Universe expansion

[Widdekind]

Red shift value did not appear in the past post.

 

According to Classical QM, wave-functions spread out through (proper) time.

 

Do the Relativistic wave-functions, of photons, also spread out through time? Given billions of years, the wave-function of a stationary electron (say) could possibly spread out to many times its original size; if photons did something similar, then that diffusion phenomenon would resemble cosmic redshift.

 

Or, does the fact that photons experience zero proper time (between any two events on their world-lines) imply that photons are "frozen in time", "frozen koosh-balls of EM field" that simply propagate through space in a static, non-spreading, configuration?

 

If you designed a particle-beam-based communication system; would those particles "red-shift" as they crossed the cosmos, arriving at distant galaxies spread out over many times their original wave-function size? And, would that be due to GR-based cosmic expansion redshift; or Classical QM-based spreading of wave-functions; or both?

[alpha2cen]

 

According to Classical QM, wave-functions spread out through (proper) time.

 

Do the Relativistic wave-functions, of photons, also spread out through time? Given billions of years, the wave-function of a stationary electron (say) could possibly spread out to many times its original size; if photons did something similar, then that diffusion phenomenon would resemble cosmic redshift.

 

Or, does the fact that photons experience zero proper time (between any two events on their world-lines) imply that photons are "frozen in time", "frozen koosh-balls of EM field" that simply propagate through space in a static, non-spreading, configuration?

 

If you designed a particle-beam-based communication system; would those particles "red-shift" as they crossed the cosmos, arriving at distant galaxies spread out over many times their original wave-function size? And, would that be due to GR-based cosmic expansion redshift; or Classical QM-based spreading of wave-functions; or both?

Redshift value depends on many factors. Doppler redshift is one of them.

[Widdekind]

The (3+1)D fabric of space-time is static. But aren't wave-functions [math]\Psi®[/math] only 3D objects? They evolve through time, but they do not stretch back into the past, nor reach out into the future. If so, then wave-functions have lower dimensionality than the fabric of space-time in which they reside. If you consider a closed cosmology, where the fabric of space-time resembles the (1+1)D surface of a rugby football; then the collection of all wave-functions residing in our space-time fabric, "now", would resemble a 1D rubber band, stretched around the equator of the rugby football. As time passes, the rubber band is rolled from one tip ("Big Bang") towards the opposite tip ("Big Crunch"). (One could even speculate about "striping" the rugby football with several parallel rubber bands, representing collections of matter & energy, co-existing on the same space-time fabric, at different "nows".)

 

However, against this, does not GR, and the Friedmann equations, treat mass and energy as filling the whole of space, at all times, i.e. filling the whole of space-time? At each "now", the shape of space-time reflects the mass & energy density at that "now"; but if the whole fabric of space-time is a static structure, whose shape at all times is already fixed; then mass & energy density also already exists, at all "nows". And, that density derives, ultimately, from the wave-functions of the quanta within the space-time fabric "now". So, seemingly, the wave-functions of all particles already fill the whole of space-time, from BB to BC. (Perhaps the future parts of wave-functions are as-yet undetermined, still latent with quantum pluri-potentiality ("what could be"); whereas the past parts of wave-functions have been determined, now fixed into past history ("what was"); time-evolution of wave-functions resembles traversing down through a tree-like possibility structure ("choose your own adventure"), whilst tearing out and tossing away all non-chosen choices. As time advances, the tree structure is whittled down (the "choose your own adventure" book is thinned away). But, intrinsically, all wave-functions have some existence & presence, at all times, from the "beginning of time" to the "end of time", from BB to BC. Mathematically, wave-functions even exist throughout all space, e.g. Hydrogen wave-functions have exponentially decaying "tails" that, theoretically, are still non-zero, at arbitrarily far-off locations. Ipso speculato, the fabric of space-time is a quantum object, qualitatively similar, to the individual particles residing within it, e.g. all are (3+1)D.)

Edited December 15, 2012 by Widdekind

[juanrga]

But aren't wave-functions [math]\Psi®[/math] 3D objects?

 

Stationary spatial wavefunctions are [math]\psi_r=\psi_r®[/math] only for one-particle objects. Adding time-dependence [math]\Psi_r=\Psi_r(r,t)[/math]. Spatial many-body wavefunctions are described in an extended [math]3N+1[/math] space. If you add spin then there is more variables in the wavefunctions [math]\Psi=\Psi(r_1,r_2,...r_N,s_1,s_2,...s_N,t)[/math].

