Revised Field Equations for GR Explain Dark Energy and Dark Matter

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a recent paper proposing revised field equations for general relativity (GR) that aim to incorporate dark energy and dark matter by relaxing the assumption of a divergence-free energy-momentum tensor. Participants explore the implications of these new equations, their consistency with observations, and the validity of the claims made in the paper.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express excitement about the paper's proposal that the energy-momentum tensor need not be divergence-free, suggesting this could lead to new solutions that align with observations of dark matter and dark energy.
  • Others challenge the paper's claims, arguing that it lacks evidence for its assertions regarding the failures of GR and that the proposed solutions do not convincingly address existing problems in the field.
  • Concerns are raised about the mathematical rigor of the paper, particularly regarding the conservation of the proposed scalar energy density and its implications for inhomogeneity in the universe.
  • Some participants note that the paper's approach may not be novel, as adding scalar fields to the Lagrangian is a known technique in theoretical physics.
  • There is a discussion about the historical context of scalar-tensor theories and their relevance to the current debate.
  • One participant retracts a previous claim about the representation of inhomogeneity, acknowledging the complexity of the matter distribution's effect on potential.
  • Disagreement exists regarding the interpretation of the cosmological constant and its role in explaining accelerated expansion, with some participants seeking references to support their views.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach consensus. There are competing views on the validity of the paper's claims, its mathematical foundations, and the implications for general relativity. Some express skepticism about the paper's contributions, while others find its ideas promising.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential missing assumptions in the paper's arguments, the need for clearer definitions of terms used, and unresolved questions about the mathematical treatment of the proposed theories.

  • #31
interesting paper
Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 000, 1–19 (2012)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.2125v1.pdf

...It is clear that, if the ΛCDM model is the true underlying model of cosmology, the significance of the ISW effect will remain lower than some other cosmological probes; however, it represents nonetheless a unique signal which allows us to independently confirm the presence of dark energy through its impact on structure growth and potentially detect deviations in how gravity works to build cosmic structures...-----
"This work also tells us about possible modifications to Einstein's theory of General Relativity"
said Tommaso Giannantonio.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
audioloop said:
interesting paper
Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 000, 1–19 (2012)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.2125v1.pdf

...It is clear that, if the ΛCDM model is the true underlying model of cosmology, the significance of the ISW effect will remain lower than some other cosmological probes; however, it represents nonetheless a unique signal which allows us to independently confirm the presence of dark energy through its impact on structure growth and potentially detect deviations in how gravity works to build cosmic structures...

Does this relate somehow to the topic of this thread? If not, then it would be better to discuss it in a separate thread.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K