Cluster

Washington DC was rainy last night, but today's weather is lovely. The Canada-America-Mexico Physics conference is in the Liaison Capitol Hill hotel, within sight of the Capitol Building. Photos coming soon.

Proponents of "dark energy" claim that it's existence is proven, even if not a single sample exists. For proof they cite a complex chain of reasoning. Like the Emperor's New Clothes, only the truly enlightened can understand the evidence. Everyone else, even other scientists, can only quote the meme that DE must exist.

The September 29 issue of NATURE contains this paper:

Gravitational redshift of galaxies in clusters as predicted by general relativity

"The theoretical framework of cosmology is mainly defined by gravity, of which general relativity is the current model. Recent tests of general relativity within the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) model have found a concordance between predictions and the observations of the growth rate and clustering of the cosmic web. General relativity has not hitherto been tested on cosmological scales independently of the assumptions of the ΛCDM model. Here we report an observation of the gravitational redshift of light coming from galaxies in clusters at the 99 per cent confidence level, based on archival data. Our measurement agrees with the predictions of general relativity and its modification created to explain cosmic acceleration without the need for dark energy..."

Despite the many press releases about "dark energy," doubts continue to grow. While data may fit a universe with DE, the same data also corresponds to no DE at all. Hypotheses of a repulsive "dark energy" has not led to theory, just a divergence of speculations that erode the reputation of science. While there will be no samples of DE, there is evidence of a changing speed of light.

Whiskers

Last year friend Jennifer Ouellette wrote this for Discovery News:

Graphite Whiskers to Determine Fate of Our Universe?

Graphite is the carbon form seen in pencils, which are all a cosmologist really needs to work. By exposing graphite to common adhesive tape, physicists have produced graphene, a material with many potential uses. The APS meeting in Dallas last month was full of presentations on graphene and its applications. Recently graphite has been found to occur naturally in tubelike whiskers, even in Space. Today graphite whiskers have been found in Moon samples.

Apollo 17 landed in Mare Serenitatis. The Sea of Serenity is said to form one eye of the Man in the Moon. Mare Serenitatis was also home to the fictional Moon Kingdom in SAILOR MOON before it was overcome by cosmic dark energy. Apollo 17also carried Harrison Schmitt, the only geologist yet to have explored the Moon. Evidence from the Moon may be dark energy's undoing.

Our Apollo samples are over 40 years old, yet they still yield new discoveries. Examining Apollo 17 regolith samples using the technique of Raman spectroscopy, scientists at JPL have found traces of graphite whiskers. They could be leftovers from 3.9 billion years ago, when the Moon and solar systems underwent a Late Heavy Bombardment of meteors. The whiskers would have arrived on the Moon via meteorites, having formed in deep Space.

In 2008 other astronomers found traces of graphite whiskers in 3 different meteorites. Graphite dust may be common in the Universe. The dust would block light in infrared wavelenghts. If so, its presence might dim the light from distant supernovae. That dimming is the only evidence of "cosmic acceleration" or "dark energy." Other sorts of cosmic dust might also explain away dark energy.

Redshifts are related to the speed of light. The other explanation is that the Universe is not accelerating but the speed of light is slowing down. If the "accelerating" redshifts are caused by dust, there is other evidence for c slowing. Since this blog started, evidence for c change has also been found from the Moon. Like whiskers on the Man in the Moon, alternatives to "dark energy" continue to sprout.

UPDATE: "Dark energy" skeptic Subir Sarkar of Oxford reports that the Hubble WFC2 data only rules out some void models, not others. An assertion in the press that DE's existence has been proven is premature, to say the least.

The Dark Strikes Back

This blog has often reported speculation about a repulsive "dark" energy. Curiously, Dark Lords refuse to acknowledge alternative ideas. From their first paper back in 1998, they have tried to rule out other explanations. A Space.com article Bizarre Dark Energy Theory has been picked up by everyone from CBS to the Albuquerque Express. Using data from Hubble's WFC2 camera, which astronauts installed during STS-125, a Dark Lord claims to have ruled out an alternative to DE.

This may be referring to the "Bubble" hypothesis from Oxford's Timothy Clifton and Pedro Ferreira. In this theory, we live inside a cosmic "bubble" of different density. This led SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN to ask in a cover story: Does Dark Energy Really Exist? We reported in 2009:

Now They Ask: Does It Really Exist?

Alternately the Dark Lord may be trying to squelch a theory from Blake Temple of UC Davis and Joel Smoller. Their work suggests that our galaxy is in the middle of a density fluctuation that mimics the effects of acceleration. This led NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC to ask:

Dark Energy's Demise?

Today there are multiple alternatives to a repulsive "dark" energy. The Dark Lord has not yet ruled out the simplest alternative, one that can not be ruled out no matter how many supernovae are found. Redshifts are proportional to v/c, velocity divided by the speed of light. The universe may not be accelerating, but the speed of light is slowing down.