Edited December 15, 2012 by juanrga

[Roger_XR]

If we look back toward the beginning and say that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, we are looking at the Universe as it WAS 13.7 billion years ago. What the Universe was doing 13.7 years ago is VERY different from what it is doing NOW. Unfortunately, we cannot see the early Universe as it is NOW. Those objects that we can see at great distance do not exist anymore and some of those for perhaps billions of years. Perhaps you might suggest the red shifting of the light coming to us from those distances, but I might also suggest that what we "see" at 13.7 billion light years may in fact be VERY much farther away than what we "see" them NOW. For all we know the Universe could have stopped its expansion and have already started back toward the "Big Crunch". I don't believe it has just yet but my point is that there is now way for us to know at this point. After we have had a MUCH longer period of observation of the Universe then perhaps we can formulate a better theory.

[michel123456]

I'd prefer a better theory right now. i don't have the patience to wait for a billion years.
-------------------

The (3+1)D fabric of space-time is static. But aren't wave-functions [math]\Psi® only 3D objects? They evolve through time, but they do not stretch back into the past, nor reach out into the future. If so, then wave-functions have lower dimensionality than the fabric of space-time in which they reside. If you consider a closed cosmology, where the fabric of space-time resembles the (1+1)D surface of a rugby football; then the collection of all wave-functions residing in our space-time fabric, "now", would resemble a 1D rubber band, stretched around the equator of the rugby football. As time passes, the rubber band is rolled from one tip ("Big Bang") towards the opposite tip ("Big Crunch"). (One could even speculate about "striping" the rugby football with several parallel rubber bands, representing collections of matter & energy, co-existing on the same space-time fabric, at different "nows".)



However, against this, does not GR, and the Friedmann equations, treat mass and energy as filling the whole of space, at all times, i.e. filling the whole of space-time? At each "now", the shape of space-time reflects the mass & energy density at that "now"; but if the whole fabric of space-time is a static structure, whose shape at all times is already fixed; then mass & energy density also already exists, at all "nows".


And, that density derives, ultimately, from the wave-functions of the quanta within the space-time fabric "now". So, seemingly, the wave-functions of all particles already fill the whole of space-time, from BB to BC. (Perhaps the future parts of wave-functions are as-yet undetermined, still latent with quantum pluri-potentiality ("what could be"); whereas the past parts of wave-functions have been determined, now fixed into past history ("what was"); time-evolution of wave-functions resembles traversing down through a tree-like possibility structure ("choose your own adventure"), whilst tearing out and tossing away all non-chosen choices. As time advances, the tree structure is whittled down (the "choose your own adventure" book is thinned away). But, intrinsically, all wave-functions have some existence & presence, at all times, from the "beginning of time" to the "end of time", from BB to BC. Mathematically, wave-functions even exist throughout all space, e.g. Hydrogen wave-functions have exponentially decaying "tails" that, theoretically, are still non-zero, at arbitrarily far-off locations. Ipso speculato, the fabric of space-time is a quantum object, qualitatively similar, to the individual particles residing within it, e.g. all are (3+1)D.

 

..............
(bolded mine)
I am not sure if I understand correctly your question, but it's an interesting one. in my understanding mass is used only once over time (mass does not multiply along the word line of a massive object) and i guess the same must happen for energy.AAARGH i am getting crazy, no way to put my answer outside the Quote...

 

------------- (edited -done)

 

 

Edited December 16, 2012 by michel123456

[Roger_XR]

Hi Michel123456,

 

Actually, a billion years still may not be a long enough period of observation. As fast as things are moving out there, the Universe is still very very very large. But I can certainly understand wanting to at least try and understand what it is that we think we see. And it is only natural that people will try to understand the world in which we live. Therefore it is also only natural that people will try and formulate theories that might explain what we see. This is good because it fosters new ideas and one of those MAY actually be correct. However, some of the theories that I have seen border on science fiction and wishful thinking.

Another funny thing is that many will support their view with math ( with some assumtions thrown in). Which someone else will refute with math (and further assumtions).

The current theory is that the Universe is increasing its expansion rate. But it would only make sense to think that the Universe at the edge of the expansion is the same as the Universe at the center. If the Universe at the center isn't doing it then it would not make sense that the furthermost reaches of the Universe are doing anything different simply because it is so very far from us. It is true that what we see at 13.7 billion years in the past WAS doing something very different at THAT time.

