges this.

I don’t know of any model that challenges the 13.8 figure either but there are several models based on the same mathematics and observations that can’t arrive at a reliable estimate for the age or size of the universe because of the large number of variables involved. The Standard model has no fewer number of variables so I suspect some consideration has been missed.

Our best alternative to a calculated age for the universe is direct observation and and this is where the 13.8 billion years appears to be too short. Patches such as Guth’s inflation and dark energy have been added ad hoc to the model to make the model conform to observation. This is in violation of Occam's razor..

Here is a quote from the OP of your “Infinite Cosmic Universe” thread.

2. An observer somewhere near any red cube (say at the viewpoint in the diagram) will get the impression that she is at the center of a large expanding system of cubes, with all cubes moving away from her at speeds depending upon their relative distance. To her, the color of distant red cubes will appear redder than nearby cubes (light with longer or 'stretched' wavelengths), from which she will be able to deduce that more distant cubes recede faster than nearby ones. Whether she attributes the reddening to Doppler shift or to stretching of the wavelengths does not matter at this point, but it is equivalent to the distance/redshift relationship that astronomers use.

Your observer has no external source of measurement so how is she to tell if the blue lines are getting longer or if the red squares are getting smaller? If the most distant red squares emitted light waves proportional to their size in the distant past, then their wavelengths should appear longer when compared to local sources of light even if there is no expansion of the blue lines. The redshifting in this case would be due to the contraction of the red squares rather than either Doppler shifting or stretching.

[BurtJordaan]

Our best alternative to a calculated age for the universe is direct observation and and this is where the 13.8 billion years appears to be too short.

Which direct observation are you referring to?

[BurtJordaan]

Your observer has no external source of measurement so how is she to tell if the blue lines are getting longer or if the red squares are getting smaller?

To follow up on the above question. Well, if the red cubes are to represent something real, they must be galaxy clusters. Now astronomers do not measure the redshift of the clusters directly, but rather the redshifts of the Ceiphed Variables stars and Type Ia Supernovae in them. Using these as 'standard candles' in the astronomical distance ladder, their distances can be determined and hence we can check out Hubble's law and determine Hubble's constant. Using Hubble's constant we can determine the distance to any distant type 1a supernova detected to a good accuracy.

I have written something on the distance ladder on my website page: http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/the-expanding-universe.html. For details, read the pdf linked from there.This was written in the late 1990's. Accuracies have improved considerably over the last 2 decades, but the principles remained the same.

Hence real life astronomy rules out the possibility of "red squares getting smaller of redder"...

[bangstrom]

Our best alternative to a calculated age for the universe is direct observation and and this is where the 13.8 billion years appears to be too short.

Which direct observation are you referring to?

In general I am referring to estimates the ages of stars and globular clusters. In the early eighties, there were several observations for these ages in excess of 20 billion years. The estimates were made by two groups of astronomers with the oldest estimates coming one of the two groups. The two groups got together to compare their methods after the leaders of both groups had died. The former leaders were not on speaking terms with each other and had always opposed a collaboration.

The combined groups reevaluated their data so that nearly all of the estimates fell within the 15 billion year age of the universe based on the Hubble rate of expansion. When the WMAP measure of the Hubble constant came in with an estimate for an even younger universe of 13.8 billion years, the estimates for the ages of globular clusters had to be reevaluated downward again. None of this gives me confidence that the estimated ages for stars and globular clusters support the 13.8 billion year age for the universe based on the Hubble expansion.

The British-American cosmologist, Edward Harrison was concerned about the discrepancy between the lambda CDM age of the universe and the estimated ages for stars and globular clusters so he proposed a test of his own. Harrison plugged different density values for the universe into the FLWR metric to find which density value best fit observations without corrections involving Guth’s expansion period or the lamda cosmological constant based on dark matter and he found that a 35 billion year old universe satisfied all observations without corrections.

He also concluded, as did Arthur Eddington long before, that our best estimates for the rate of Hubble expansion are in error because of our limited view of the universe. If we could observe galaxies at a greater distance we should begin to see the true, slower rate of expansion because the mass of galaxies beyond our limits of observation is so much greater than what we think.

The WMAP satellite data did accord with Harrison’s prediction of a slower Hubble expansion and I expected Harrison to comment on it saying that they were observing the true rate of Hubble expansion rather than evidence for an accelerated expansion but, as far as I know, he was completely silent on the matter. I don’t know what happened but still observations are consistent with an older, larger universe which would not require the patches of inflation, dark energy, or dark matter to make observations fit the model.

This is a flawed article about Harrison’s test but it is the best I could find remaining free on the inter-net.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... e-know-it/