Gravity has finite reach? (per Claudia de Rahm)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rolnor
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force of gravity
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Claudia de Rham's proposition that gravity may have a finite reach, potentially explaining the universe's accelerated expansion without invoking dark energy. Participants express skepticism about this claim, emphasizing the need for specific references to her lecture and questioning the validity of the argument. The conversation highlights the distinction between finite gravity and dark energy, noting that while finite gravity could alter observable data, it does not equate to dark energy. The thread has been closed for moderation due to the lack of a valid reference from the original poster.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity (GR) principles
  • Familiarity with dark energy theories and cosmological constants
  • Knowledge of particle physics, particularly the weak force and graviton concepts
  • Ability to interpret scientific publications and references
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Claudia de Rham's publications on gravity and cosmology
  • Study the implications of finite-range forces in theoretical physics
  • Examine the role of dark energy in the universe's expansion
  • Learn about observational data related to cosmological constants and their uncertainties
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, and researchers interested in theoretical physics, particularly those exploring alternative explanations for cosmic phenomena and the nature of gravity.

rolnor
Messages
122
Reaction score
14
TL;DR
If so, there is no need for dark energy to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe?
I heard Claudia talking in a lecture about the possibility of gravity having finite reach. This could possibly explain observations of the universe expansion and "rule out" dark energy. How controversial is this? She mentions that another force has finite reach, the weak force.
https://profiles.imperial.ac.uk/c.de-rham/publications?respub-action=search.html
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rolnor said:
TL;DR Summary: If so, there is no need for dark energy to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe?

I heard Claudia talking in a lecture about the possibility of gravity having finite reach. This could possibly explain observations of the universe expansion and "rule out" dark energy. How controversial is this? She mentions that another force has finite reach, the weak force.
https://profiles.imperial.ac.uk/c.de-rham/publications?respub-action=search.html
Sounds like nonsense to me. Certainly a finite reach of gravity could not possibly explain dark energy. Do you even understand what dark energy DOES?
 
(1) "Claudia"? Like Cher or Madonna? Prince or Fabio?
(2) Do you have a reference? "I heard a lecture" is not something we can check.
(3) This is not GR. Now, people are free to propose another theory, but see point (2).
(4) In no world, is this QM, the section you posted it in.
(5) I am highly skeptical that this can simultaneously fit all the observational data, unless by "finite range" one means "I invert the data we have to find a force law that matches it", and even then it is tough.
 
rolnor said:
I heard Claudia talking in a lecture
What lecture? Please give a specific reference.
 
I dont think anyone "knows" what dark energy does, its not proven science fact, its a theory. Do you have to be so agressive? Its just a humble question? I will try to find the lecture ref.
 
  • Sad
Likes   Reactions: Motore
Her name is Claudia de Rham, was not that clear from the title of the topic? Why all this drama?
 
  • Sad
Likes   Reactions: Motore
phinds said:
Sounds like nonsense to me. Certainly a finite reach of gravity could not possibly explain dark energy. Do you even understand what dark energy DOES?
This thread belongs in BSM (or maybe cosmology) and not quantum.

But if gravity did have finite range (e.g. due to a massive graviton), then this would reduce the pull of gravity over very long (cosmological) distances.

This wouldn't be mathematically equivalent to dark energy, but it would impact some of the observables from which dark energy (and the magnitude of dark energy) is inferred.

Depending upon the range in question, it could conceivably impact those observables to such a degree that the evidence for a non-zero cosmological constant could be less than five sigma, because it would be increase the uncertainty in the separate components behind the observables in this model, and because the dark energy contribution would be smaller relative to the uncertainty.
 
Can anyone move this to the correct part of the forum? Its perhaps not QM as pointed out. Please keep a less aggressive tone.
 
  • Sad
Likes   Reactions: Motore
  • #10
rolnor said:
Do you have to be so agressive? Its just a humble question?
rolnor said:
Her name is Claudia de Rham, was not that clear from the title of the topic? Why all this drama?
rolnor said:
Please keep a less aggressive tone.
These comments are not appropriate. You are in no position to complain about anyone else unless and until you do this:

rolnor said:
I will try to find the lecture ref.
Once you do, PM me the ref and I will take a look at it. Until then, this thread is closed for moderation.

rolnor said:
Can anyone move this to the correct part of the forum?
Not unless and until you provide a valid, specific reference.
 
  • #11
ohwilleke said:
This thread belongs in BSM (or maybe cosmology) and not quantum.
Until we have a valid reference from the OP, it's impossible to tell where the thread belongs. That's why I have closed it for moderation pending the OP providing such a reference.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ohwilleke
  • #12
The OP has told me via PM that he cannot find a reference to the lecture. Therefore, this thread will remain closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ohwilleke and Motore

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K