Pin It
‎"Dark energy's true nature remains a mystery. Theoretical attempts to account for its observed properties have foundered. Its existence, however, appears secure. The new Nobel laureates and their collaborators
discovered the accelerated expansion by observing a certain type of reliably uniform supernova. Supporting evidence has since come from three independent sources: large-scale structure, clusters of galaxies, and the cosmic microwave background." Physics Today
· · Share · 20 hours ago near San Francisco
    • Jack Sarfatti I don't think it's a mystery.
      20 hours ago · · 2 people
    • Laurel Oplatka ‎3145 ?ah, so dark energy is or is not a mystery ?
      20 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti What didn't you understand about my sentence?
      18 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka So the first sentence of this paragraph was found later to be false ?
      18 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti No, that's not what I wrote. I simply gave my opinion that I think it's false. The mainstream does not think it's false. Time will tell who is correct. Me or them.
      18 hours ago · · 2 people
    • Laurel Oplatka Indeed, that it what I figured: you were disagreeing with the first statement and it is yet to be found out. But, then, does that mean it is still ultimately a mystery ? ~
      18 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka I hope you are correct !
      18 hours ago ·
    • Carol Turner The second sentence ... Theoretical attempts to account for its observed properties have foundered ... effectively negated the first Laurel.
      18 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti I have solved the problem alluded to in the second sentence.
      18 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Laurel Oplatka True, Carol.
      18 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka Jack, that is superb then and probably elegant. I am somewhat more optimistic now.
      18 hours ago ·
    • Terry Arbegust I guess I don't understand why you can't get you paper before the proper Peer review group, that way we wouldn't be reading about Dark Energy's being a "mystery" in Physics Today.
      Jack, in a nutshell, can you explain why your work hasn't been peer reviewed, or has it?, and if it has what say they, the Peer group?, IF it has "who", names please agrees with your physics and who doesn't, say for example where does Max Tegmark stand, Lenny Susskind, Roger Penrose, Whitten, Sir Martin Rees, Fred Alan Wolf, Nick Herbert, Saul Paul Sirag [the hippies who saved phyiscs] to name just a few, or is the problem with the politics of academia?, Just curious.
      17 hours ago ·
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert Dr. S- Can you make "Retrocausality and Signal Nonlocality in Consciousness and Cosmology" into a children's book for me so I can understand it? :)
      8 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti I have had papers on this published in peer reviewed journals. See wikipedia page on me. 2008, 2011
      5 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti No I can't Teresa.
      5 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti There is still a lot of theoretical work to be done - new physics.
      5 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert one of these days can you or someone write a dumbed down summary?
      5 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti I have simply pointed out that all the data is consistent with mainstream physics that virtual particles inside the vacuum bend spacetime just like real particles outside the vacuum do. From this one concludes that dark matter real particles do not exist - this is Popper falsifiable. Mainstream physics shows that virtual bosons anti-gravitate just like dark energy. Viirtual fermion-antifermion pairs gravitate just like dark matter.
      5 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti The hologram theory "explains" dark energy as back-from-the-future Hawking radiation from our future event horizon.
      5 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert What conclusions can be drawn from a holographic universe and signal non-lacality? What are YOUR thoughts on "God"
      5 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Real photon Hawking radiation is seen by an accelerating detector. A non-accelerating detector momentarily coincident with it sees virtual photon zero point vacuum fluctuations instead like in the Lamb shift and the Casimir force. Whether a particle is real or virtual depends on the motion of the detector.
      4 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert so intelligent design Dr. S???
      4 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti The Brain of God for our observable piece of the multiverse sandwiched between our past and future cosmological horizons is our future horizon. This is Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point - more accurately a 2D surrounding lightlike null geodesic surface that is also a quantum computer with 10^123 BITS - Hawking's MIND OF GOD. We are its 3D hologram images.
      4 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert or you can tell me in an im or email if you dont want to start a debate
      4 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti We are intelligently designed back from our future de Sitter dark energy event horizon. The entropy of the event horizon is its area. The dark energy density back from the future is Planck's quantum times the speed of light divided by the Planck area multiplied by the area-entropy of our future horizon at the intersection of our future light cone with it.
      4 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Now this is much more detailed than any primitive theology in our history. Stupid people demonize me with anonymous remailers - they are no better than the other terrorists.
