New Model Raises Doubt About the Composition of 70% of Our Universe – Dark Energy May Simply Not Exist!

Universe Origin Concept

Researchers the world over have long believed that 70 percent of the universe is composed of dark energy, a substance that makes it possible for the universe to expand at an ever-increasing rate. But in a new study, University of Copenhagen researchers tested a model which suggests that the universe’s expansion is due to a dark substance with a kind of magnetic force. Should the model stand, it means that dark energy simply doesn’t exist, according to the UCPH professor behind the study.

Until now, researchers have believed that dark energy accounted for nearly 70 percent of the ever-accelerating, expanding universe. For many years, this mechanism has been associated with the so-called cosmological constant, developed by Einstein in 1917, that refers to an unknown repellant cosmic power.

But because the cosmological constant—known as dark energy—cannot be measured directly, numerous researchers, including Einstein, have doubted its existence—without being able to suggest a viable alternative.

Until now. In a new study by researchers at the University of Copenhagen, a model was tested that replaces dark energy with a dark matter in the form of magnetic forces.

Merging Galaxy Cluster Abell 520

Photo of dark matter, which is invisible to the eye, but here illustrated with a blue color. Credit: NASA/ESA

“If what we discovered is accurate, it would upend our belief that what we thought made up 70 percent of the universe does not actually exist. We have removed dark energy from the equation and added in a few more properties for dark matter. This appears to have the same effect upon the universe’s expansion as dark energy,” explains Steen Harle Hansen, an associate professor at the Niels Bohr Institute’s DARK Cosmology Centre.

The universe expands no differently without dark energy

The usual understanding of how the universe’s energy is distributed is that it consists of five percent normal matter, 25 percent dark matter and 70 percent dark energy.

In the UCPH researchers’ new model, the 25 percent share of dark matter is accorded special qualities that make the 70 percent of dark energy redundant.

“We don’t know much about dark matter other than that it is a heavy and slow particle. But then we wondered—what if dark matter had some quality that was analogous to magnetism in it? We know that as normal particles move around, they create magnetism. And, magnets attract or repel other magnets—so what if that’s what’s going on in the universe? That this constant expansion of dark matter is occurring thanks to some sort of magnetic force?” asks Steen Hansen.

Tycho Supernova Remnant

In 1572, the Danish physicist Tycho Brahe discovered this supernova called Stella Nova. By measuring the distance from this supernova and other novas, researchers later on concluded, that the universe is expanding constantly and with accellerating speed. Credit: NASA/CXC/SAO

Computer model tests dark matter with a type of magnetic energy

Hansen’s question served as the foundation for the new computer model, where researchers included everything that they know about the universe—including gravity, the speed of the universe’s expansion and X, the unknown force that expands the universe.

“We developed a model that worked from the assumption that dark matter particles have a type of magnetic force and investigated what effect this force would have on the universe. It turns out that it would have exactly the same effect on the speed of the university’s expansion as we know from dark energy,” explains Steen Hansen.

However, there remains much about this mechanism that has yet to be understood by the researchers. And it all needs to be checked in better models that take more factors into consideration. As Hansen puts it:

“Honestly, our discovery may just be a coincidence. But if it isn’t, it is truly incredible. It would change our understanding of the universe’s composition and why it is expanding. As far as our current knowledge, our ideas about dark matter with a type of magnetic force and the idea about dark energy are equally wild. Only more detailed observations will determine which of these models is the more realistic. So, it will be incredibly exciting to retest our result.

Reference: “Consistency analysis of a Dark Matter velocity dependent force as an alternative to the Cosmological Constant” by Karoline Loeve, Kristine Simone Nielsen and Steen H. Hansen, 15 February 2021, Astrophysics > Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics.
arXiv: 2102.07792

147 Comments on "New Model Raises Doubt About the Composition of 70% of Our Universe – Dark Energy May Simply Not Exist!"

  1. His would fit with the distortion of spacetime rather than an expanding universe. If light has to travel the equivalent of the peaks and valleys of the distortions of spacetime as matter concentrates to some areas(valley) and vacates others(peaks) it would show as expansion rather than an effect of the distortion of spacetime.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 7:21 am | Reply

      Re authorship there were 3 authors, 2 of those including the first author were female.

      That non-uniformities would affect our cosmology has been fairly well rejected by observation. But what you describe sounds like the well known baryon acoustic oscillations that visibly lump galaxy cluster statistics and can be used as a standard distance ruler [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_acoustic_oscillations ].

      • I have to say, there is no way this is worth your time. I understand the impulse to correct people spewing nonsense on a site meant to be about science, but it’s a losing battle. Look at this page – it’s you versus like four hundred idiots who don’t understand that they do not even know enough to evaluate evidence one way or another. And I’m sure every other page is the same. Either the site gets moderators or they’ll all always be like this, but volunteering to counter it yourself is just wasting your time to no one’s benefit.

        • Torbjörn Larsson | April 4, 2021 at 7:19 am | Reply

          Well, I didn’t waste my time and I benefitted, since I was too tired to do anything else that day. And some appreciated it. Today is a new day.

  2. Aleksandr7364 | March 31, 2021 at 11:14 am | Reply

    The expansion of the universe may have another reason. When a black hole in the center of the galaxy is born from the center of the universe, which has a lower density of matter (like a soap bubble compared to a bar of soap), it has the first cosmic velocity relative to the mass of the center of the universe. When the second black hole is born, the mass of the center of the universe becomes even smaller, and for this mass the velocity of the first black hole becomes greater than the velocity of the second black hole, and the first black hole begins to move away in a spiral orbit.
    For the same reason, stars move away from the centers of galaxies and planets move away from stars.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFUM3vAlaGc

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 7:27 am | Reply

      This pseudoscience again?

      Let’s start with the erroneous claim that our universe has a center. I’ll do your research for you:

      “There are two things that people learn about the Universe that surprise them more than any other: that the Universe hasn’t existed forever but only for a finite time since the Big Bang, and that it’s been expanding ever since that event took place. Most people intuitively hear that “bang” and picture an explosion, and then conceive of expansion like they would visualize shrapnel hurled outwards in all directions. It’s true that the matter and energy in the Universe began in a hot and dense state all at once, and then expanded and cooled as all the various components sped away from one another. But that doesn’t mean the “explosion” picture is correct.”

      “There isn’t necessarily a center to the Universe at all; it’s only our biased intuition that tells us there ought to be one. We can set a lower limit on the size of the region where the Big Bang must have occurred — it can be no smaller than the size of a soccer ball or so — but there is no upper limit; the region of space where the Big Bang occurred could even have been infinite.”

      “It sounds so reasonable to ask the question, “where did the Universe begin expanding from?” But once you realize all of the above, you’ll recognize that’s the wrong question entirely. “Everywhere, all at once,” is the answer to that question, and that’s largely because the Big Bang isn’t referring to a special location in space, but rather a special moment in time. That’s what the Big Bang is: a condition that affects the entire observable Universe — and possibly a much, much larger region than that — all at once at one specific moment.”

      [ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/08/24/ask-ethan-where-is-the-center-of-the-universe/?sh=167138f75403 ]

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 7:28 am | Reply

      Also, that ridiculous self promotion again.