My fear is that the scientific community will (and perhaps already has) formulate a belief that will become so ingrained that it will persist long after newer evidence proves it wrong. Sort of like the flat Earth theory.

[ACG52]

But it would only make sense to think that the Universe at the edge of the expansion is the same as the Universe at the center. If the Universe at the center isn't doing it then it would not make sense that the furthermost reaches of the Universe are doing anything different simply because it is so very far from us.

 

There is no center of the universe, and there is no edge of the expansion. Every point in space is moving away from every other point in space (outside of gravitationally bound objects).

[Widdekind]

So as not to be misleading...

 

as i understand GR, as applied to Friedmann cosmologies, space-time is a static entity. At all times, that space-time is filled with matter-energy; and at each time, the density of matter-energy determines the scale factor (and rate of change thereof). For the Friedmann equations, one assumes, first and foremost, the global topology of space-time, e.g. closed (k=+1). Thereafter, that global topology is immutable. So, if (say) you choose to model a closed cosmology, then, ipso facto, the density within that space-time fabric must always be greater than the corresponding critical density -- the equations force everything else to adjust, so as to maintain the chosen topology. So, assuming the accuracy of the Friedmann cosmologies; then if our cosmos is closed today, then it always has been, and always will be. That means that there was always supra-critical density in the past; and will always be in the future. Ipso facto, what we perceive to be future regions of space-time, are already filled, with supra-critical mass-energy density -- presumably from the (wave-functions of the) electrons, protons, photons, neutrinos, and other fundamental quanta already existing "now", which (whose wave-functions) presumably persist far into the future. Otherwise, if the far future were devoid of matter (say), then the far future would have to be an open, Einstein-de-Sitter topology, inconsistent with present topology. But Friedmann space-time fabrics don't flip back and forth, between various global topologies.

 

To be Relativistically invariant, i would guess that Relativistic QM equations, e.g. Klein-Gordon equation, "must" treat wave-functions as fully (3+1)D objects, which transform in Lorentz-invariant ways.

the future holds all possibilities (more & more of which are "pruned" away)

 

Wave-functions persist. Even when they "collapse", they only "shrink" into one of previously many possibilities. That one enduring possibility, after being actualized, then continues to evolve, according to the equations of QM, as it already would have, had there occurred no wave-function collapse. So, at present epoch, the wave-functions of fundamental quanta are pluri-potent, i.e. full of myriad possibilities, each evolving according to QM. Those possibilities spread out through space, and evolve over time. So, wave-functions can be crudely visualized as "bushy trees". As time advances, and interactions cause "collapses", some possibilities are actualized; and most vanish away. In the tree analogy, time advances up towards the top tips of the tree canopy; and "collapses" cause every branch at that altitude to be sawed off, except one (the one actualized, i.e. observed on measurement / interaction). Then, that possibility simply keeps on evolving, as if nothing had changed (for it, nothing did). In analogy, time keeps crawling up the lone-surviving, and now re-branching, branch. Until the next "collapse". Then, the process repeats -- every branch at that higher altitude is sawed off, but one. Time then keeps crawling up its re-branching "mini-tree" like structure. And so on. So, as time advances, the pluri-potent wave-functions of particles become more and more sparse, "thinned out", like a gardener pruning trees.

 

Pluri-potent wave-functions, "ghosted out" across their many partially-present possibilities, tend to be less localized, and more dispersed, than actualized particles, immediately after a wave-function "collapse". Cp. the famous "Double Slit Experiment" -- wave functions are spread out across the whole macroscopic detector plane, before collapsing to a small microscopic region. Ipso facto, the future regions of the space-time fabric, which currently harbor vast pluri-potentiality, may be filled, more uniformly & isotropically, then at present, due to the phenomenon, of the QM spreading of wave-functions. If so, then the future regions of space-time may be "smoother" than at present. The evolution of wave-functions through time seems to be one of "choosing what to eat from a buffet"; and wave-functions are like the stack of all possible menus, for all possible meals, from now until the end of time (BC). Meal after meal, one dish is chosen from that menu, which then vanishes, along with all of the could-have-been menus, for all the deserts & next-meals, for all of those other non-chosen meals. Seemingly, "the future holds all possibilities"; interactions / measurements / observations keep selecting from remaining possibilities, ones to actualize. The future "possibility tree" of wave-functions is progressively "pruned", down to one "trunk", then one "branch" off of that trunk, then one "sprig" off of that branch, etc.