Dark Lords can call this "Undesirable No. 1"

UPDATE: Void proponent and "dark energy" skeptic Subir Sarkar of Oxford reports that the WFC2 data only rules out some void models, not others. The assertion that DE's existence is proved is quite premature.

Dark Energy (funding) Doesn't Exist

(Once again, the evidence for either an “accelerating Universe” or a changing speed of light. Low redshifts increase linearly with distance, showing that the Space/Time expands. High redshifts increase non-linearly, leading to speculation about repulsive energies. Supernova redshifts are the only direct evidence of acceleration. The cosmic microwave background, dating from a time just 380,000 years after the Big Bang, tells us nothing about acceleration. Prediction of GM=tc^3 and a slowing speed of light still fits the data precisely.)

This morning's NEW YORK TIMES science section is almost a death knell for "dark energy" science:

Quest for Dark Energy May Fade to Black

"An ambitious 1.6 billion spacecraft that would investigate the mysterious force that is apparently accelerating the expansion of the universe — and search out planets around other stars, to boot — might have to be postponed for a decade, NASA says, because of cost overruns and mismanagement on a separate project, the James Webb Space Telescope. The news has dismayed many American astronomers, who worry they will wind up playing second fiddle to their European counterparts in what they say is the deepest mystery in the universe."

How did scientists get into this mess? Since 2006 this little blog has chronicled the disorganised and ill-starred story of "dark energy" and how it has been bad, very bad for science. The obsession with hypothetical DE has divided science into competing camps and pushed other promising projects out of the way. Despite the warnings, DE has not ripped apart the galaxies but has ruined science.

In 1998 two groups, the Supernova Cosmology Project and High-Z Supernova Search, were looking at the same phenomenon, redshifts of Type Ia supernovae. Though scientists haven't figured out what powers supernovae, the luminosities of Type Ia were considered constant. By seeking out supernovae in distant galaxies, physicists thought to determine how fast the universe is expanding. To their surprise high redshifts appeared to curve upward, as if the universe were accelerating.

Since both groups were looking at the same phenomenon, there was pressure to publish first. A junior member of the latter group published a paper claiming that the universe wa pushed by a repulsive "cosmological constant." His office was in Campbell Hall at UC Berkeley, about 500 meters from Lawrence Berkeley Lab and headquarters of the first group. Some months after he published, the first group published a paper with the same conclusions. Though both groups were closely located, looking at the same phenomenon and knew of each other's work, they were called "independent."

To spread, even a bad idea needs good press. SCIENCE magazine put acceleration on its cover as "Breakthrough of the Year" with a cartoon of Albert Einstein. In their lectures, the supernova hunters often showed this cover as if it were some sort of proof. Approbation of others can be a substitute for certainty. The supernova hunters shared the 1 million dollar Shaw prize and the 500,000 dollar Gruber Cosmology Prize. The cosmological constant, renamed "dark energy" when it was found not to be constant, seemed to be the hottest ticket in science.

Flush from their "breakthrough," scientists became even more ambitious. In 1999 one group proposed a Supernova Acceleration Probe (SNAP), a 2-meter infrared telescope at the Sun-Earth L2 point. From this vantage point a million miles from Earth SNAP would theoretically find thousands of supernovae, seeking the unseen "dark energy." Even if SNAP were successful, it would not return a single wave or particle of DE to prove it exists. It would simply find an "equation of state" that could be explained by a changing speed of light.

Hypothetical "dark energy" has not led to solutions, but a divergence of speculative ideas. Every theorist came up with their own pet theory. Whenever a new theory came along, all the others could agree it was wrong. Researchers could not even agree on a mission concept. Within several years the SNAP proposal was joined by DESTINY, a similar proposal with a 1.5 meter aperture, and yet another proposal called ADEPT. Each proposal had its own Principal Investigator (PI) and its own set of supporters, all competing for the same funding.

Searching for "dark energy" began to crowd out other priorities. At first it was just one Space mission in a NASA program called Beyond Einstein. The astrophysics program also included X-Ray observatories, gravitational wave experiments, and an undefined inflation probe. When funding became tight, the National Academies held a series of meetings to set priorities. Finding "dark energy" was considered so important that other projects were pushed to the back of the line, not to fly in this decade.

In September 2008 NASA and DOE tried to combine the 3 proposals into a Joint Dark energy Mission (JDEM). The PI hopefuls were reduced to advisors in the new plan. The merged mission looked so expensive that NASA asked the European Space Agency to contribute. DOE, feeling jilted for the Europeans, dropped out and pursued their own experiment. When all this mate-swapping was finished, the agencies were back to three competing proposals. A NATURE article said of JDEM, "This is an example of a satellite blowing up before it gets built" while calling DE a fudge factor.