      4 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert you have quite literally defined God and done the most to merge science and spirituality. I SO hope I get to meet you some day. Pls. let me know if you make it to DC Dr. S.
      4 hours ago ·
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert where can I find more of this in laywoman's terms Dr S?
      4 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert so what is time?
      4 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Tersa - google key words. Wikipedia these days is pretty good on basics.
      4 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Laurel Oplatka I am desparately trying to deeply comprehend this material. Jack, do you consider M. Talbot's "Holographic Universe' to be kindergarten stuff, or a jump off point for some of your theories or is it inextricably linked to what you are saying ? I will have to do the Wiki thing as well. Also, are you appalled by David Bohm's material, such as, "Wholeness and Implicate Order" ? I may have asked you that question previously. Thank you !
      4 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka Actually, I've changed my question, Dr S, OK, hope I am not a pariah for asking, but can the bulk of mainstream physics be truly understood without grasping the fundamentals of higher math (calculus) ??
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti No, absolutely not.
      a few seconds ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti I was a post-doc with Bohm. He is one of my heros.
      a few seconds ago ·

Jack Sarfatti
?"Early in the 20th century, Albert Einstein gave us new conceptual tools to rigorously address the questions of the origins, evolution, and fate of the
universe. In recent years, technology has developed to the point where these concepts from general relativity can be substantiated and elaborated by measurements. For example, measurement of the remnant glow from the hot dense beginnings of the expanding universe—the cosmic
microwave background—is yielding increasingly detailed data about the first half-million years and the overall geometry of the cosmos ..." Nobel Laureate Saul Perlmutter April 2003 Physics Today

· · 3 hours ago near San Francisco

  • Mollyann Wingerter likes this.
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"In principle, the expansion history of the cosmos can be determined quite easily, using as a “standard candle” any distinguishable class of astronomical objects of known intrinsic
      brightness that can be identified over a wide distance range. As the light from such beacons travels to Earth through an expanding universe, the cosmic expansion stretches not only the distances between galaxy clusters, but also the very wavelengths of the photons en route. By the time the light reaches us, the spectral wavelength has thus been redshifted by precisely the same incremental factor z by which the cosmos has been stretched in the time interval since the light left its source." ibid
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"The recorded redshift and brightness of each such object
      thus provide a measurement of the total integrated expansion
      of the universe since the time the light was emitted. A collection of such measurements, over a sufficient range of distances, would yield an entire historical record of the universe’s expansion.
      Conceptually, this scheme is a remarkably straightforward means to a profound prize: an empirical account of the growth of our universe. A spectroscopically distinguishable class of objects with determinable intrinsic brightness would do the
      trick. In Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the cosmic expansion
      in the 1920s, he used entire galaxies as standard candles.
      But galaxies, coming in many shapes and sizes, are difficult
      to match against a standard brightness. They can grow fainter with time, or brighter—by merging with other galaxies. In the 1970s, it was suggested that the brightest member of a galaxy cluster might serve as a reliable standard candle. But in the end, all proposed distant galactic candidates were too susceptible to evolutionary change."
      3 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti These are retarded light signals in the past light cone of the telescope photon detectors.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"In the early 1980s, a new subclassification of supernovae
      emerged. Supernovae with no hydrogen features in
      their spectra had previously all been classified simply as
      type I. Now this class was subdivided into types Ia and Ib,
      depending on the presence or absence of a silicon absorption
      feature at 6150 Å in the supernova’s spectrum.2 With
      that minor improvement in typology, an amazing consistency
      among the type Ia supernovae became evident. Their
      spectra matched feature-by-feature, as did their “light
      curves”—the plots of waxing and waning brightness in the
      weeks following a supernova explosion.3,4
      The uniformity of the type Ia supernovae became even
      more striking when their spectra were studied in detail as
      they brightened and then faded. First, the outermost parts
      of the exploding star emit a spectrum that’s the same for
      all typical type Ia supernovae, indicating the same elemental
      densities, excitation states, velocities, and so forth.
      Then, as the exploding ball of gas expands, the outermost
      layers thin out and become transparent, letting us see the
      spectral signatures of conditions further inside. Eventually,
      if we watch the entire time series of spectra, we get
      to see indicators that probe almost the entire explosive
      event. It is impressive that the type Ia supernovae exhibit
      so much uniformity down to this level of detail."