[Roger_XR]

 

There is no center of the universe, and there is no edge of the expansion. Every point in space is moving away from every other point in space (outside of gravitationally bound objects).

. I got this from Wikipedia:

The age of the universe is about 13.75 billion years, but due to the expansion of space humans are observing objects that were originally much closer but are now considerably farther away (as defined in terms of cosmological proper distance, which is equal to the comoving distance at the present time) than a static 13.75 billion light-years distance.^[2] The diameter of the observable universe is estimated at about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years),^[3] putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away.^[4][5]

^{He did use the term "edge" albeit "of the observable universe". The "expansion of space" of which he speaks is probably what you also alluded to in your reply. This expansion of space was a theory (as I understand it) to get around the limit of the speed of light insofar as matter traveling faster than that. So, are we to believe that "space" is a thing? Do you remember when they tried to prove the "ether"? They thought that if sound waves traveled through a medium (such as air) then light must also travel trough a medium - the ether. Of course it was never proved and the expansion of space cannot be proved either and to me at least goes against all logic. Likely you do not believe in a cyclic Universe as I do and that's fine. I cannot prove what I say anymore than you can. But to me my view is more logical at least.}

[ACG52]

^{But to me my view is more logical at least.}

 

 

That you find your own logic more palatable is not surprising, however your position is contradicted by observation and theory alike.

[Roger_XR]

Widdekind

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. But it did seem you were pointing out the reasons why a Universe might be open versus closed. I believe ours is a closed Universe and will cycle and has cycled through many many cycles of Big Bang -> Big Crunch in an infinite time scale.

 

That you find your own logic more palatable is not surprising, however your position is contradicted by observation and theory alike.

 

The "theory" of which you speak is just that - theory. You cite no observations that contradict.

[ACG52]

The "theory" of which you speak is just that - theory. You cite no observations that contradict.

 

The theory exactly predicts the spectrum and temperature of the CMB, predicts the ratio of primordial hydrogen, helium, lithium and deuterium, and is substantiated by observation of the cosmological red-shift.

 

What's your logic done for science lately?

[Roger_XR]

 

That you find your own logic more palatable is not surprising, however your position is contradicted by observation and theory alike.

 

 

The theory exactly predicts the spectrum and temperature of the CMB, predicts the ratio of primordial hydrogen, helium, lithium and deuterium, and is substantiated by observation of the cosmological red-shift.

 

What's your logic done for science lately?

Did you mean CMBR? How fast does light travel? I'm going to guess that the CMBR travels at the same rate. We can only see the light that reaches us. The CMBR has been traveling for a very long time to reach us. When we see a star or galaxy at say 13 billion light years, we are NOT seeing that star right now but as it was then. Therefore, when we see the CMBR we are seeing it as it was at sometime in the past. That does not mean that is in anyway uniform through out the Universe anymore than the light from that distance star would be the same if we could observe if from different distances from that same star.

As for observations that are made. No doubt they are the best that we can get for the amount of time that we have been observing. There are people that thought the Earth was flat. After further observations it was determined otherwise. The cosmological red-shift may follow a similar path. Not enough observations.

If in fact I am right then I could ask you: What has your logic done for science lately?

[ACG52]

How fast does light travel? I'm going to guess that the CMBR travels at the same rate. We can only see the light that reaches us. The CMBR has been traveling for a very long time to reach us. When we see a star or galaxy at say 13 billion light years, we are NOT seeing that star right now but as it was then. Therefore, when we see the CMBR we are seeing it as it was at sometime in the past. That does not mean that is in anyway uniform through out the Universe anymore than the light from that distance star would be the same if we could observe if from different distances from that same star.

 

 

When we look at the CMBR, what we are seeing is the cooled down lignt from the surface of last scattering, which occured at 377,000 years after the initial expansion. The CMBR fills the entire universe, and is remarkably uniform. It has a perfect Black Body spectrum, which is not something that individual sources can produce, and the spectrum is so close to the predicted values that the error bars are dots. (Look up COBE and WMAP)

 

 

As for observations that are made. No doubt they are the best that we can get for the amount of time that we have been observing. There are people that thought the Earth was flat. After further observations it was determined otherwise. The cosmological red-shift may follow a similar path. Not enough observations.

 

 

 

We've been observing cosmological expansion for almost a hundred years now, with increasingly accurate and more powerful instruments. And they all tell us pretty much the same thing, in increasingly more detail.

 

 

If in fact I am right then I could ask you: What has your logic done for science lately?

