"When Alligators Roamed the Arctic" --Big Global Change 34-Million Years Ago Shows Shift from Greenhouse Age to Ice Age
Outburst from Enormous Black Hole 11-Billion Years Ago Swept Past Earth in 2011 --"Brighter than All the Stars in Milky Way"

The 'New Physics' Model of Dark Energy Nixed




Last month, a group of European astronomers, using a massive radio telescope in Germany, made the most accurate measurement of the proton-to-electron mass ratio ever accomplished and found that there has been no change in the ratio to one part in 10 million at a time when the universe was about half its current age, around 7 billion years ago. When University of Arizona astronomy professor Rodger Thompson put this new measurement into his calculations, he found that it excluded almost all of the dark energy models using the commonly expected values or parameters.

The research Thompson completed showed that a popular alternative to Albert Einstein's theory for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe does not fit newly obtained data on a fundamental constant, the proton to electron mass ratio. Thompson's findings, reported Jan. 9 at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Long Beach, Calif., impact our understanding of the universe and point to a new direction for the further study of its accelerating expansion.

To explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, astrophysicists have invoked dark energy – a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space. A popular theory of dark energy, however, does not fit new results on the value of the proton mass divided by the electron mass in the early universe.

Thompson computed the predicted change in the ratio by the dark energy theory (generally referred to as rolling scalar fields) and found it did not fit the new data. UA alumnus Brian Schmidt, along with Saul Perlmutter and Adam Reiss, won the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for showing that the expansion of the universe is accelerating rather than slowing down as previously thought. The acceleration can be explained by reinstating the "cosmological constant" into Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

Einstein originally introduced the term to make the universe stand still. When it was later found that the universe was expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant "his biggest blunder." The constant was reinstated with a different value that produces the observed acceleration of the universe's expansion. Physicists trying to calculate the value from known physics, however, get a number more than 10 to the power of 60 (one followed by 60 zeros) too large – a truly astronomical number. 

That's when physicists turned to new theories of dark energy to explain the acceleration. In his research, Thompson put the most popular of those theories to the test, targeting the value of a fundamental constant (not to be confused with the cosmological constant), the mass of the proton divided by the mass of the electron. A fundamental constant is a pure number with no units such as mass or length. The values of the fundamental constants determine the laws of physics. Change the number, and the laws of physics change. Change the fundamental constants by a large amount, and the universe becomes very different from what we observe.

The new physics model of dark energy that Thompson tested predicts that the fundamental constants will change by a small amount. Thompson identified a method of measuring the proton to electron mass ratio in the early universe several years ago, but it is only recently that astronomical instruments became powerful enough to measure the effect. More recently, he determined the exact amount of change that many of the new theories predict.

If the parameter space or range of values is equated to a football field, then almost the whole field is out of bounds except for a single 2-inch by 2-inch patch at one corner of the field. In fact, most of the allowed values are not even on the field. "In effect, the dark energy theories have been playing on the wrong field," Thompson said. "The 2-inch square does contain the area that corresponds to no change in the fundamental constants, and that is exactly where Einstein stands."

Thompson expects that physicists and astronomers studying cosmology will adapt to the new field of play, but for now, "Einstein is in the catbird seat, waiting for everyone else to catch up."

The image at the top of the page shows the 10-meter South Pole Telescope in Antarctica is located at the Amundsen-Scott Station, literally at the geographic southern pole of our planet. (Daniel Luong-Van, National Science Foundation). The 280-ton telescope has helped astronomers unravel the nature of dark energy and zero in on the actual mass of neutrinos — elusive subatomic particles that pervade the Universe and, until very recently, were thought to be entirely without measureable mass.

The Daily Galaxy via University of Arizona


A sense: dark energy and mass will be found to be ‘effective’ dynamics from the anti-graviton/graviton radiation released from the original big bang and replenished by supernovae.

Reinstating the cosmological constant doesn't "explain" anything, it just makes the math work. For it to explain anything, there would need to be some theory that matches the data which gives a reason for the constant to be included.

I have to agree with Mr. Holder in part. No explanation is given by Thompson concerning alternate theories. Making the math look nice is great for the layman, but some of us need more than "I guess we'll use Einstein's constant cause there's nothing better". However, assuming Thompsn's observations are correct, it does put us in an interesting place. I was never convinced about Dark Energy at any rate.

Could it be the entire Big Bang is just wrong?.. why dont they give a chance to plasma cosmology?.... too much money and careers put into this dark science we have nowadays.


1) The red- and blueshift method is not reliable in order to measure neither distances nor movements in cosmos. When using this method, scientists get wrong assumptions on distance, speed and direction.

2) On the larger scale there is no such thing as constants because everything is constantly (!) changing and fluctuating with temperature and electric charge.

3) All basic elements are vibrating accordingly to their own elementary structure. The electrons of an atom are bound to the nucleus by the electromagnetic force. Electromagnetic fields describe a circuit in a spherical pattern with a central point in the middle of the sphere.

Imagine you then to stand in the middle of this electromagnetic sphere, watching a particle moving around in the spherical magnetic field. Sometime you will see the particle moving away from you and sometime towards you.

Sometime you will interpret this motion as being expanding and sometime contracting and scientists interpret an actual motion in cosmos as expanding which could be right, but not for the reason of red- or blueshift. My guess is that our Solar System is slowly moving away from the galactic centre, creating the illusion of “everything else is moving away from everything else”, which is concordant with my perception that our Solar System once was created in the galactic centre, which again confirms that “the galactic rotation problem” is just a problem with the consensus gravity ideas.

This principle works all over the place in micro- and macrocosm, in our cells and in our galaxy and everywhere else. Our galaxy is a part of a local group of galaxies orbiting a centre of this group, and so on with clusters and superclusters of galaxies. Everything is orbiting something in an electromagnetic and spherical way.

Having this cyclical and circuital understanding of everything small and large in the Universe, all kind of “dark cosmology terms” can be completely discarded and binned.

Of course “there has been no change in the ratio to one part in 10 million at a time when the universe was about half its current age, around 7 billion years ago” because there is no beginning and no end in the Universe, only constantly changes of formation of structures into large physical matters and dissolution of these structures again into the elementary particles and so on.

Modern scientists can learn a lot of the ancient cyclical world view. If this doesn´t happened, a lot of contradictions and anomalies will keep turning up on the scientific theatre, creating more and more confusion instead of enlightenment.

Ivar Nielsen
Natural Philosopher

The fundamental constants remain the same because the path we follow thru' the otherwise-chaotic multiple universes is dictated by those constants. According to Reg Mundy's "The Situation of Gravity", our existence is based on our "choice" of these constants. Having looked at every theory of "how the universe works" that I could find, it is the only one that actually fits the available data without made-up "constants" and inventions like "gravity".

I affirm: Dark matter exists like Mordehai Milgrom postulates it (schematicly). There is an overlay of Hubble-acceleration in quantity “6,9.10^-10[m/s²]”. (The same mesurement of pioneer-sondes). Dark energy is an heterodoxy because, in reality it is the “potenzielle Energetigkeit” in space. See (right written) URL “www,Hubble-diagramm.de” and “future-41stein.de”.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)