      • Aleksandr7364 | April 1, 2021 at 11:49 am | Reply

        Everything is clear)) First it was the Big Bang, then the Blast is not an explosion, but “everywhere and at once” and soon Ethan will mature that there was no explosion, but there was and continues now the Great Synthesis, as I prove 6 years.

      • I wonder how many said the same sort of thing about Higgs and his Boson? Its a well trodden path you are going down, which usually gives birth to ignorance, arrogance and ultimately making yourself look like a fool.

        Dont ridicule other ideas and replace them with your own ideas that are most definitely full of biases, opinions and conjecture. I look forward to peer reviewing your theory of everything with great anticipation, as you seem to have the answer to everything. Red pen at the ready.

        This sort of commentary is what angers the real scientific community, and the rubbish us genuine ones go through daily who have the balls to submit peer reviewed papers. We have to go through the same BS from some little nobody keyboard warrior who watched a few youtube videos telling us we are wrong and then go on explaining to us why we are wrong with their own opinions on the matter. Laughable really, but extremely frustrating.

        Rant over.

        • Aleksandr7364 | April 2, 2021 at 8:19 am | Reply

          We have to go through the same BS from some little nobody
          ————————————————————
          I do not take away your scientific titles and knowledge – I pick up what you left and went on.
          Don’t forget about my other ideas:
          1) storm, front and volcanic clouds are charged from the ionosphere. Power plants can be built on this principle; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-xkOjy4AQ
          2) the Earth’s magnetic field arises due to the rotation of the planet in the electric field of the capacitor “ionosphere – Earth” .Only one repeater 50 m high subtracts 125 km ^ 2 from the interaction area. (according to my formula
          r = (800h – h ^ 2) ^ 0.5 = 800 * 0.05- (0.05 ^ 2) = (40 -0.0025) ^ 0.5 = 6.32 km
          s = 3.14 * 6.32 * 6.32 = 125 km ^ 2.
          3) The moon is always turned to the Earth on one side because its center of mass is shifted towards the Earth.

          • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 1:31 pm |

            I’m not surprised that you went on to place some high scorers in the crackpot index [ https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html ]. For spot on or close examples:
            “10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)”
            “20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.”
            “20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.”

            Thanks for pointing out that you are not interested in what the current science says, and how science is done.

        • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 1:44 pm | Reply

          I am assuming you responded to me, since the comment tree level suggests that, but you could as well respond to Alexandr7364.

          So – that’s funny. Who says I haven’t successfully published peer review papers and find meaningless comments from some who obviously isn’t a bit beside the point of a science site? Feel free to check my name for peer reviewed publications if you need.

          The response I gave to Alexandr7364 on crackpot index hits suits you too, obviously.

          Also, what is that “theory” you claim I am working on? I haven’t published anything in cosmology, and my article response was posted first thing – this is a topic I am interested in, is all. Again, scientific theories is not personal opinion:

          “A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.”

          [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory ]

          This concept isn’t hard to understand.

          • Aleksandr7364 | April 3, 2021 at 2:52 am |

            Thank you, Torbjörn, for The Crackpot Index
            John Baez .I haven’t laughed like that for a long time)). People like you and John Baez
            will believe in something new only when it appears on store shelves. Before that, everything will be discarded.
            According to my comments, you have already written a whole novel, in which I found only one useful sentence: “Black holes move at a speed of 4800 km per second.” Everything else is pure philosophy and no physics.

          • Torbjörn Larsson | April 4, 2021 at 7:26 am |

            ? If you can’t keep straight what you write and anyone else wrote – you wrote novels and numbers – you may be schizophrenic. Or maybe just incompetent, as I wrote elsewhere.

            If you don’t understand that the sources are from experts, you show even more incompetence. I already discussed peer review publishing versus books, and it seems you also don’t understand that.

            Since your level of understanding the world, and science, is so poor, I will just note here that I will continue to point out your errors as you make them, since it is important that innocent bystanders are not harmed by your pseudoscience promotion.

  3. Dr. Howard Jeffrey Bender | March 31, 2021 at 11:42 am | Reply

    Another way to explain Dark Energy is suggested by String Theory. All matter and energy, including photons (light), have vibrating strings as their basis.

    String and anti-string pairs are speculated to be created in the quantum foam, a roiling energy field suggested by quantum mechanics, and they immediately annihilate each other. If light passes near these string/anti-string annihilations, perhaps some of that annihilation energy is absorbed by the string in the light. Then the Fraunhofer lines in that light will move a bit towards the blue and away from the red shift. As this continues in an expanding universe we get the same curve displayed by Perlmutter and colleagues at their Nobel Prize lecture, without the need for Dark Energy.

    This speculation has the universe behaving in a much more direct way. Specifics can be found in my YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b6t0jO7IgQ

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 7:32 am | Reply

      You and Alexandr7364 go well together.

      You troll your exact same, meaningless comment as soon as it seem to fit your own opinion. (Meaningless, since string theory is waning after LHC didn’t see a string WIMP as it should.)

      Sadly, since it is meaningless it doesn’t fit anyone else. You are just annoying readers that are here for the science

  4. Most of the universe associated with dark matter is iron. Center of galaxies, stars and planets.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 7:35 am | Reply

      This article was about dark energy, and the work suggest that only a minor part of dark matter would be affected. So your comment doesn’t really fit the topic, I think.

      Having said that, it is also manifestly wrong – dark matter can’t be ordinary matter for obvious reasons, it doesn’t build structures, it builds gaseous lumps [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter ]. See that link for many other observations rejecting ordinary matter for dark matter.

  5. Jim Williams | March 31, 2021 at 3:13 pm | Reply

    Was it explaining the expanse of the universe or the obvious expanse of the university.
    Good work 👍, Jim

  6. Magnetism can not make matter travel faster than the speed of light.
    Expansion of space has to be involved.

  7. Just cold hydrogen.

  8. Let’s see …
    Dark matter, WHICH they have to measure and quantify, is attributed some imaginary properties in a computer program which they put through a Monte Carlo run and they report the output of their simulation as a discovery ???

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 7:37 am | Reply

      Dark matter has long been measured and quantified on large scales.

      They didn’t exactly simulate it (or dark energy) either, see my own response to the article.

  9. Ronisson Chagas Da Conceição Da Silva | March 31, 2021 at 7:51 pm | Reply

    Gostei da teoria

  10. I would love to know the variables (magnetic properties) they gave to dark matter that resulted in an expanding universe, and what they suggested would be the end result- no more big rip?!

  11. Most major bodies are round and most all processes are cyclical. I refuse to believe in a universe that is a one off event from a one-time big bang, whether that means a big crunch or rip or cooling something happens at the very end to cause the cycle to reset. Or perhaps the cycle is bigger than we can perceive. If we are accelerating faster and faster does that mean that eventually we could be accelerated into a whole new dimension part of some greater cycle?

    I bet we/it all would eventually look like a star super bright on the outside but at the center/inside would be all the black holes and dark energy pushing matter to the outside. This reaches a breaking point, causes the big collapse and leads to the next big bang eventually. We barely have a good grasp on what makes up our dimension and what makes it work.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 7:43 am | Reply

      Processes such as expansions aren’t cyclical – we don’t live in a rotary combustion engine.

      Other examples are light spreading or evolution treeing ever more branches.