In August 2010 the National Academies officially endorsed a new combined mission, Widefield Infrared Survey Telescope. WFIRST would search for extrasolar planets, and look for "dark energy" on the way. Just 3 months later NASA announced that their flagship mission, the James Webb Space Telescope, was years behind schedule and needed billions more to fly. With JWST eating up the astrophysics budget, WFIRST would not fly until the 2020's if ever.

Most scientists quietly doubt that "dark energy" exists. Despite all the favorable press, the idea has never caught on with the public. Even journalists often confuse "dark energy" with "dark matter." DE is largely a hypothesis of physicists driven into cosmology by the lack of Physics funding. Eventually DE is likely to fade into memory like ether, phlogiston and epicycles. It will not cause the universe to rip apart, but it continues to rip apart science.

The explanation of cosmic "acceleration" is so simple that a child could understand it. Redshifts are proportional to the speed of light c. Rather than the universe accelerating, we have observed c slowing down. A changing c can be corroborated by direct measurements over a long baseline, like the distance to the Moon. Long before SNAP, JDEM, or WFIRST will ever get a chance to fly, there will be "c change" in physics.

Emperor Has No Clothes Pt. 2

Newport Beach at Sunset in 2007, the day someone argued to the National Research Council that "dark energy" would be very bad for science. Along with a changing speed of light, another prediction has come true.

The term "dark energy" has started to slowly fade. Yesterday August 13 a decadal survey on the future of astronomy was released by the US National Academy of Sciences. The report recommends a Wide Field Infrared Space Telescope (WFIRST) as a priority Space mission to be launched around 2020. WFIRST would be a 1.5 meter instrument remarkably similar to the Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM) studied for years by the US Department of Energy. The term "dark energy" is gone from the mission's name. WFIRST's mission will be to search for terrestrial planets around other solar systems, and look for "dark energy" on the way. This hedges everyone's bet when they admit that dark energy doesn't exist. Nature.com article.

At one time "dark energy" was the hottest ticket in science. An ambitious JDEM would launch around 2009 to find its equation of state. The hypothetical DE has not led to solution, but rather a divergence of speculative ideas. Even if the JDEM were launched, it would not return a single particle, just an "equation of state" which could easily be explained by a changing speed of light. First the DE researchers split into 3 competing camps, each with its own Principal Investigator (PI), each proposing a different mission. (Remember SNAP and DESTINY? Read The Dark Side from 2006!)

In September 2008 NASA and DOE tried to bring the 3 teams together for a combined proposal. The PI hopefuls were reduced to advisors in the new plan. The merged mission looked so expensive that NASA asked ESA to contribute. DOE, feeling jilted for the Europeans, dropped out and pursued their own experiment. When all this mate-swapping was finished, the alphabet soup agencies were back to three competing proposals.

Nature.com reported in 2009, Dark Energy Rips Cosmos and Agencies. DE was called by Nature.com a "fudge factor." As for JDEM, the article quoted, "This is an example of a satellite blowing up before it gets built." In addition to a divergence of speculative ideas, DE has led to splits in science. Cost of the proposed mission has risen from 600 million to at least 1.6 billion US.

As readers know, "dark energy" is not a repulsive force, but an effect created by a changing speed of light. It can be predicted by a simple algebraic equation, too simple for scientists to figure out. For the solution, check the Nature.com physics blogs. Just beneath FQXi is a little blog known by Nature as "GM=tc^3." It's not the same as a paper in Nature, but it is very popular blog!

Emperor Has No Clothes

Someone has been a long way from the computer, so this story from Space.com almost escaped our attention:

Glimpse of Distant Universe Could Unravel Dark Energy [Secrets]

"A new radio telescope technique has allowed astronomers to glimpse distant reaches of the universe and could help answer some fundamental cosmic riddles, such as whether mysterious things like dark energy really exist.

"Dark energy is believed to constitute nearly three-fourths of the mass and energy of the universe. It is also thought to be responsible for the speeding up of the universe's expansion. Yet scientists still aren't sure dark energy even exists."

Doubts continue to grow, even in the press, about a repulsive "dark energy." Why is there not a single particle or track in a bubble chamber to prove its existence? If it composes 3/4 of the Universe, where is it? Why is it not in our solar system affecting planetary orbits? DE is promoted mostly by physicists, while few astronomers really believe it. The idea has led scientists further from the truth, that the speed of light is slowing.

Despite growing doubts, DE supporters still treat it as settled science. Just last week a respected scientist was seen lecturing about DE in South America. What will happen to his credibility when the truth comes out? Invisible "dark energy" may someday be described as physicists' mass delusion, or the Emperor's New Clothes.

Doubts in the Dark

The Cosmic Microwave Background. Who can see the cosmic acceleration? It's a matter of interpreting the data, and who gets the data first.

When redshifts of Type Ia supernovae were found to increase non-linearly, it was hailed as evidence that the Universe was accelerating. This would violate most laws of gravity, not to mention the First Law of Thermodynamics on energy conservation. To explain the "accelerating" data, scientists claimed a repulsive "dark energy." The first reports from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe were interpreted to favour DE, though WMAP says nothing about acceleration.