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"When the veteran Swiss researcher Gustav Tammann and
      his student Bruno Leibengut first reported the amazing
      uniformity of type Ia supernovae, there was immediate interest
      in trying to use them to determine the Hubble constant,
      H0, which measures the present expansion rate of
      the cosmos. That could be done by finding and measuring
      a few type Ia supernovae just beyond the nearest clusters
      of galaxies, that is, explosions that occurred some 100 million
      years ago. An even more challenging goal lay in the tantalizing prospect that we could find such standardcandle
      supernovae more than ten times farther away and
      thus sample the expansion of the universe several billion
      years ago. Measurements using such remote supernovae
      might actually show the expected slowing of the expansion
      rate by gravity. Because that deceleration rate would depend
      on the cosmic mean mass density rm, we would, in effect,
      be weighing the universe." - everything in quotes is from Perlmutter's article.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Note "weighing the universe" - key idea.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"If mass density is, as was generally supposed a decade
      ago, the primary energy constituent of the universe, then
      the measurement of the changing expansion rate would
      also determine the curvature of space and tell us about
      whether the cosmos is finite or infinite. Furthermore, the
      fate of the universe might be said to hang in the balance:
      If, for example, we measured a cosmic deceleration big
      enough to imply a rm exceeding the “critical density” (roughly 10–29 gm/cm3), that would indicate that the universe
      will someday stop expanding and collapse toward an
      apocalyptic “Big Crunch.”
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"mass density" means two things: first real particles (baryons and leptons and their compounds whizzing around space. These are in quantum field theory - poles of the Feynman propagator in the complex energy plane where momentum p and energy E are constrained by the equation
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti This is a form of the right triangle theorem of Pythagoras. m is the frame-invariant rest mass that is zero for a photon.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka Jack, have you written a recent book, where all of the above posts would be included ? Thanks.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka That is, where can we find your work all in one place that a physics major can quasi-understand ?
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka No I mean that someone who is NOT a physics major can grasp ?
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Second, it includes dark matter that is about 23% of all the stuff in the observable universe that we see in our past light cone. In my opinion this is the residual off-pole contribution to the Feynman propagator for virtual fermion-antifermion pairs whose quantum vacuum pressure is positive and is three times bigger than its negative zero point energy density forced by Pauli's exclusion principle. This assumes spatial isotropy of the quantum vacuum.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti In contrast virtual light inside the vacuum anti-gravitates and is the main component of dark energy accelerating the expansion speed of the universe's 3D space.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka So the 'virtual' components of dark matter are the key, then ?
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"Figure 3. Observed magnitude
      versus redshift is plotted for
      well-measures distant and
      (in the inset) nearby type Ia supernovae.
      For clarity, measurements
      at the same redshift are
      combined. At redshifts beyond
      z = 0.1 (distances greater than
      about 10^9 light-years), the cosmological
      predictions (indicated
      by the curves) begin to
      diverge, depending on the assumed
      cosmic densities of
      mass and vacuum energy. The
      red curves represent models
      with zero vacuum energy and
      mass densities ranging from the
      critical density rhoc down to zero
      (an empty cosmos). The best fit
      (blue line) assumes a mass
      density of about rhoc /3 plus a
      vacuum energy density twice
      that large—implying an accelerating
      cosmic expansion"
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka Dang, this is above my level of comprehension, yet I think and feel I MUST understand it.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti There are no real components of dark matter. Dark matter is 100% virtual in my opinion. The mainstream pundits assume the opposite that its 100% real. This is a dramatic difference that will b e settled by experiments, though it will take a long time assuming the world financial structure does not suddenly collapse soon and the few survivors will be an a post-apocalyptic ruin - Hobbes's "state of nature" nasty and brutish.
      3 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti It is above the comprehension of most humans.
      3 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti Look at the figures in
      3 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Laurel Oplatka a) so, dark matter which in your opinion is 100% virtual - at the present time this is neither provable nor disprovable, but hopefully in time experimentation will show that your theories are correct, hope I have this right. b) well, I do remember some of Hobbes, as I was a Philosophy Major - unfortunately not a physics/mathematics major. c) above comprehension of most humans - yes, I comprehend that statement and which some super-conscious intelligence in one form or another would visit my mind and shed some more light. d) thank you very much for the above link !
