Wiltshire casts doubt on existence of dark energy

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

David L. Wiltshire challenges the necessity of dark energy and a positive cosmological constant to explain cosmic acceleration, arguing that these phenomena can be accounted for by classical General Relativity (GR) effects. He posits that what is often misidentified as dark energy is actually due to gravitational energy differences arising from the decoupling of bound systems from the universe's expansion. Wiltshire's approach introduces a new model of cosmological averaging that addresses existing paradoxes and provides a framework for understanding structure formation and cosmic microwave background (CMB) anomalies without invoking dark energy.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity (GR)
  • Familiarity with cosmological models and the cosmological constant
  • Knowledge of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies
  • Basic concepts of gravitational energy and its implications in cosmology
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Buchert equations and their implications for cosmological evolution
  • Explore the Sandage-de Vaucouleurs paradox and its resolution in cosmology
  • Study the implications of gravitational energy localization in astrophysics
  • Investigate alternative cosmological models that do not rely on dark energy
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, theoretical physicists, and cosmologists interested in alternative explanations for cosmic acceleration and the implications of gravitational energy in the universe.

marcus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
24,752
Reaction score
795
Wiltshire casts doubt on existence of "dark energy"

Wiltshire is a minority voice in cosmology, but one worth listening to. Speculation about a "dark energy particle" would be in vain if the appearance of acceleration can be traced to classic GR effects, which is what he tries to do. Wiltshire suggests that a positive cosmological constant is NOT NEEDED to explain observation, nor is any sort of dark energy or quintessence.
This bears on the discussion of various approaches to quantum gravity, which have differing compatibility with the cosmological constant
http://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~dlw24/universe/

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0702082
Cosmic clocks, cosmic variance and cosmic averages
David L. Wiltshire
72 pages, 5 figures

"Cosmic acceleration is explained quantitatively, purely in general relativity, as an apparent effect[/color] due to quasilocal gravitational energy differences that arise in the decoupling of bound systems from the global expansion of the universe. 'Dark energy' is recognised as a misidentification[/color] of those aspects of gravitational energy which by virtue of the equivalence principle cannot be localised, namely gradients in the energy associated with the expansion of space and spatial curvature variations in an inhomogeneous universe, as we observe. Gravitational energy differences between observers in bound systems, such as galaxies, and volume-averaged comoving locations within voids in freely expanding space can be so large that the time dilation between the two significantly affects the parameters of any effective homogeneous isotropic model one fits to the universe. A new approach to cosmological averaging is presented, which implicitly solves the Sandage-de Vaucouleurs paradox. When combined with a nonlinear scheme for cosmological evolution with back-reaction via the Buchert equations, a new observationally viable quantitative model of the universe is obtained. The expansion age is increased, allowing more time for structure formation. The baryon density fraction obtained from primordial nucleosynthesis bounds can be significantly larger, yet consistent with primordial lithium abundance measurements. The angular scale of the first Doppler peak in the CMB anisotropy spectrum fits the new model despite an average negative spatial curvature at late epochs, resolving the anomaly associated with ellipticity in the CMB anisotropies. A number of other testable consequences are discussed, with the potential to profoundly change the whole of theoretical and observational cosmology."
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Does the equivalance principle insist gravitational energy cannot be localized? I don't really follow that part of the argument. Gravity appears localized on the scale of our solar system, and probably the Milky Way. I am suspicious of effects that are not locally evident.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
Replies
2
Views
2K