To quote Roger Penrose: "In my opinion, we must be exceedingly cautious about claims of this kind--even if seemingly supported by high-quality experimental results. These are frequently analysed from the perspective of some fashionable theory."

Doubts about the "standard" cosmology and its dark epicycles continue to spread. From Space.com:

Dark Energy and Dark Matter Might Not Exist, Scientists Allege

"Ever since these concepts were first proposed, some astronomers have worked feverishly to figure out what each thing is, while other astronomers have tried to prove they don't exist, in hopes of restoring the universe to the more understandable place many would like it to be.

"A new look at the data from one of the telescopes used to establish the existence of this strange stuff is causing some scientists to question whether they really exist at all. Yet other experts are holding firm to the idea that, whether we like it or not, the 'dark side' of the universe is here to stay."

The article cites work by astrophysicist Tom Shanks of Durham University. His colleague's studies show that "dark energy" is a matter of interpretating data. The first WMAP data release was massaged to favor DE, even thjough other interpretations are possible. Experts who have bet their careers on DE will peddle it until their last breath. In the meantime, the spotlight will move elsewhere. Evidence for a changing speed of light grows.

Full House

Saturday night February 27, PLAYING DOCTOR played to a full house! In the show, Rob Brewster pretends to be an MD to please his parents. People were literally rolling in the aisles with laughter. We actors had to give up our dressing room chairs to accommodate the overflow audience. The show is a big hit!

Also this week, the local university hosted a physicist lecturing on "dark energy." Admission to his dark talk cost more than a ticket to our play. He promoted a Joint Dark Energy Mission while asking for a billion more dollars to launch it. The hypothesised "dark energy" has not led to any solutions, but a divergence of models and requests for more money. Why should the public reward failure? Compared to our show, the lecture was sparsely attended with no laughter.

The show must close after this week, so purchase tickets soon! PLAYING DOCTOR is a lot more fun than hearing about a dark universe.

Dark Energy's Demise?

From National Geographic News:

Dark Energy's Demise? New Theory Doesn't Use the Force

"Dark energy, a mysterious force proposed more than a decade ago to explain why the universe is flying apart at an increasingly faster clip, is no longer necessary.

That's the conclusion of a controversial new theory that shows how the accelerated expansion of the universe could be just an illusion."

The article refers to work by Blake Temple of UC Davis and Joel Smoller of University of Michigan. Their work suggests that our galaxy is in the middle of a density fluctuation that mimics the effects of an accelerating universe. This would explain supernova data without cosmic acceleration, but violate the Copernican Principle.

The inferrence of a repulsive "dark energy" has led science nowhere. Focus on DE is one more factor eroding the reputation of physics. These new theories are nails in the coffin of DE. As readers know, the data can be precisely matched by GM=tc^3 and a changing speed of light.

Bin Laden Still Dead

8 years after the tragic day 9-11-2001 Mr. Osama Bin Laden is still dead. He stopped breathing as early as December 15, 2001. An Islamist website recently promised an anniversary "gift" from OBL, but withdrew the post. It must be getting difficult taking old recordings and packaging them as new.

OBL has much in common with 'dark energy.' While many people pretend that OBL exists, no one has actually seen him. A mainstream press insists that OBL and DE exist, even though the evidence is sketchy at best. Those with critical thinking skills can see that the Emperor truly has no clothes. Eventually both will fade from the public memory.

The power of one light can illuminate the darkest night.

Now They Ask: Does It Really Exist?

(Once again, the evidence for either an “accelerating Universe” or a changing speed of light. Low redshifts increase linearly with distance, showing that the Space/Time expands. High redshifts increase non-linearly, leading to much speculation about repulsive energies. Supernova redshifts are the only direct evidence of acceleration. Prediction of GM=tc^3 and a slowing speed of light still fits the data precisely.)

Just as they once thought Earth’s position was centred in the Universe, scientists have thought that the speed of light was also fixed. When redshifts of distant supernovae appeared to have increased with respect to the speed of light, scientists assumed that c was constant and the Universe was accelerating! To explain this acceleration, they inferred a repulsive force, a “dark energy.”

At one time DE was science's hot topic. Grants and research jobs appeared destined for those who claimed its existence. After 11 years of speculation, repulsive energy has only caused science to decelerate. It has muscled promising projects, like the Constellation-X spacecraft, out of the funding queue. Though DE theories have spawned like epicycles, not one of them has demonstrated any staying power. The idea of acceleration has prevented scientists from seeing what a child could figure out, that the Universe is not accelerating but the speed of light is slowing down.

This month's SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN COVER asks: Does Dark Energy Really Exist?

“In short, we are very much in the dark about dark energy. Researchers are working on a number of ambitious ground and space-based missions to find and characterize dark energy, whatever it may be. To many, it is the greatest challenge facing modern cosmology.”