 

 

I prefer theory, experimentation, observation and mathematics over 'logic'.

 

 

[juanrga]

So as not to be misleading...

 

as i understand GR, as applied to Friedmann cosmologies, space-time is a static entity.

 

Friedmann spacetime is not static, but depends on time.

 

At all times, that space-time is filled with matter-energy; and at each time, the density of matter-energy determines the scale factor (and rate of change thereof).

 

The scale factor is not completely determined by density alone, pressure and cosmological constant also play a role.

 

For the Friedmann equations, one assumes, first and foremost, the global topology of space-time, e.g. closed (k=+1). Thereafter, that global topology is immutable. So, if (say) you choose to model a closed cosmology, then, ipso facto, the density within that space-time fabric must always be greater than the corresponding critical density -- the equations force everything else to adjust, so as to maintain the chosen topology. So, assuming the accuracy of the Friedmann cosmologies; then if our cosmos is closed today, then it always has been, and always will be.

 

Friedmann cosmologies are not valid at early times and probably will be not valid at long times.

 

To be Relativistically invariant, i would guess that Relativistic QM equations, e.g. Klein-Gordon equation, "must" treat wave-functions as fully (3+1)D objects, which transform in Lorentz-invariant ways.

 

Yes your guess is correct. However, those relativistic wavefunction equations are not even aceptable for one-particle systems and were abandoned when quantum field theory was developed. In quantum field theory the Klein Gordon equation is no more a wavefunction equation but a mere identity for a field operator. Moreover, quantum field theory is defined in a dummy spacetime without physical meaning.

 

Wave-functions persist.

 

Wave-functions do not persist for macroscopic objects. E.g. even if we accept that the state of a cat is given by a wavefunctiion at a given instant, the wave-function is destroyed by decoherence almost instantaneously.

[Roger_XR]

 

(Look up COBE and WMAP)

 

I prefer theory, experimentation, observation and mathematics over 'logic'.

 

 

I will look up COBE and WMAP as you suggest. But consider, If the result of your experimentation, observation or your mathematics is not logical, it is also invalid.

 

But one little thing did lead me to this from Wikipedia:

 

Cosmologists use the term (anisotropy) to describe the uneven temperature distribution of the cosmic microwave background radiation. There is evidence for a so-called "Axis of Evil"[1] in the early Universe that is at odds with the currently favored theory of rapid expansion after the Big Bang. Cosmic anisotropy has also been seen in the alignment of galaxies' rotation axes and polarisation angles of quasars.

 

So you see, Not everybody is on the same page here as regards the CMBR. Who to believe? Pick your favorite.

[ACG52]

 

But consider, If the result of your experimentation, observation or your mathematics is not logical, it is also invalid.

 

 

 

If logic disagrees with the result of experiment, logic is at fault.

 

But when you use the word 'logic', I expect you mean 'what seems right to me'.

[Roger_XR]

 

If logic disagrees with the result of experiment, logic is at fault.

 

But when you use the word 'logic', I expect you mean 'what seems right to me'.

No, but I can see why you might think so. In math if I have an object and add another then logically I then have two such objects. To say that I have three would be illogical. Fallacious logic. To often, I have heard of observations or of experiments that the researcher then makes the result fit his view of what he expected to get. Happens all the time in science and no doubt in cosmology as well. I was reading a bit on WMAP and those people really know how to toot their own horn. For example they stated that:

 

6.WMAP's accuracy and precision determined that dark energy makes up 72.8% of the universe (to within 1.6%), causing the expansion rate of the universe to speed up. - "Lingering doubts about the existence of dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave background.

 

Then I hear that no one knows what dark energy is but these guys have measured it. Either they know what it is and can measure it or they do not know what it is and therefore cannot measure it. Simple logic. (there's that word again) Yet they purport to have measured it and with a high degree of accuracy. What I have read is: "dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy." Can "hypothetical" be measured?

Edited December 18, 2012 by Roger_XR

[ACG52]

To often, I have heard of observations or of experiments that the researcher then makes the result fit his view of what he expected to get. Happens all the time in science and no doubt in cosmology as well.

 

Do you have any substantiation for this claim? While I am aware of cases of falsifying research, they have been detected and corrected. "Happens all the time in science" is a big claim.

 

 

What I have read is: "dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy." Can "hypothetical" be measured?

 

 

Once measured, it's no longer hypothetical.