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka If 'intelligence' is transcendent to 'matter', what the heck is it, really?
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka oh boy
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Wrong Laura. You are not understanding me. My idea is completely testable and is continually being tested by several groups. Simply Google "dark matter detectors" - so far all the data is on my side - they are not finding anything! If they do, then my idea will be falsified. Google "Karl Popper falsification". Similarly Michelson and Morley did not find the motion of the Earth through the mechanical aether leading to the invariance of the vacuum speed of light for all non-accelerating detectors independent of their relative motion - basis for Einstein's two theories of relativity.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Laurel you are being mystical muddying clear waters. Mind is Bohm's quantum information field. Matter is the not-so "hidden variable" - this is discussed in my Journal of Cosmology paper 2011 - see Wikipedia page on me.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"Intelligence" is purposeful adaptation to the environment. It need not be conscious. We are making rapid progress in AI. Simply Google "Artificial Intelligence" and read Roger Penrose's books on the subject. No need for primitive mystical New Age fuzzy thinking anymore.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka OK, I thought you said in an above post that all of this will be settled by experiments which take a long time. But it IS testable, all right, but the mainstream will fight your knowledge because it is a threat to them, well fight in the form of falsification...... I will google dark matter detectors and Karl Popper, for clarification, thank you. Re: Bohm's 1st book I became confused with the mathematical formulas but somehow have always been deeply fascinated by the idea of an implicate/explicate order. Yes, I must be muddying the waters because the symptom of that is my own confusion. I will read the Wiki page on you, as I need to understand your concept of matter.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Bohm's implicate order is the information processing on both our past and future 2D cosmological horizons that are hologram screens computing us as 3D hologram images at the intersection of past and future in the sense of Yakir Aharonov's "weak measurements". The horizons need to be fractal self-similar from the tiny Planck scale 10^-33 cm to the large dark energy future horizon scale 10^28 cm.
      2 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti The 2D hologram horizon computations are the implicate orders. The 3D hologram image projections from them both past and future are the explicate orders of our conscious perceptions.
      2 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti Closely examine Fig 3 in The vertical axis is observed magnitude of the Type 1a supernovae. The horizontal axis is the cosmological redshift z a measure of how far away the source of light is from our telescope photon detector's past light cone. Google any jargon you don't understand. Draw a horizontal line - constant observed magnitude and see that the redshift z is smaller if the universe is accelerating than if it's not. Likewise, draw a vertical line at constant redshift z and see that the observed magnitude is larger for the accelerating universe than for the one that does not accelerate. That is compare the lowest solid red line with the highest solid blue line when horizontal and vertical lines intersect them.
      about an hour ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Now if you can't understand the above exercise after trying hard then you cannot really understand what I am talking about. So test yourself.
      about an hour ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti If you can't get it, ask any smart kid over the age of maybe 12 to explain it to you.
      about an hour ago · · 2 people
    • Jack Sarfatti Actually genius kids younger than 12 interested in science can explain it to you if you can find them.
      about an hour ago · · 1 person
    • Laurel Oplatka OK, I will do this exercise, might take me awhile and I have to change browsers in order to download and print the pdf article. Yes I will definitely have to engage in some major googling with all of this. Thank you for providing this information. Reading what you've just posted now I believe I do understand a bit more about the implicate/explicate notions. Well, I my nephew in law is pretty young and very astute about some of these matters, I could ask him, am not sure though, as he has a form of autism. May sound cliche', but if I meditate (quiet the gabbing of my mind) I hope to expand my awareness to a degree wherein some of this may become more comprehendable. Can become vicious circle, i.e., my anxiety about NOT understanding alot of then clouds my mind, making it even more difficult to grasp the meanings !
      about an hour ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Also study carefully Fig 4 Note that a negative z (cosmological blue shift) would be seen if there were retro-causal real advanced Wheeler-Feynman photons back from a future source along our future light cone. "Figure 4. The history of cosmic expansion, as measured by the high-redshift supernovae (the black data points), assuming flat cosmic geometry. The scale factor R of the universe is taken to be 1 at present, so it equals 1/(1 + z). The curves in the blue shaded region represent cosmological models in which the accelerating effect of vacuum energy eventually overcomes
      the decelerating effect of the mass density. These curves assume vacuum energy densities ranging from 0.95 rhoc (top curve) down to 0.4 rhoc. In the yellow shaded region, the curves represent models in which the cosmic expansion is always decelerating due to high mass density. They assume
      mass densities ranging (left to right) from 0.8 rhoc up to 1.4 rhoc. In fact, for the last two curves, the expansion eventually halts and reverses into a cosmic collapse."
      about an hour ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti again click on
      about an hour ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti Very important - the greater the observed magnitude the less bright or dimmer is the source of light!