The article, by Oxford’s Timothy Clifton and Pedro Ferreira, highlights the notion that we could be living in a giant cosmic bubble. Our void would have a lower density than the rest of the Universe. Distant but visible parts of the universe would expand at a different rate, making the whole thing appear to accelerate from our point of view. The authors also compare this varying expansion rate with a variation in time. Such a variation in time would be mathematically equivalent to a changing speed of light.

Another sign that times are changing comes from the website of this Summer’s Paris conference, The Invisible Universe.

“Concerning dark energy and its repulsive effect on the dynamics of the universe, the question is even more complicated. This time, it seems that even the most adventurous extensions of the standard model and of the infinitely small are not capable to give a satisfactory candidate in terms of elementary constituents that can support its most peculiar property, negative pressure. This is why, dark energy but also dark matter are interpreted is some scientific literature not as fundamental constituents, but as fundamental modifications of our laws of physics.”

Having led science down a dead-end street, “dark energy” is starting to lose its luster. DE skeptics. Like those at Oxford, are finally getting their voices heard. Alternative ideas, like cosmic voids, are getting published. Next in line could be a changing speed of light.

Check out the latest Carnival of Space!

Lurking in the Dark

The wonders of life on Earth are much more interesting than "dark energy." The "Dumbo" squid, so named for its big ears, caught by another of our Oceaneering ROV's. With this year's movies, perhaps they will call it the "Despereaux" squid. Amazing things really do lurk in the dark.

We live in an age when massive amounts of information, virtually the sum of human knowledge, are available on a desktop. As a scientist I must deal with huge databases full of information. All the technology in the world can not overcome human error. Human beings are still too often guided by fear, prejudice, and mob rule. Like the Earth circling the Sun, old ideas take time to be replaced.

Over the weekend I heard a non-scientist boast proudly of what he knew about cosmology. The man was certain that the Universe was accelerating. He was smart enough to know that acceleration violates Conservation of Energy, but believed it was due to some unseen force. This man has not seen any "dark" energies, for no one has. He relied on the scientists who claimed evidence of acceleration, then breathlessly report it to the popular press.

As the year 2009 approaches, we can look forward to another International Astronomical Union meeting. Of the many symposia, none are devoted to "dark energy." However, Joint Discussion 9 will ask: Are the fundamental constants varying with Space/Time?How the world has changed in our favour!

As an example, does anyone out there remember Osama Bin Laden? At one time the press breathlessly amplified his every alleged word and videotape. The press had not seen OBL in person; no one has seen him alive since his death was reported in 2001. All that we have are suspicious recordings of his voice and transparently crude videos. As time has passed we find even Dick Cheney not sure if Bin Laden still alive. Someday the world may find that the OBL stopped breathing on December 15, 2001.

Consider the other man with a beard, St. Nicholas. Every year at this time we see many high-quality movies and video of jolly St. Nick. Many people claim to have seen him firsthand, holding court in the mall. There is much more reason to believe in St. Nicholas than to believe in Osama bin Laden. (If anyone has seen OBL alive since 2001 please leave comment here and I will happily retract this statement.)

It takes time and patience, but eventually the world will realise that neither Osama nor "dark energy" are around to bother us. That will take time, for billions of minds must change. The speed of light will continue to slow whether humans realise it or not. Despite all the challenges, science somehow advances. Like St. Nicholas, good ideas last forever.

Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble

The press realises that mainstream science is really in the dark. SPACE.com begins their article: "If the notion of dark energy sounds improbable, get ready for an even more outlandish suggestion."

"Earth may be trapped in an abnormal bubble of space-time that is particularly void of matter. Scientists say this condition could account for the apparent acceleration of the universe's expansion, for which dark energy currently is the leading explanation."

In this scenario, we occupy a bubble of Space with unusually low density. Distant Type Ia supernovae would appear to be dimmer, mimicking the effect of cosmic acceleration. This has some similiarties to the work of David Wiltshire in New Zealand, who suggests that timne itself may move at a different rate in distant regions of the Universe. A changing rate of time is mathematically equivalent to a changing speed of light.

GM=tc^3, the speed of light has changed. Redshifts of distant supernovae are related to c, so the Universe appears to accelerate. In Planck units the equation reduces to M = R = t. A child could figure it out, yet the simplest Theory has not yet reached the mainstream press. Just as astronomy was once dominated by epicycles, today speculation is rife about "dark energy." Someday we may read that real advances in science happen out of the limelight.

Kagemusha

"We go to defend freedom, and all that is good and just in the world."

The proof of 'dark energy,' the Korean Peninsula seen from Space. The North has famine, energy shortages and no electricity after 9 PM. North Korean officials deny rumours that dictator Kim Jong is Ill. He missed the parade for the 60th anniversary of their totalitarian state. North Korean officials spout claims that he is fine, but no evidence. South Korean sources speculate that Lil' Kim is recovering from surgery.