      Personal incredulity does nothing to change facts.

      • Another Turn of the Screw,or something similar. I do understand what that guys feels, As Is Above, Is Below, etc. You implicitly added theleology to the critic on a comment, but a highly recursive and self reflective TOE is also very satisfying.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 7:47 am | Reply

      Also, if it makes you better, inflation currently looks eternal. Which means it is endlessly repeating instead, repeating birth of local universes.

      It doesn’t matter volumetrically since the local universes expands slower and they end up as point masses if you rescale with the inflation expansion rate. I.e. measurement theory makes them insignificant.

      But to us our local universe matter very much, and perhaps to you the others do as well.

  12. Quiet Ginious | March 31, 2021 at 11:10 pm | Reply

    This is all hypothetical. You just changed the definition. We still have no idea. You can call it white space water. I don’t know why these mysterious numeral adjustments to your book long equations are so ominously named. Isn’t it just like taking a debit or credit to balance the books? I think it’s the shadows of other universes. This universe is on top of other ones. And they all suck!

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 7:50 am | Reply

      If you mean smaller dimensions beneath, that is ruled out by general relativity and now by flat 3D space being an observation from the cosmic background spectra.

      Why do you care what names scientist find convenient? You think science is just “long equations” – which is a tool, not its essence – so it shouldn’t bother you at all.

  13. Bibhutibhusanpatel | March 31, 2021 at 11:31 pm | Reply

    Dark matter can not be measured directly.Ño equation has yet been derived to formulate this.We only measuring to visible universè.Acceleration noted in expansion of universe is due to increase in mass of the galaxies contituted of common matter only.Now considering the dark mattet(energy)part of galaxies we come to same conclusion beside the problem that exists for due measurement.

  14. Waiting on an article to say:
    New discovery finds dark matter IS SpaceTime itself!

    And they still only use equations and simulations without being able to directly observe and test their findings.

  15. Arabinda Pradhan | March 31, 2021 at 11:49 pm | Reply

    Maybe the electrons could move in such a way between energy states or orbits by the emission or absorption of photons at specific frequencies.

    Where there electrons acquire the energy state in compact form, there is darkness. Darkness means that mysterious field compiles by barrier of electrons in a state of being as magneto-electric form. At that time, the orbit of electrons or the energy states dominate in such a way that neither emission nor exclusion occurred by photons with their specific character of frequency.

    It is just said, whenever photons get absorbed into the previously mentioned quantised state, they transform as darkness.

    Therefore, the dual (wave + particle) characteristics of both electron and photon transform into darkness or light has its own natural phenomenon. Today’s science has yet to resolve the cause of disagreement about darkness and light. In this view, darkness provides 25 percent of dark matter is accorded special qualities that make the 70 percent of dark energy as magneto-electric phenomena. Please go through my blogs arabindapradhan1959.blogspot.com

  16. Bibhutibhusanpatel | March 31, 2021 at 11:56 pm | Reply

    Dark matter can not be measured directly.Ño equation has yet been derived to formulate this.We only measuring to visible universè.Acceleration noted in expansion of universe is due to increase in mass of the galaxies contstituted of common matter only.Now considering the dark mattet(energy)part of galaxies we come to same conclusion beside the problem that exists for due measurement.Clear vison and well formulated facts that are measured are accepted certainly but dark matter (energy)theory still needs to be completed.

  17. There is no dark matter. It was and remains a ridiculous idea.

  18. Bibhutibhusanpatel | April 1, 2021 at 12:01 am | Reply

    Dark matter can not be measured directly.Ño equation has yet been derived to formulate this.We only measuring to visible universè.Acceleration noted in expansion of universe is due to increase in mass of the galaxies constituted of common matter only.Now considering the dark mattet(energy)part of galaxies we come to same conclusion beside the problem that exists for due measurement.Clear vison and well formulated facts that are measured are accepted certainly but dark matter (energy)theory still needs to be completed.


  19. “We don’t know much about dark matter other than that it is a heavy and slow particle. But then we wondered—what if dark matter had some quality that was analogous to magnetism in it? We know that as normal particles move around, they create magnetism. And, magnets attract or repel other magnets—so what if that’s what’s going on in the universe? That this constant expansion of dark matter is occurring thanks to some sort of magnetic force?”d

    or it might be the way dark matter interacts to a magnetism. In another words, some thing might interact with other one way, but not another way…
    … what happens to that pairs of particle and anti particle that pop out and annihilate each other, on the sphere the number of interactions would increase and some energy would be borrowed… how strange…

  20. Occam’s razor is the principle that, of two explanations that account for all the facts, the simpler one is more likely to be correct. It is applied to a wide range of disciplines, including religion, physics, and medicine.

    In this case we weigh the Dark Energy hypothesis that more than triples the amount of energy we have long presumed to exist in the universe. Against the UCPH hypothesis that adds the ubiquitous property of quantum spin to yet-to-be-discovered or understood particles of dark matter.

    I believe that Occum’s Razor no longer favors the Dark Energy hypothesis. Going forward, UCPH points the way toward a more focused investigation of Dark Matter.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 8:04 am | Reply

      Well, your belief is commonly known to be wrong, see the paper abstract:

      “A range of cosmological observations demonstrate an accelerated expansion of the Universe, and the most likely explanation of this phenomenon is a cosmological constant.”

      Since I can’t find any “UCPH” I doubt it is a peer review published hypothesis.

      Also, parsimony (“Occam’s razor”) has its problems. E.g. it doesn’t work well in phylogenies, where you want to use both Bayesian credibility and Fisherian confidence methods that (most often) enclose the answer. Parsimony methods gets worse results.

  21. Considering “dark energy” is just an unfortunately named placeholder for an unknown variable to explain observations (as is “dark matter”), if they are correct this would not remove dark energy, it would be dark energy… although the poorly chosen name would finally change.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 8:05 am | Reply

      Physics is not math, which equations may have placeholders.

      Both dark matter and dark energy has been observed, see their respective Wikipedia entries.

      • That’s his point…. The title of the article is misleading. The nature of dark energy is unknown so to say that it doesn’t exist because it is dark matter ‘magnetism’is pretty suspect and click bait. Nevertheless interesting idea and important only if accurate.

        • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 1:53 pm | Reply

          Thanks for your response!

          The paper is bad and its framing makes up for it by being click bait. But I was responding to the “placeholder” popular but technically erroneous and generally misleading description.

          We do have candidates and even a preferred candidate, so “unknown” is arguable too – ‘not fully known’ may be better. But by now we are arguing matters of taste perhaps.

          If we are, let me add that “dark” energy is an excellent analogy to “dark” matter since neither interact with electromagnetism but seemingly purely gravitationally. But personally I prefer to use vacuum energy, since that is what it looks like.

  22. Just about the empty ignorance of arrogant scientists. Look no further than the Electric Universe Theory and you can forget about “dark energies and stuff”!

  23. Didn’t Nicola Tesla say something about this? Dynamic theory of gravity maybe

  24. If this is true, I would like to kindly ask the science world to revisit the theory of LIGHT YEAR. Science says that what we are now seeing in the outer space is as a result of light which travelled from or upto the distant objects millions and millions of years ago.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 8:08 am | Reply

      A light year is not a theory, it is a distance.