      57 minutes ago · · 1 person
    • Laurel Oplatka All right, thank you, yes I must read and study this article. Permutter material crucial I see. Retro-causal photons....this has to do with the nature of space/time warps ? OK, yes I must read this material.
      56 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"The faintness—or distance—of the high-redshift supernovae
      in figure 3 was a dramatic surprise. In the simplest cosmological models, the expansion history of the cosmos
      is determined entirely by its mass density. The greater the
      density, the more the expansion is slowed by gravity. Thus,
      in the past, a high-mass-density universe would have been
      expanding much faster than it does today. So one shouldn’t
      have to look far back in time to especially distant (faint)
      supernovae to find a given integrated expansion (redshift)."
      54 minutes ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka Notion of greater observed mag, yet less bright - of course at this stage I find this very puzzling....this is going to be a big project.
      54 minutes ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka Yes, I did understand about the greater the density, the more expansion slowed by gravity. Integrated expansion is the definition of redshift ? You see, I have to get all of this terminology. So the relationship of the mass density to length of expansion is key here?
      48 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"If these data are correct, the obvious implication is
      that the simplest cosmological model must be too simple.
      The next simplest model might be one that Einstein entertained for a time. Believing the universe to be static, he
      tentatively introduced into the equations of general relativity
      an expansionary term he called the “cosmological
      constant” (/ Greek Lambda) that would compete against gravitational collapse. After Hubble’s discovery of the cosmic expansion, Einstein famously rejected / as his “greatest blunder.” In later years, L came to be identified with the zero-point vacuum energy of all quantum fields.
      It turns out that invoking a cosmological constant allows
      us to fit the supernova data quite well. (Perhaps there
      was more insight in Einstein’s blunder than in the best efforts
      of ordinary mortals.)" More precisely / is only from virtual bosons - virtual light inside the quantum vacuum dominant term. The problem here is that naive quantum field theory without gravity gives the wrong prediction hc/Lp^4 when the observed value is in fact hc/Lp^2A. Here h is Planck's quantum of action, c is the vacuum speed of light. Lp^2 is the Planck area pixel qubit on our past and future cosmic horizon computers, A is the asymptotic area of our future cosmic horizon not our past particle horizon as explained in Tamara Davis's Ph.D. dissertation that is online - just Google. Also Google MIT Seth LLoyd's papers on black holes as computers, e.g. article in Scientific American.
      39 minutes ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka All right, I will do the googling re: Davis and Lloyd and alot of this terminology. boson-higgs experiment - I need to understand that, do I ? The relationship of virtual particles and 'time' ---- past/present/future.....
      32 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti virtual particles can move any direction in time even faster than light outside the light cone.
      26 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti A real particle of real rest mass with negative energy moving back from the future along inside the past light cone of the source away from the source is the same as a real anti-particle with opposite charges (if any) moving to the source with positive energy inside the past light cone of the source.
      22 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti That's Feynman's "theorem".
      22 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"The best fit to the 1998 supernova data (see figures 3
      and 4) implies that, in the present epoch, the vacuum energy
      density rho/ is larger than the energy density attributable
      to mass (rhomc2). Therefore, the cosmic expansion is now
      accelerating. If the universe has no large-scale curvature, as the recent measurements of the cosmic microwave background
      strongly indicate, we can say quantitatively that about 70% of the total energy density is vacuum energy and 30% is mass. In units of the critical density rhoc, one usually writes this result as
      Omega/ = rho//rhoc ~ 0.7 and Omegamc^2 = rhomc^2/rhoc ~ 0.3 " However, I say that the 0.7 is mostly virtual light. In contrast ~ 0.25 of the 0.3 is mostly from virtual lepton-antilepton and virtual quark-antiquark "plasma" inside the quantum vacuum. Only about .05 is from real leptons, real quarks etc and their compounds excited out of the quantum vacuum as ordinary gravitating matter in the usual classical sense.