Times Online reports the surprising theory that Kim Jong Il's lights went out permanently back in 2003! According to Professor Toshimitsu Shigemura's new book, "The True Character of Kim Jong Il" has been concealed for years. The occasional appearances of Lil' Kim have been played by doubles. (He did not appear this year to accept the Olympic torch, or at the recent 60th anniversary celbration of communist rule.) This theory is opposed by most NK experts, but Professor Shigemura believes that his theory will turn out to be accurate.

Kagemusha (Shadow Warrior) is a Japanese legend and a great film by Akira Kurosawa. A peasant who resembles the king is recruited to pose in the King's uniform during battles. The soldiers are energized by the appearance of their leader overseeing the battle. Unexpectedly the king dies and the Kagemusha is forced to take over all his roles. This charade ends with a tragic conclusion.

7 years after 9/11/01, most of the world believes that Osama Bin Laden is still a live target. Certainly terrorists are still a threat; their cause is aided by belief that OBL lives. Followers flock to OBL's message even though no one has seen him. All we see are old videotapes and crude audio. Major media dutifully report and amplify these crude messages. Convincing evidence would be video of him walking around while waving a current newspaper. Terrorists have every reason to produce such evidence, but do not. OBL may have met his fate within 1-2 days of December 15, 2001. Perhaps the "War on Terror" has been more successful than people realise.

Kagemushas have much in common with 'dark energy.' Like terrorism, 'dark energy' threatens to tear the Universe apart. Scientists have flocked to DE even though no one has seen it. Some of their interest is financial, for grants flow to DE researchers. Even if a Joint Dark Energy Mission is launched, it will not return a single particle or wave, just an "equation of state" which could be explained by a changing speed of light. That would not distinguish between the myriad DE theories. Cosmologists have flocked to DE like the Emperor's New Clothes, for it will keep them employed and unsuccessful indefinitely. 'Dark energy' may have tragic conclusions for the reputation of science.

UPDATE SEPT 12: Barack Obama, who has been looking pale lately, is out of action tonight due to "stomach flu."

Dark Side Losing Grip

Galaxy Cluster 2XMM J083026+524133 taken by the Large Binocular Telescope in Arizona. The blue glow is X-ray emission from gas at 100 million degrees K. The cluster was first discovered by the ESA's XMM Newton telescope. With a mass 1000 times that of our Milky Way, this is the most massive distant cluster yet found.

Discovery of this cluster has been claimed to be proof of 'Dark Energy.' The original paper makes no mention of DE, but the ESA Press Releasemakes the fantastic claim. The European Space Agency is trying to fund their own "Dark Energy" probe, so we can expect many other 'proofs' of its existence. Perhaps DE will be blamed for hurricanes.

Massive galaxy clusters like this are thought to be rare in the distant Universe. Finding a big one is thought to be due to DE, which would cause the Universe to pull apart in more recent times. According to their theories, the scientists do not expect to find any more. Their statement may sound foolish, for there could be many more big clusters out there. Since size of clusters is limited by a distance related to c, massive clusters indicate a changing speed of light.

In the Universe Today comments, we see how much ridicule DE claims get. Instead of the lone trolls that try to pester this blog, criticism of Dark Energy comes from all sides. While scientists compete for the biggest branes, their reputation continues to sink.

An upcoming paper by Jose Senovilla et al. in Physical Review D suggests that DE is a sympton of time itself slowing down. This is outwardly similiar to the work of David Wiltshire in New Zealand, whom Kea has pointed to. Lacking a mechanism, the Spanish team invokes the speculative world of "branes." Is the accelerated expansion evidence of a forthcoming change of signature on the brane? Slowing of time is mathematically equivalent to a changing speed of light.

GM = tc^3, a child could figure it out.

'Dark Energy' Bad For Spelling

This is an actual NASA Procurement Notice Title:

DESTINY MISSION CEONCPET FOR THE JOINT DARK ENERGY MISSIN - JDEM

DESTINY (Dark Energy Space Telescope) is one of three competing concepts, along with SNAP and ADEPT for a DE mission. The competing teams have yet to agree on a concept, and are still not sure how the project will be funded. The hypothesis of a repulsive "dark energy" leads to a divergence of solutions, which will keep theorists in grants but not tell us anything about the universe.

In his December Physicsworld article, Lwrence Krauss describes the observational challenge:

"Existing data show that –1.2 < w < –0.8, which means that we know w is very close to the cosmological-constant value of –1. But since we have no theory whatsoever to guide us if w turns out not to equal –1, either today or earlier in cosmic history, we have to allow for the possibility that w varies arbitrarily with time. When this theoretical uncertainty is combined with the likely systematic uncertainty of observations — for example due to difficulties in determining the absolute brightness of supernovae — it will be very hard to tell whether the equation of state of dark energy actually deviated from –1 at any time in the past.