 

 

"Lingering doubts about the existence of dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave background

 

[Roger_XR]

 

Do you have any substantiation for this claim? While I am aware of cases of falsifying research, they have been detected and corrected. "Happens all the time in science" is a big claim.

 

 

 

Once measured, it's no longer hypothetical.

 

 

The cases of falsifying reserch you say have been detected and corrected. Have they ALL been detected? Can we be SURE that all of these have been detected? I don't think so.

 

WHAT was measured?????????? You CANNOT measure something if you don't know what it is you're measuring. Seem Logical? To measure voltage you first have to have an idea of what it is and how then to measure it. They have NO idea what it is. You couldn't measure voltage with a scales for example. Nor could you measure light with a voltmeter. These are forms of energy but we have to know which one it is before we can measure it.

No, those folks of WMAP are touting something they can't prove. Cold Fusion ring a bell?

 

ACG52, up till now I've given you some credit for knowing something of the subject, but when you state, "Once measured, it's no longer hypothetical" to something so absurd, what am I to think?

 

Sleep on it at least and think of something that will at least make more sense than that.

[ACG52]

 

WHAT was measured?????????? You CANNOT measure something if you don't know what it is you're measuring. Seem Logical?

 

 

They knew very well what they were measuring, and the results provided more evidence for Dark Energy.

 

Are you really that clueless about developments in astronomy and cosmology? That's certainly the way you appear.

[Roger_XR]

 

They knew very well what they were measuring, and the results provided more evidence for Dark Energy.

 

Are you really that clueless about developments in astronomy and cosmology? That's certainly the way you appear.

Ok then, Since you say you know it all, then perhaps YOU could enlighten me. Always willing to learn but you have so far said nothing but reaffirmed that WMAP could measure something that everybody else I have read says is hypothetical. What then is dark energy? How then is dard energy measured? You either know and can tell me or you don't know and should just say so. You are very big on statements but very short on facts to back it up. I will be MOST happy - thrilled even - to finally learn what dark energy is but so far you aren't saying. Or can't say.

 

Am I "clueless"? It would be the rare individual that could know everything about everything. You apparently take everything that you read about "developments in astronomy and cosmology" as fact. I on the other hand try to maintain an open mind and look at these developments as the theory they are purported to be. And the "facts" put forth by WMAP seem to have had little in the way of new information. (e.g. how did they measure the dark energy or what it is and so forth)

 

I flesh out my ideas to try and convey my thoughts and the reasoning behind my thoughts. You use a mere sentence or two to rudely say that I am wrong or clueless but leave behind no facts. I would humbly say that I am a very smart man and if you use reason and facts to back up what you say then I will be GREATLY in your debt. But if you merely refute what is said or refer to such things as the WMAP or such, then I can only conclude that you don't know enough to have an intelligent discourse. You would then of course be wasting both our times.

[ACG52]

WMAP, and COBE measured the temperature and distribution of the CMBR. The results tell us that the expansion is accelerating, and gives us the energy requirements for that expansion. You measure energy by it's effects. In this case, we see the effects of what is probably negative pressure generated by a non-zero vacuum energy.

 

 

 

I on the other hand try to maintain an open mind and look at these developments as the theory they are purported to be

 

But not having any background in the subject, on what basis do you make any judgments?

[Roger_XR]

WMAP, and COBE measured the temperature and distribution of the CMBR. The results tell us that the expansion is accelerating, and gives us the energy requirements for that expansion. You measure energy by it's effects. In this case, we see the effects of what is probably negative pressure generated by a non-zero vacuum energy.

 

 

 

 

But not having any background in the subject, on what basis do you make any judgments?

I'll start with your question first. My degree is in chemistry. Before that I worked in electronics and computers. I have been studying cosmology for a long time, mostly from the papers I have read on the internet. And as I've said, I'm a fairly smart man. And what I have learned is that not everybody is on the same page as to the theories of just what happened. I have read that the Universe began with a Big Bang and grew in size from there. I have read that there was no single place that the Universe started and therefore had no center or no edge. Which to believe? Good news is you get to decide for yourself. I think the latter theory is just whack, but hey that's theory for you.

 

I did find a paper that refutes much of what you say. And I would like to point out that I DO NOT necessarily refute what you're saying, only that the distances and time are SO VERY VAST that I do not believe we can made absolute judements just yet. I'm including the link to further show you that even those that have a lot of "background" in this field disagree to a certain degree.

 

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1795-accelerating-universe-dark-energy-illusion.html