      Maybe you mean cosmological redshift, which has been revisited for a century now and where space expansion remains the only viable explanation.

  25. Kazama Kazuki | April 1, 2021 at 6:14 am | Reply

    It doesn’t take to be someone like Einstein to know that the so called dark matter or energy doesn’t exist. It only took them decades upon decades to get that??

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 8:10 am | Reply

      No one “got that” yet, if you think that it is your biased read.

      This is one (bad, I think) hypothesis, and if you read the paper they mention that there would be problems with it.

  26. Frederick Thornton | April 1, 2021 at 6:25 am | Reply

    Its really quite insane. Dark matter/energy are both hypothetical virtual stuffs postulated based on a coamological paradigm incorporating GR. Ergo, as long as they limit themselves to a mathematical abstraction whose equations are rooted in a thought experiment founded on profoundly incorrect assumptions -GR- they will continue to flounder.
    Does anyone know what a plasma double layer is and the preponderance of magnetic fields throughout our solar system due to these field aligned currents. They are self organizing and self propagating. These are the most important cosmological structures being either ignored or misunderstood by the standard model.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 8:12 am | Reply

      So on known science you say “blah blah blah”.

      And then you add your manifestly pseudoscience blah blah blah, as if it would be better than your perverse understanding of science.

  27. The universe is increasing in expansion. Magetism has less effect with increase distance. Would we not expect expansion to slowing down with increased expansion? Or is it a repulsive accelartion that eventually slow down?

  28. The 10th Man | April 1, 2021 at 6:41 am | Reply

    The main problem here is that physicist really do not know anything for sure. The Math just is not there there. Its infantile and only AI will break the veil.

  29. Girish Hukkeri | April 1, 2021 at 6:45 am | Reply

    In my view, there is very little known about Magnetic Force exerted by the particles. Since the universe is expanding at far greater speed than light and accelerating, is quite possible that the Space is made up of particles with the mass of m/x, which can move at the c*x^½! And in addition, Centrifugal Forces also must be acting on expansion of Universe, while Centripetal Forces much be acting within the galaxies, as the universe must be spinning!

  30. The universe is holographic,
    Done by the ANUNNAKI..
    SATURN moon MATRIX..orion nebula,and the pyramids.welcome..
    To the MACHINE…THE DRACO TANAK CUBE..ATEN SUNGOD..FALLEN ANGELS..

  31. Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 7:16 am | Reply

    Hardly doubt. As their abstract correctly notes:

    “A range of cosmological observations demonstrate an accelerated expansion of the Universe, and the most likely explanation of this phenomenon is a cosmological constant. Given the importance of understanding the underlying physics, it is relevant to investigate alternative models.”

    Among possible energies mimicking a cosmological constant, they chose a proportion of dark matter to mediate a force that they can fit into a newtonian universe – “Cosmology without general relativity” as the original reference is titled – and then show that you can eyeball a fit between an exponential and a quadratic expansion.

    They do admit that they haven’t checked what that does to dark matter observations outside of the linear effects they rely on by using pre-existing matter energy:

    “Using a magnitude of the new DM force, which is sufficiently big to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe, probably leads to inconsistencies with the internal stability of dwarf galaxies, galaxies and galaxy clusters, since the individual DM particles are moving with such high velocities, that the repulsive force locally may be much larger than the gravitational attraction today.”

    So it’s not our universe, it is not fit tested to dark energy with a statistical test, and it is not our dark matter. It may be a toy model for some applications, but it won’t matter – or even dark matter.

  32. Arabinda Pradhan | April 1, 2021 at 7:24 am | Reply

    Electron resides in quantize energy states. Maybe the electrons could move in such a way between energy states or orbit by the emission or absorption of photons at specific frequencies.

    Where there electrons acquire the energy state, there must be a formation of magnetized field of course. And there’s the entity of darkness formed. Darkness means that mysterious field compiles by barrier of electrons in a state of being as ‘Magneto-electric’ form. At that time, the orbit of electrons or the energy states dominate in such a way that neither emission nor exclusion occurred by photons with their specific character of frequency.

    So it maybe hypothesized that whenever photons get absorbed into the previously mentioned quantize state, they transform into darkness.

    Therefore, the wave characteristics of electron, and particle characteristics of photon transform into darkness or light has its own natural phenomenon. Today’s science has yet to resolve the cause of disagreement about darkness and light.
    This article proposed that the 25% share of dark matter is accorded special qualities that make the 70% of dark energy redundant. But it also hypothesize as ‘Magneto-electric’ phenomena obviously.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 1, 2021 at 8:24 am | Reply

      I think I have seen a paper working on dark matter being “silenced” ordinary atoms, but it is fringe at best. The consensus is that dark matter is different and doesn’t interact with anything much except by gravity.

      Dark energy is something entirely different though, it is merely causing an expansion and the “dark” was historically referring to a non-obvious (and weak!) form of energy [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy ].

  33. I thought I told Y’all to remember my name when you talk about my stuff? Nice to see you’s was listening

  34. “same effect on the speed of the university’s expansion.” Shouldn’t that be “universe’s”‘ not “university’s”?

  35. Nicholas J Hoover | April 1, 2021 at 12:43 pm | Reply

    Isn’t the nature of dark energy unknown? So to say this energy from dark matter isn’t dark matter isn’t dark energy is kind of suspect. However if dark energy is a magnetic like force from dark matter is an extremely important discovery.

  36. Abed Peerally | April 1, 2021 at 1:59 pm | Reply

    There is a series of modern perceptions about the ultimate nature of the universe and about its cosmological expansion that all seem to be supporting my narratives of the ultimate nature of the universe and in fact about its origin that make up my coming second book. I have no doubt about the accuracy of my detailed account of the ultimate origin and nature of existence. There is as well my very exciting concept of the actual origin of the universe that I can foresee will be acceptable to the great majority of readers and philosophers and scientists.My book is currently under revision and improvements, and will be published in the months to come. A 700 page book is an arduous task to go over, correctcand improve up.It is moving on satisfactorily.

    • Well just out of curiosity, Mr. Peerally, do you have any significant parts of these theories/ideas of yours published and/or out here in the world right now that you can leave any links or references to? And also, before anyone bothers, what are your relevant credentials and education/study on these subjects that you feel makes you a viable & worthwhile voice on such matters? And again, not necessarily criticizing you here sir, just trying to decide if your little “teaser” advertisement above is even worth a first look at. Let alone a second. Also to note, I think you probably should have proof-read your own comments here for editing if you wanted intelligent people to take serious your promotion of a 700 page book, & of yourself as a credible author, eh? I’m curious for your replies, but just an advanced warning: I will be angry if this ends up not even being worth the time spent writing writing this reply. So make it count, Abed.
      Thank you ~

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 2:01 pm | Reply

      FWIW, since eternal inflation is slightly preferred by the Planck collaboration in 2018 and there are papers that problematize that an eternal process has an “origin”, your book may be for naught.

      In any case, their observation of a 3D flat space may be exactly correct, in which case there wasn’t any impetus for the cosmological expansion – the process of the universe as system – since it would be a spontaneous (adiabatic free) one.