"Earlier this year I, along with Dragan Huterer at the University of Chicago and Kate Jones-Smith of Case Western Reserve University, calculated that even if 3000 supernova observations were made with a measurement accuracy slightly better than anything that has been possible thus far, then the constraints on the measured value might improve by at most a factor of 2 once the theoretical uncertainty in w is incorporated. In other words, –1.1 < w < –0.9 (New J. Phys. 9 141).

"But let us say, for the sake of argument, that the true value of the equation of state parameter is w = –0.96. Then, even if we are able to improve the existing uncertainty in w by a factor of 10 using a variety of proposed techniques beyond simply measuring distant supernovae, a value of w = –1 will only be two standard deviations away from the best fit value (which may not even correspond to w = –0.96). Unfortunately, such confidence intervals occur routinely in physics and, while suggestive, are not sufficient to claim a discovery.

As readers know there IS a theory. Three truly independent experiments: Type Ia supernovae, lunar laser ranging and the 'Faint Young Sun" show not just that c slows, but that it slows at exactly the rate GM=tc^3 predicts. Once we know what to look for, finding a signal in the data becomes easy.

The epicycles of "Dark Energy" will take a long time to die out. Billion-dollar Space missions are planned to find its "equation of state." Careers, reputations and even hoped-for trips to Stockholm now centre around its existence. Scientists have vested interest in promoting DE. Their reputation continues to erode with their spelling.

Physics in a Void

Doubts about the existence of "dark energy" have been echoed by Fraser in a Universe Today post. Fraser cites a paper published by Timothy Clifton of Oxford, Living in a Void. Clifton speculates that we could live in a "void" less dense than the surrounding Universe. If so, our region would appear to decelerate slower than distant galaxies, making the Universe appear to accelerate. There would be no need for a hypothetical "dark energy."

Questions about DE have also reached the audience of Amanda Gefter's New Scientist blog.

"Most cosmologists believe that a furtive anti-gravity-like force known as dark energy is to blame...But no one can explain why the observed value of the dark energy is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than what's predicted from quantum physics. In fact, the level of fine-tuning needed to produce such a specifically small but non-zero cosmological constant is so absurd that the best explanation anyone's come up with is that our universe is merely one of an infinite number of universes."

"Scientists shouldn't dismiss ideas just because they might undermine some deeply cherished assumptions...One cosmologist wrote to me in an email: 'There is no fractal or inhomogeneous physical model of the universe of any kind. Therefore although there are particular observations that present a challenge to the standard model, there is no sense in which there is a preferred model that predicts or is explained by inhomogeneity . . . So the observations are interesting, but without a physical model to back them up, they are unlikely to have an impact on our thinking about cosmology.'

"I found this statement rather shocking. Cosmologists are willing to dismiss observations because they don't fit with theory? Isn't science supposed to work the other way round?"

New ideas take a long time to be accepted. Like Ptolemy's epicycles, the "dark energy" hypothesis may take a long time to die. It has produced a divergence of theories to keep physicists employed. Expensive space projects and even trips to Stockholm are dependent on DE existing. Resistance to alternative theories can be expected.

When Earth was believed to be the centre of everything, a divergence of epicycle theories kept academics employed. The Copernican Principle stated that Earth was not the centre, doing away with epicycles. This principle forms a basis of modern cosmology. The hypothesised "dark energy" leads to epicycles not solutions. Before throwing Copernicus away, scientists should consider a changing speed of light.

Groping in the Dark

"Observing Dark Energy," a symposium held at the Omni Tucson Golf Resort and Spa 18-20 March, 2004. After a long and dicey journey, the student enjoyed a suite with front door facing the swimming pool and back door facing golf courses. She also enjoyed the chance to present a paper ask her puzzling question about 4.507034%. She was deeply disappointed that there was no "dark energy" to observe. 4 years later they've still not made any progress.

Last week the Space Telescope Science Institute held a "Symposium on Dark Energy." Even the revered Ed Witten was at a loss to explain it or even point the way toward an explanation. The assembled big brains can not even agree on a strategy. The proposed Joint Dark Energy Mission must be chosen from at least three competing candidates. (This is "Joint?") The hypothesis of repulsive energy leads to a divergence of solutions. A tiny industry has grown up around "dark energy" theories. Even if JDEM is launched it will not return a single wave or particle of DE, just an "equation of state." An unsuccessful idea would keep many theorists busy for decades with their non-success.

The May 10 issue of NEW SCIENTIST spotlights the work of astrophysicists Jean-Phillipe Uzan, Chris Clarkson and George Ellis. Their proposal would look at high-redshift quasars in different parts of the sky to see if expansion is uniform. Some theorists like David Wiltshire have suggested that different regions of the Universe expand at different rates. NEW SCIENTIST continues:

"If this is true, the case for dark energy would start to look shaky. Dark energy is thought to be accelerating the expansion of the universe. But if expansion rates differ over areas of space rather than time, it would scupper dark energy models that assume acceleration is uniform."

