No Dark Energy: Hubble Constant & Astrophysics

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dark energy Energy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of Halton Arp's paper on dark energy and the Hubble constant, particularly focusing on the hypothesis that particle masses may increase over time, which could affect measurements of the Hubble constant and redshift. The scope includes theoretical implications in astrophysics and challenges to mainstream cosmological models.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that Arp's hypothesis of increasing particle masses could explain observed redshifts and the Hubble constant, suggesting a lower value of H0 than currently accepted.
  • Others challenge the validity of Arp's ideas, asserting that they are not mainstream and may lead to logical inconsistencies.
  • A participant questions the theoretical basis for significant mass changes in fundamental particles over time, suggesting that such claims lack strong justification.
  • Some express skepticism about the existence of dark matter and dark energy, proposing that these concepts fit observations but lack direct physical evidence.
  • There is mention of the controversy surrounding the value of H0, with some suggesting that a lower local value could indicate a local void rather than an accelerating universe.
  • Participants note the importance of maverick theories in science, even if they diverge from established models, as they provide a basis for testing standard theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the validity of Arp's hypotheses or the implications for dark energy and dark matter. Disagreement exists regarding the interpretation of evidence and the theoretical underpinnings of proposed models.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on specific interpretations of observational data, and there are unresolved questions regarding the definitions and implications of particle mass changes and their effects on cosmological measurements.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring alternative theories in cosmology, the implications of dark energy and dark matter, and the ongoing debates surrounding the Hubble constant.

wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,411
Reaction score
551
Dark Energy and the Hubble Constant
Authors: H. Arp
Comments: 3 Figures, 7 pages
Subjects: Astrophysics (astro-ph)
Dark energy is inferred from a Hubble expansion which is slower at epochs which are earlier than ours. But evidence reviewed here shows $H_0$ for nearby galaxies is actually less than currently adopted and would instead require {\it deceleration} to reach the current value.
Distances of Cepheid variables in galaxies in the Local Supercluster have been measured by the Hubble Space Telescope and it is argued here that they require a low value of $H_0$ along with redshifts which are at least partly intrinsic. The intrinsic component is hypothesized to be a result of the particle masses increasing with time.
The same considerations apply to Dark Matter. But with particle masses growing with time, the condensation from plasmoid to proto galaxy not only does away with the need for unseen ``dark matter'' but also explains the intrinsic (non-velocity) redshifts of younger matter.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Wolram what do you mean by dragging in a paper by Halton Arp!
You are not supposed to do that. Naughty fellow!
Halton Arp is not mainstream.
It wastes the moderators' time and patience because the ideas go far afield and are exhausting to pursue and destroy. I propose to ignore this.

BTW your other recent find---the Structure Formation paper by Richard Ellis and Joe Silk---was excellent. It more than cancels out this minor sin of Arpery.
Here is Wolram's Silk/Ellis post in case anyone didn't see it
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=205275
 
Last edited:
marcus said:
Wolram what do you mean by dragging in a paper by Halton Arp!
You are not supposed to do that. Naughty fellow!
Halton Arp is not mainstream.
It wastes the moderators' time and patience because the ideas go far afield and are exhausting to pursue and destroy. I propose to ignore this.

BTW your other recent find---the Structure Formation paper by Richard Ellis and Joe Silk---was excellent. It more than cancels out this minor sin of Arpery.
Here is Wolram's Silk/Ellis post in case anyone didn't see it
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=205275

Every one deserves to be heard, if the paper does not meet posting rules throw it out.
 
wolram said:
Every one deserves to be heard, if the paper does not meet posting rules throw it out.

Well OK. I imagine it does meet posting rules and I don't have anything to do with throwing stuff out.
But I balk at the idea that particle masses increase over time (compared to what?)
And that seems to be his big idea here. He is using particle masses increasing over time to explain a portion of observed redshift. So I can see nothing for me to do but shut up.

It's off the deep end, Wolram. In my humble, it would not be publishable in a hundred years. now I will kindly hold my peace, and wish you the best.
 
Last edited:
Did you have any comments to make about the paper Wolram?
 
Wallace said:
Did you have any comments to make about the paper Wolram?

Only that i find it more and more difficult to think along the lines that our universe is composed mainly of dark matter and energy, OK it fits the theory, but that does not mean
that it is right, i would change my view at the drop of a hat if some physical evidence
was found for a CDM particle, but M stream view seems to be if a WIMP is not found then there is x,y,z particle in reserve, i am not a scientist, just a man in the street trying to understand, it is you guys making things difficult.
 
Do you find it more likely that fundamental particles, like electrons etc, were changing there mass by a significant amount over time, with no good theoretical reason for them to do so?

Not only that, but that the masses change at such a rate as to perfectly mimic the signal of an expanding universe?

I make no apology on behalf of scientists that science is difficult. To paraphrase Fred Hoyle, if it was easy we would have worked it all out all ready!
 
Wallace said:
Do you find it more likely that fundamental particles, like electrons etc, were changing there mass by a significant amount over time, with no good theoretical reason for them to do so?

Not only that, but that the masses change at such a rate as to perfectly mimic the signal of an expanding universe?

No i do not, but the same could be said for dark energy and matter, you have no physical evidence for dark matter, i guess it was proposed because it fits observation and is all most impossible to disprove, at least short term.
 
Arp's variable mass hypothesis is logically inconsistent. It conveniently explains a few curiousities at the expense of an abundance of contradicting observation.
 
  • #10
Chronos said:
Arp's variable mass hypothesis is logically inconsistent. It conveniently explains a few curiousities at the expense of an abundance of contradicting observation.
That may be, but could you give some bounds for the CDM particle, if that fails the HDM particle, or some thing in between? AFAIK there are a multitude of candidates that could take decades to dis prove.
 
  • #11
We should not forget that Arp is an accomplished observer, even if puts a 'maverick' interpretation on those observations. (But even then science needs its mavericks to have theories against which the standard models may be tested.)

If he is an accomplished observer what do we then make of his Figures 1 & 2?

They suggest that the local measured value of H0 is less than the cosmological one. In the local supercluster they suggest a value of around 50 km/sec/Mpc instead of 72 km/sec/Mpc.

There has been a lot of controversy about the value of H0 over the years, which has been more or less settled by the fit to the CMB anisotropy power spectrum, however, that by its nature is cosmological in nature.

Apart from his variable mass interpretation, a local value of H0 that is lower than a global value would also be evidence that we happen to be sitting in a local void.

If this is so then the interpretation of the apparent magnitudes with red shift of SNe Ia at local and cosmological distances would then give the illusion that the universe is accelerating under the influence of DE...

Just a thought.

Garth
 
  • #12
Locking for now.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Hubble Constant, Dark Energy and the Expanding Universe
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
Undergrad Dark Energy contribution to plasma temperature in galaxy clusters?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Graduate Models without dark energy
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
High School Dark energy might not be constant after all
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Undergrad Questions on the consequence of an evolving dark energy parameter
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate Strong Progenitor Age Bias in Supernova Cosmology
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
Graduate Black hole mass coupled to expansion -- astrophysical source of dark energy?
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
12K
Undergrad Dark energy and the kinematic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Undergrad Dark energy is intrinsic to the space itself
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad What will happen to the Hubble value if dark energy is dynamic and decreasing?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K