  37. Mike Harrington | April 1, 2021 at 3:36 pm | Reply

    Wow! You can’t tell me that these researchers have never heard about the much-maligned work done in the field of Plasma Cosmology? Or worse yet, members of the Electric Universe?
    How about the world of Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven? The research done by the one of the most esteemed plasma researchers ever to work at Los Alamos Laboratory, Anthony Peratt?
    Sorry, but those folks have been saying this very same thing for DECADES. Seriously!
    Man, I smell some charges of plagiarism on the wind..

  38. All energy is greeted by an interaction between the sun and Element X. You just don’t know it yet.

  39. The universe isn’t expanding. It is in motion. We are but like ants on an elephant, attempting to measure the jungle and the savannah. The universe is electric. It is multiple dimensional and in flux.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 2:04 pm | Reply

      See the paper references for evidence for expansion.

      The rest of the comment isn’t just wrong, it is pseudoscience.

  40. Robert Johnson | April 1, 2021 at 8:59 pm | Reply

    If it was magnetic we would have globular dark matter which we do not

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 2:09 pm | Reply

      That’s a good point, I think, at least on the dark matter gas clump scale. Their stated problem lies on the more visible traits of dark matter interactions:

      ““Using a magnitude of the new DM force, which is sufficiently big to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe, probably leads to inconsistencies with the internal stability of dwarf galaxies, galaxies and galaxy clusters, since the individual DM particles are moving with such high velocities, that the repulsive force locally may be much larger than the gravitational attraction today.””

      So maybe one would need to do an estimate how much clumping their dark matter would cause, to be sure.

  41. Steven Crompton | April 2, 2021 at 3:43 am | Reply

    I suspect that one day, scientists will realize that their observation that the universe is accelerating is inncorrect and that something in their estimate has not been accounted for. The fact that in order to justify the accelerating universe with energies and matter that we cannot detect or that they have properties that defy our known laws of physics is a strong indicator that something in their estimate is wrong.

    • The universe is definitely expanding, we know this because the stars are rushing away from each other. There was a bang and, as with any explosion, a rush of particles, (i.e the universe) but we are still living in that initial explosion. There is nothing ‘accelerating’ the Universe. It is accelerating due to the original ‘bang’ which we are living through. So the only thing accelerating the Universe is the bang itself which has already happened. In other words if the Big Bang was a video recorder and we slowed it down we would see ourselves in the Big Bang wondering what is accelerating the Universe, when in actual fact it is the original power of the Big Bang itself and not encouraged along by any particles in this time ‘feeding’ it. The Universe may expand even faster, it’s all part of the ‘bang’ that we are riding. You probably won’t agree with me, but then I’m not the one who can’t find dark matter!

      • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 2:19 pm | Reply

        This is a popukar misunderstanding, but there was no ‘explosion’ and no ‘rush’ of particles moiving in space, merely an expansion of space itself.

        “The fact that we can look at our Universe today, see it expanding and cooling, and infer our cosmic origins is one of the most profound scientific achievements of the 20th century. The Universe began from a hot, dense, matter-and-radiation filled state some 13.8 billion years ago, and has been expanding, cooling, and gravitating ever since. But the Big Bang itself doesn’t work the way most people think. Here are the top 5 myths that people believe about the Big Bang.

        1.) The Big Bang is the explosion that began our Universe. Every time we look out at a distant galaxy in the Universe and try to measure what its light is doing, we see the same pattern emerge: the farther away the galaxy is, the more significantly its light is systematically shifted to longer and longer wavelengths. This redshift that we observe for these objects follows a predictable pattern, with double the distance meaning that the light is shifted by twice as much.

        Distant objects, therefore, appear to be receding away from us. Just as a police car speeding away from you will sound lower-pitched the faster it moves away from you, the greater we measure an object’s distance to be from us, the greater the measured redshift of its light will be. It makes a lot of sense, then, to think that the more distant objects are moving away from us at faster speeds, and that we could trace every galaxy we see today back to a single point in the past: an enormous explosion.

        But this is a total misconception about what the Big Bang actually is. It isn’t that these galaxies are moving through the Universe itself, but rather that the fabric of space that makes up the Universe itself is expanding. Just as raisins appear to recede in proportion to their distance in a leavening ball of dough, the galaxies appear to recede from one another as the Universe expands. The raisins aren’t in motion relative to the dough; the action of the expanding dough itself simply appears to drive them apart.

        It wasn’t an initial explosion that causes galaxies to move away from one another, but rather the physics of the expanding Universe as governed by Einstein’s General Relativity that causes space (with galaxies contain within it) to expand. There was no explosion, just a rapid expansion that has been evolving based on the cumulative gravitational effects of everything contained within our Universe.”

        [ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/02/06/the-top-5-myths-you-probably-believe-about-the-big-bang/?sh=76917b302694 ]

        I’ll leave the 4 remaining myths to you to read – they are related to the Big Myth of #1 above.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 2:13 pm | Reply

      ? Of course the theories do not defy earlier known laws unless they have to replace them – theories must be internally as well as externally (by way of observation) consistent.

      [Observations must not, if there are problems, c.f. the tension in Hubble rate measurements. In the end they should be consistent too, of course.]

  42. Author: Dark energy was proposed after the 1999 discovery that the universe expansion is accelerating. Einstein’s “cosmological constant”, while conceptually similar, is not the same thing.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 2:23 pm | Reply

      The article agree, it notes an association.

      Which is the consensus today, by the way, so it was an unnecessary point in the article.

  43. That which most people call “the universe”,is just the visible matter within the universe, “the big bang” did not create the universein which the big bang occurred. Dark matter is what is left of the matter that existed from prior visible matter creations before this big bang occurrence. Capish?

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 2:24 pm | Reply

      Assertions in need of evidence.

      Also, modern cosmology do include matter energy, since it is based on Einstein’s general relativity agreeing with observations.

  44. This is all very interesting, but I’d like to know where these experiments are taking place. How can one possibly expect to find dark matter if the experiment is conducted on Earth! Surely the experiment should be conducted in space, where there is so much difference, the absence of gravity bring just one. All this is just circumstantial wiffle-waffle! We need to get out there, into space, deep space, before we know exactly what we are dealing with. If the same experiment was conducted in actual deep space,using Spaceships rather than a laboratory, I’m sure our understanding of this all would change. We need to get out there in space and I’m pretty sure we will find the answers we are looking for. If there was a bang and it started somewhere we are not going to find it conducting experiments on Earth!

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 2:26 pm | Reply

      A lot of astronomy – and so cosmology – can not only be done on Earth since the start of astronomy, it is sometimes the best place for observatories. The universe itself is the experiment we observe (repeatedly, and ever better).

  45. John Robinson | April 2, 2021 at 11:36 am | Reply

    Putting aside the as hominem attacks for a minute, here’s a suggestion for you. What if the Earth is the centre of everything, and the stars we see in space are actually billions of little pin pricks in the ceiling of our house, to the outer heavens?