Ruth Durrer of the University of Geneva in Switzerland likes the idea. "It could have a profound effect on the interpretation of the apparent acceleration," Durrer says. "It could help us get rid of dark energy."

You go, girl! A lot of smart people are uncomfortable with DE, and they are coming out of the woodwork. If the model is not questioned, science could run around in epicycles for decades. JDEM is a nice idea, but even with it there will be no solution involving "dark energy."

GM = tc^3, a child could figure it out.

My Dinner With Saul

The weather in Marina Del Rey last week was a battle between darkness and light. The UCLA Dark Matter/Energy conference is held here biennially. Thursday morning the Sun peeked out to give us this view from the Marriott's top floor. Between talks I chatted with Wendy Freedman, Max Tegmark, Joel Primack, and many others. Wednesday I was fortunate to be invited for dinner by SAUL PERLMUTTER, and we talked about many things. His group's data may be the first good evidence that the speed of light is slowing down.

While members of the Supernova Cosmology Project have been promoting "dark energy," that inferrence has not led to any solutions. Study of DE has moved to include theories like modified gravity (or a changing speed of light.) Saul keeps to observations and does not get behind any one theory. We have Saul's group to thank for supernova data.

Wendy Freedman privately noted how many scientists have skewed the data to fit their pet theories. Eddington in his 1919 eclipse expedition is said to have included only the observations that fit Realtivity's prediction. A JDEM mission will not be launched until 2016 or later. By the time it returns data everyone will know what GM=tc^3 predicts.

2008 is the 10th anniversary of an "accelerating" Universe (or a slowing speed of light.) In 1998 two groups were in competition to study study the same phenomenon of Type Ia supernova redshifts. The conference noted that authors of two "independent" papers had offices 500 meters apart on the Berkeley campus. History may show that "dark energy" was pressured upon physics by this intense competition.

(A certain "Cosmic" blogger allegedly lives nearby. He was co-author on some other early papers promoting "dark energy," but was nowhere to be seen.)

History may also show that if one stays firm to convictions, success can be achieved despite imposing odds. It is good to be accepted in physics without compromising one's beliefs. Someday we may not need those cracked labels. Old ideas fade, and a "c change" is coming to the physics community.

Mars and Science Move Backward

Ptolemy's cosmology compared to Copernicus. Complicated, isn't it?

This week Mars is only 102 million kilometres away, the closest it will be for a some time. The bright red planet can currently be found in the constellation Gemini. On the night of November 15 Mars will appear to halt and then reverse course in the sky. From this week until January 30 the planet will show retrograde motion. Anyone observing the sky for a length of time will witness this backward flight.

For a long time humans thought that Earth was centre of the Universe and the planets circled around us. To explain retrograde motion, astronomers conjured up epicycles, spheres within spheres. By the time of Copernicus, some cosmologies had 60-100 epicycles. The mathematics were quite complicated, which kept science restricted to an elite few. Only in the 16th century did Copernicus' cosmology challenge the epicycles.

Big Bang theory states that the Universe expanded from a tiny volume. Anyone observing the sky will see that it is roughly uniform in any direction. The cosmic microwave background is uniform to one part in 10,000. Large portions of the sky appear to have reached thermal equilibrium, indicating that the Universe expanded faster than today's speed of light.

To explain the uniform sky, scientists starting in the 1970's conjured up inflation. According to this idea, when the Universe was just 10^{-33} seconds old it expanded at warp speed, many times faster than light. Inflation would violate Relativity's principle that nothing can travel faster than light. It would also violate the First Law of Thermodynamics about conservation of energy. Since nothing like inflation has ever been observed in nature, scientists imagine "inflations" and scalar fields.

Inflation shares the convenient quality of being unprovable. We cannot time travel to the first 10^{-33} seconds and observe inflation in action. The temperatures and energies of the Big Bang are also too great for any human experiment to reproduce. The mathematics are quite complicated, which keeps science restricted to an elite few.

Observations of distant Type Ia supernovae indicate that the Hubble ratio v/c appears to accelerate, evidence that the speed of light c is slowing. To explain this, scientists conjured up "dark energy." According to this idea, another repulsive force is causing velocity v to accelerate. This would also violate Relativity and the First Law of Thermodynamics. Since nothing like "dark energy" has ever been observed in nature, scientists have imagined all sorts of diverging ideas. The mathematics are quite complicated, which keeps science restricted to an elite few.

Ptolemy's cosmology of epicycles survived for 1500 years. It prevented humans from figuring out the obvious, that Earth circles the Sun. Today's mainstream cosmology is composed of inflation and "dark energy," which share many qualities with epicycles. Like invisible spheres, repulsive energies can never be observed in nature. Mars appears to travel backward in the sky, but will soon reverse again and travel forward. Will human science show this much intelligence?