      13 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"The story might stop right here with a happy ending—a complete physics model of the cosmic expansion—were it
      not for a chorus of complaints from the particle theorists.
      The standard model of particle physics has no natural
      place for a vacuum energy density of the modest magnitude
      required by the astrophysical data. The simplest estimates
      would predict a vacuum energy 10^120 times greater.
      (In supersymmetric models, it’s “only” 10^55 times greater.)
      So enormous a / would have engendered an acceleration
      so rapid that stars and galaxies could never have formed.
      Therefore it has long been assumed that there must be
      some underlying symmetry that precisely cancels the vacuum
      energy. Now, however, the supernova data appear to
      require that such a cancellation would have to leave a remainder of about one part in 10^120. That degree of fine tuning is most unappealing. The cosmological constant model requires yet another fine tuning. In the cosmic expansion, mass density becomes ever more dilute. Since the end of inflation, it has fallen by very many orders of magnitude. But the vacuum energy density rho/ a property of empty space itself, stays constant. It seems a remarkable and implausible coincidence that the mass density, just in the present epoch, is
      within a factor of 2 of the vacuum energy density."
      9 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"The dark energy evinced by the accelerating cosmic expansion
      grants us almost no clues to its identity. Its tiny
      density and its feeble interactions presumably preclude
      identification in the laboratory. By construction, of course,
      it does affect the expansion rate of the universe, and different
      dark-energy models imply different expansion rates
      in different epochs. So we must hunt for the fingerprints
      of dark energy in the fine details of the history of cosmic
      The wide-ranging theories of dark energy are often
      characterized by their equation-of-state parameter
      w = p/rho, the ratio of the dark energy’s pressure to its
      energy density. The deceleration (or acceleration) of an
      expanding universe, given by the general relativistic
      d^2Rdt^2/R = –4/3pGrho(1 + 3w),
      depends on this ratio. Here R, the linear scale factor of the
      expanding universe, can be thought of as the mean distance
      between galaxy clusters not bound to each other.
      Thus the expansion accelerates whenever w is more negative
      than –1/3, after one includes all matter, radiation,
      and dark-energy components of the cosmic energy budget.
      Each of the components has its own w: negligible for
      nonrelativistic matter, +1/3 for radiation and relativistic
      matter, and –1 for /. That is, L exerts a peculiar negative
      pressure! General relativity also tells us that each component’s
      energy density falls like R^–3(1 + w) as the cosmos expands.
      Therefore, radiation’s contribution falls away first,
      so that nonrelativistic matter and dark energy now predominate.
      Given that the dark-energy density is now about
      twice the mass density, the only constraint on dark-energy
      models is that w must, at present, be more negative than
      –1/2 to make the cosmic expansion accelerate. However,
      most dark-energy alternatives to a cosmological constant
      have a w that changes over time. If we can learn more
      about the history of cosmic expansion, we can hope to discriminate among theories of dark energy by better determining w and its time dependence."
      5 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti In my theory, both dark energy and dark matter have w = -1. However, dark energy virtual bosons have / > 0. In contrast, dark matter has / < 0 from virtual fermion-antifermion plasma. The latter clump from its self-gravity just like w = 0 Cold Dark Matter real particles would do! That's what the pundits are missing. There is a scale dependence to /. It is positive on largest scale and negative on smaller scales as in our Galactic Halo.
      2 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"We live in an unusual time, perhaps the first golden
      age of empirical cosmology. With advancing technology, we
      have begun to make philosophically significant measurements.
      These measurements have already brought surprises.
      Not only is the universe accelerating, but it apparently
      consists primarily of mysterious substances. We’ve
      already had to revise our simplest cosmological models.
      Dark energy has now been added to the already perplexing
      question of dark matter. One is tempted to speculate
      that these ingredients are add-ons, like the Ptolemaic
      epicycles, to preserve an incomplete theory,. With the next
      decade’s new experiments, exploiting not only distant supernovae, but also the cosmic microwave background,
      gravitational lensing of galaxies, and other cosmological
      observations, we have the prospect of taking the next step
      toward that “Aha!” moment when a new theory makes
      sense of the current puzzles."