  46. I will first say I trained scientists now student if Physics. I never thought about assigning a magnetic property to dark matter, but I often wondered if magmatism played a larger role in our Universe. I came to this line of thought based simply on observing two magnets. One side attracts, the other repels the other magnet. The observed expansion I though could be caused by this repulsive force. I think it should also allow, while expanding the Universe, objects that are closer to attract towards one another, as long as their “closeness” created an attraction greater than the repulsive force.
    No – I am in no way suggesting “I already thought of this”, just that I wondered if magetism/electromagnetism played a larger role that what was assigned to it.
    In that same way, with gravity being unusually weak compared to the other forces, could gravity itself actually not exist? Could what we observe as gravity also be a property of electromagnetism? The attraction of two objects is stronger than their repulsion, but bring them to tough each other and the repulsive force increases enough to prevent the objects from simply passing through each other….
    May be crazy, but just my long term thought….

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 2:49 pm | Reply

      (1/3) With space flat as modern cosmology finds it, it is easy to think “gravity” as in general relativity separates out to a relativistic Lorentz metric factor and an additional gravitational field for mass-energy, as described in a Feynman path integral description. I.e. Wilzcek’s “core theory” of quantum particle fields [ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/ ].

      The general relativistic theory would then be a low derivative approximation of the tensor field description of apparent “space curvature” (geodesics) same as classical vector field descriptions have apparent “field lines” that are used for convenience.

      Weinberg just had something to say on this, I’ll put it in a separate comment so I can give you another link.

      And since that pioneer and Nobel Prize winner vindicates a theory I have lately promoted for gravity, namely the linearized quantum gravity field theory that seems to work, I’ll put that too with a link at the end.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 2:51 pm | Reply

      (2/3) Do’h! Autoincorrect: “Wilzcek’s” = Wilczek’s.

      On to the topic:

      “On the development of effective field theory
      Steven Weinberga
      Theory Group, Department of Physics, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA
      Received 11 January 2021
      © The Author(s) 2021, corrected publication 2021
      Abstract Editor’s note: One of the most important developments in theoretical particle physics at the end of the 20th century and beginning of the twenty-first century has been the development of effective field theories (EFTs). Pursuing an effective field theory approach is a methodology for constructing theories, where a set of core principles is agreed upon, such as Lorentz symmetry and unitarity, and all possible interactions consistent with them are then compulsory in the theory. The utility of this approach to particle physics (and beyond) is wide ranging and undisputed, as evidenced by the recent formation of the international seminar series All Things EFT (Talks in the series can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1_KF6kdJFoDEcLgpcegwCQ (accessed 21 December 2020).) which brings together each week the worldwide community of EFT practitioners. The text below is a lightly edited version of the talk given by Prof. Weinberg on September 30, 2020, which inaugurated the series. The talk reviews some of the early history of EFTs from the perspective of its pioneer and concludes with a discussion of EFT implications for future discovery”

      “It gradually appeared to me in teaching the subject that although individual quantum field theories like quantum electrodynamics certainly have content, quantum field theory in itself has no content except the principles on which it is based, namely quantum mechanics, Lorentz invariance and the cluster decomposition principle, together with whatever other symmetry principles you may want to invoke, like chiral symmetry and gauge invariance.”

      “Similar remarks apply to gravitation, which I think has led to a new perspective on general relativity. Why in the world should anyone take seriously Einstein’s original theory, with just the Einstein–Hilbert action in which only two derivatives act on metric fields? Surely that’s just the lowest order term in an infinite series of terms with more and more derivatives. In such a theory, loops are made finite by counterterms provided by the higher-order terms in the Lagrangian. This point of view has been actively pursued by Donoghue and his collaborators.”

      “With the new approach to the Standard Model I think we have to say that this theory in its original form is not what we thought it was. It is not a fundamental theory. But at the same time, I want to stress that the Standard Model will survive in any future textbooks of physics in the same way that Newtonian mechanics has survived as a theory we use all the time applied to the solar system. All of our successful theories survive as approximations to a future theory.”

      “… at low energy … any theory will look like a quantum field theory.”

      [ https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140/epjh/s13129-021-00004-x.pdf ]

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 2:52 pm | Reply

      (2/3) Do’h! Autoincorrect: “Wilzcek’s” = Wilczek’s.

      On to the topic:

      “On the development of effective field theory
      Steven Weinberg
      Theory Group, Department of Physics, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA
      Received 11 January 2021
      © The Author(s) 2021, corrected publication 2021
      Abstract Editor’s note: One of the most important developments in theoretical particle physics at the end of the 20th century and beginning of the twenty-first century has been the development of effective field theories (EFTs). Pursuing an effective field theory approach is a methodology for constructing theories, where a set of core principles is agreed upon, such as Lorentz symmetry and unitarity, and all possible interactions consistent with them are then compulsory in the theory. The utility of this approach to particle physics (and beyond) is wide ranging and undisputed, as evidenced by the recent formation of the international seminar series All Things EFT (Talks in the series can be viewed at (accessed 21 December 2020).) which brings together each week the worldwide community of EFT practitioners. The text below is a lightly edited version of the talk given by Prof. Weinberg on September 30, 2020, which inaugurated the series. The talk reviews some of the early history of EFTs from the perspective of its pioneer and concludes with a discussion of EFT implications for future discovery.”

      “It gradually appeared to me in teaching the subject that although individual quantum field theories like quantum electrodynamics certainly have content, quantum field theory in itself has no content except the principles on which it is based, namely quantum mechanics, Lorentz invariance and the cluster decomposition principle, together with whatever other symmetry principles you may want to invoke, like chiral symmetry and gauge invariance.”

      “Similar remarks apply to gravitation, which I think has led to a new perspective on general relativity. Why in the world should anyone take seriously Einstein’s original theory, with just the Einstein–Hilbert action in which only two derivatives act on metric fields? Surely that’s just the lowest order term in an infinite series of terms with more and more derivatives. In such a theory, loops are made finite by counterterms provided by the higher-order terms in the Lagrangian. This point of view has been actively pursued by Donoghue and his collaborators.”

      “With the new approach to the Standard Model I think we have to say that this theory in its original form is not what we thought it was. It is not a fundamental theory. But at the same time, I want to stress that the Standard Model will survive in any future textbooks of physics in the same way that Newtonian mechanics has survived as a theory we use all the time applied to the solar system. All of our successful theories survive as approximations to a future theory.”

      “… at low energy … any theory will look like a quantum field theory.”

      [ https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140/epjh/s13129-021-00004-x.pdf ]

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 2:58 pm | Reply

      (3/3)

      “Quantum gravity as a low energy effective field theory”

      “General relativity fits naturally into this effective field theory framework (Donoghue, 1994). Let us go through the various steps.”

      “A weakness of the type of work described in the previous section is that it is only describing scattering amplitudes defined on flat spacetime. Some gravitational physics, like the potential and light bending, can be described using such an amplitude. But some of the most interesting gravitational physics involves classical solutions that are not just small deviations from flat space. The fact that the effective field theory has first been applied to scattering amplitudes is not an intrinsic weakness of the effective field theory. It is just a reflection of the fact that the techniques of quantum field theory are well-developed and simple for the calculation of amplitudes. Quantum corrections around classical solutions is a more difficult topic within QFT, especially when combined with the general coordinate invariance of general relativity. The effective field theory is capable of describing such corrections. However, this is still a topic that has only been explored lightly and more work is needed.”

      “Given the interest in quantum gravity, we have identified a portion of the theory – the low energy/low curvature limit over ordinary distance scales – where the general relativity can be treated as a quantum effective field theory. The result is a subtle and interesting quantum field theory. We can identify some firm predictions of quantum gravity and also have interesting challenges for future work.”

      [ http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Quantum_gravity_as_a_low_energy_effective_field_theory ]

  47. To my last comment – autocorrect mistake, Sorry!!!
    Should begin “I will first say I am not a trained scientist nor student of Physics…”

  48. This comments section could really use a moderator or something, it’s like 90% people who barely have a 10th grade level of scientific knowledge coming in and either expounding on their own absurd alternative pseudoscience or saying that they don’t believe in one basic concept or another because they don’t possess the level of education required to even make an informed opinion on the matter. No one cares that you don’t believe in dark matter or the big bang or that you have a YouTube video on some idea you had. If you were willing to devote several years of your life to actually learning the mathematics that serves as a basic prerequisite to actually understand any of these theories on anything but the most watered down (and thus ultimately useless) sense, your opinion still wouldn’t mean anything but at least you could have one.

    What you are doing right now is like stating that you disagree with the standard interpretation of a particular hieroglyphic because you read a children’s book on ancient Egypt, which is ultimately what literally everything you have ever read about science that does not involve advanced math amounts to. Someone had to go through a lot of effort to translate some extremely complex ideas it takes 5-10 years of postsecondary schooling to actually understand to any significant degree into language you can understand, and just like translating the complexities of real archeology and history into a pop-up book, all the parts that include the proof have to be removed.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 2, 2021 at 3:05 pm | Reply

      😁

      I just now suspect it is comment moderated, a thread that started as a rude response to me has vanished.

      Sorry to dominate the comments, it was tempting to scratch the “someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet” itch while I am recuperating from increasing training after a convalescence. Tired body, tired mind.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 4, 2021 at 7:28 am | Reply

      I later discovered that I was mistaken, I had confused two article threads. You may be correct, these threads may not be much moderated.

  49. Christopher Thomas Adams | April 2, 2021 at 2:36 pm | Reply

    1.33mmx2.54mm dimension=1280×720
    1.44mmx3.20mm dimension=1366×544

  50. Torbjorn, I applaud your patience and fortitude. I would have split a long time ago. Thank you for sticking around.

  51. What of the Recent Scientific Discovery, Regarding “Black Holes”, as Tears In The Fabric Of Space Time, Referencing Another Dimension? Any Thoughts?

  52. Francis Bartley | April 2, 2021 at 7:00 pm | Reply

    #GOD

  53. Two big takeaways from this read. The University of Copenhagen expansion won’t be affected by this new model, and commenter Larson is a jerk with too much time on his hands.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 4, 2021 at 7:32 am | Reply

      Well, aren’t you a jerk, making personal attacks.

      Also, not really defining your claims. The group those work was discussed here is not observing an expansion, they are publishing a hypothesis of why it looks as it does.

      It looks like a poor hypothesis, for reasons I and others already described in the comments here.

  54. Strictly a question in reference to “the universe beginning everywhere – all at once”. How then could there be expansion? I can’t invision an explosion workout a center.
    Seriously, I’m not trying to troll anyone. I’m just not a scientist and I can’t understand how this would be possible.
    Thanks in advance to anyone who can make this understandable to a layman. (Assuming that is possible.)

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 4, 2021 at 7:37 am | Reply

      If it is an expansion everywhere it isn’t an explosion. Space can stretch in general relativity due to the special relativity effects of observers seeing time dilation and length contraction – it sounds odd but the math works out. Here is an explanation without math, see the “raising bread” gif there [ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/08/24/ask-ethan-where-is-the-center-of-the-universe/?sh=305931c85403 ].

      If you have more questions after reading it, you can ask them here and if I see them I will try to respond.

      I also need to point out – again – that the link Aleksandr7364 provides is self promoted pseudoscience.

      • Aleksandr7364 | April 4, 2021 at 12:18 pm | Reply

        Torbjörn, for The Crackpot Index
        John Baez .Shoot a comedy movie on this index. It clearly shows what experts think about inventors and inventors about experts. There will be many views.
        You do not understand the new astronomical physics.

        • Torbjörn Larsson | April 12, 2021 at 2:13 pm | Reply

          It shows what experts think about crackpots, defined by the measure.

          There is nothing about inventors here. If you think about yourself as an inventor, show an invention. The only thing you show is crackpotism.

          As I have shown by references I do understand the general area, yes. You yourself has shown nothing of the sort.

  55. Bibhutibhusanpatel | April 2, 2021 at 9:42 pm | Reply

    Dark energy(matter) is very àccurately linked to magnetism only as origin.Total matter(common and dark)is one if dark energy is added for the Universe.So fact depends only upon the view.

  56. He he, I suggested it a while ago…. Not dark anything but… Space-time acquiring a new spatial dimension! Physical phenomena in such new space would have per force to look opaque one dimension below, and indeed, magnetism is a likely candidate to encompass the, uh, view, of same phenomena one dimension higher and new phenomena as well, even more than gravity as gravity would essentially behave alike and even establish a true continuum in the phenomenal space of events… That makes for a really young and primitive Universe we live in. – Feels a little bit like vacuuming under the rug of an older relative s, but anyway.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 4, 2021 at 7:46 am | Reply

      Space comes out as 3D flat in modern cosmological observations.

      It is not believed by the cosmologists in general that this fact will change.

  57. Children, play nice or don’t play at all. These arguments are theoretical. Nothing that happened before the Big Bang can be explained nor proven. I’ve been trying to figure out just wtf caused/ created the BB since the 70’s. Colliding universe theory, proto universe theory, yadda yadda yadda. The studies and theories and conjectures are terrific bathroom reading. The conundrum of how it all came to be will never be explained, because us humans are just not that smart. But it makes for hilarious entertainment reading the comments and everyone’s assumptions. No one is right and no one is wrong.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 4, 2021 at 7:44 am | Reply

      We have had a pretty good insight into this since 40ish years, which is now the scientific consensus.

      “Since inflation was first proposed and refined during the early-to-mid 1980s, we’ve learned a lot about our cosmic origins. In addition to reproducing the hot Big Bang’s successes and explaining these otherwise inexplicable initial conditions, it made six novel predictions about properties the Universe should have today, with four observationally verified and two not yet sufficiently tested to know for certain. Among most people who study the early Universe, inflation is accepted as the new consensus theory. We might not know everything there is to know about inflation, but either it — or something so similar to it that we don’t have an observation to tell them apart — must have happened.”

      “Inflation came first, and its end heralded the arrival of the Big Bang. There are still those who disagree, but they’re now nearly a full 40 years out of date. When they assert that “the Big Bang was the beginning,” you’ll know why cosmic inflation actually came first. As far as what came before the final fraction-of-a-second of inflation? Your hypothesis is just as good as anyone’s.”

      [ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/10/22/what-came-first-inflation-or-the-big-bang/?sh=147a17b54153 ]

  58. … oh, no!
    The most beautiful things in physics are not existing, is that like possible or what?
    Even if this theories are wrong, they should be a good additions, because it give us more possibilities.
    In current approach, some people kill of alternative views, just because there is one more way to say that current theory is acceptable…

    • … the lack of alternative theory is not a proof that current theory is correct, but existence of alternative theories is not proof that current theory is wrong…

  59. There are so many people here who live not to debate, but to simply knock down whatever doesn’t appeal them. Mean-spirited commentary, where no alternative argument accompanies it, is a sad and lonely place.

    It would be a unique pleasure to debate these malcontents on these issues. It would be a study in how to pick an opponent cleaner than a Thanksgiving Turkey, without betraying a single emotion.

    Has anyone determined yet that, where our argument ends, our insults start? Insults are the most sincere of compliments that exist. No one who knows their business chooses an insult.

    With this in mind, look at all the comments that came before this. Show me an insult, and I’ll show you a person who lacks an argument. There will be no exceptions. Those who insult others are the last to know that their insults advertise their lack of meaningful input.

    It’s a sad and lonely place–the propensity to add nothing, while tearing down everything.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | April 12, 2021 at 2:15 pm | Reply

      Worse are all the trolls and the misplaced whines.

      There is little of anything being knocked down though. Only pointing out the many of the above, whose opinions doesn’t suit a science thread.

  60. B.A. Grissom | April 4, 2021 at 4:08 pm | Reply

    You can make all the uneducated guesses you want for what Little it’s worth but there’s only one thing known for sure about the universe is that that nothing concerning it is etched in stone.
    Tomorrow there will be a new headline that says “Black Energy now proven to be a thing” and the day after that it will be Top Scientists agree that universe does not actually exist”.
    If something doesn’t work out mathematically then the events the new type of math I want something unexpected is discovered they say a new type of physics needs to be created to explain it.
    I stayed physics for over 30 years (REAL physics not quantum physics) and although the most basic laws of physics seem to fit nicely there’s a hundred times that that is still completely unexplainable and until another Albert Einstein is born will probably remain so.
    The universe is simply a Perpetual Machine that is continually changing matter into energy and energy back into matter around and around endlessly.
    One thing that I feel sure about is that everything will end up in black holes. Personally I don’t believe that black holes evaporate or wink out of the universe but continue growing in Mass until they reach a point to where the internal temperature becomes so intense that it actually turns inside out in a Big Bang type event. If the void is truly endless then there could be big bang events happening everywhere with what we refer to as a Universes being born all throughout the endless void. I believe it’s possible that black holes and other material from long ago universes can drift into our universe which would explain many of the wandering black holes discovered lately.
    Once everything in the universe is swallowed by black holes then the black holes will begin swallowing one another until one contains almost the whole Mass of the universe and internally reaches a critical temperature that sets It off. This theory would explain a lot of things scientists are baffled over.
    If black holes were to just “Wink Out” of the universe then eventually there would be no matter in the universe and would go completely against one of the laws that etates that matter cannot be created nor destroyed but can be changed from one to another.

  61. Dustin Rader | April 5, 2021 at 12:02 am | Reply

    can’t we just call it ether? dialectic acceleration toward a null point instead of magnetic attraction? light doesn’t travel, it’s a rate of induction of the ether.. it’s electromagnetic radiation…what is waving? a wave isn’t a thing it’s what a thing does it’s not atoms it’s not molecules what is waving? just call it the ether and rectify the conjugate nature of reality back to the dielectric hyperboliod and the magnetic torus creating volume, magnetic gives us its light it’s density it’s frequencies the attributes we give things all comes down to its magnetic properties, so no magnetic field not stronger than its dielectric…black hole, no volume it doesn’t take up any space. so it can’t have a magnetic torus field equal to its dielectric.seems about the same trouble to detect ask dark woo woo and spooky action weak vs strong magic…so why not just go with spinning vortexes of loss of inertia? creating 3 dimensional force vectors we know as magnetic fields? I don’t know why one concept is better than the other

  62. Hmmm this is amazing but to Larsson
    As u said time wasting.

  63. Jay Carlisle | April 5, 2021 at 6:54 am | Reply

    Steve Weinberg returning from Texas
    Brings dimensions galore to perplex Us
    But the bulk of them all,
    are rolled up in a ball,
    so small that it never effects Us

    A introductory verse for an early S.W. address
    Would be g8 if I could tag the specifics which M theory I ought to be able to do yet in practice it appears Dr May has ruled that yet another theory bites the dust but what do I know? Peebles Principals still hurts the lump I carry either 3ft off the ground or 3ft above it… I keep getting them confused probably due to the frequent mergers but that’s an alimentary mistake I canal seem to correct
    I blame society
    Please try and be more careful in the future

  64. Our loving creator knows all the answers to all your questions, since it was his dynamic energy that produced all we observe, and don’t observe,but why should he reveal these things to unbelievers. By the way his name is Jehovah.

  65. Brother James | April 5, 2021 at 9:10 am | Reply

    Maybe it’s God….

  66. Tesla Nikola | April 5, 2021 at 5:35 pm | Reply

    I have told you it was Ether!
    Nikola Tesla hahaha

  67. ‘Dark matter’ is alive, very alive. It can only be detected fourth dimentionally, or its effects being detected by the precence of mass. Although from a different source, very similar to the third strand in your DNA. Didnt like that idea? Wonder why it didnt float away? And if you ‘think’ that makes you feel queasy, wonder why your bodys feeling the effects of it? HUH? Be careful what you wish for, higgs might pop his head out again.lol. If mass is going out of the black/worm hole, whats coming in? Nothing?lol

  68. Jay Carlisle | April 7, 2021 at 9:18 pm | Reply

    As the hamburgerler was wont to say
    Wobble wobble wobble
    The wonderful thing about Tigger’s is Tigger’s are wonderful things… Muon one might even say they’rrre grrre8!
    Let none but Geometers enter here
    Livescience.com: A tiny, wobbling muon just shook particle physics to its core.
    https://www.livescience.com/muon-wobble-could-break-physics.html

  69. Esteban Ospina | April 8, 2021 at 6:05 pm | Reply

    Pregunta, no soy un genio ni mucho menos y puede que este preguntado una bobada pero… si la materia oscura crea un efecto magnético, eso no lo hace interactuar obligatoriamente con la fuerza electromagnética? Y eso no lo haría tener un espectro de algún tipo? Gracias 🙂, no me maten por fa.

  70. How do make one entity warp spacetime in positive and negative curvature
    Why would gravity be repulsive only for dark matter and that too on intergalactic scale only
    There should be some formulation for repulsive spacetime curvature at long distances or at least some condition other than just long distances like we have in electromagnetism “unlike attract, like repel”. If this is based around higher dimension then that it is based theory not proven Giving one substance a property to warp spacetime and expand it simultaneously is like making Higgs boson responsible for charge and mass both

  71. How do make one entity warp spacetime in positive and negative curvature
    Why would gravity be repulsive only for dark matter and that too on intergalactic scale only
    There should be some formulation for repulsive spacetime curvature at long distances or some velocities or at least some condition other than just long distances/huge velocities like we have in electromagnetism “unlike attract, like repel”. If this is based around higher dimension then that it is based theory not proven Giving one substance a property to warp spacetime and expand it simultaneously is like making Higgs boson responsible for charge and mass both. Also if there are two different properties based on velocity wouldn’t there be some detectable messenger particle for the change to be seen. Also what messenger particle affects gravity, even if there is one no point in believing this unless it’s verified experimentally.

Leave a comment

Email address is optional. If provided, your email will not be published or shared.