Seeing the darkness: The UH team compared directions in the sky where they found superclusters (red circles) and supervoids (blue circles) with the strength of the Cosmic Microwave Background.
Credit: iStockphoto
SYDNEY: Astronomers say they have detected the clearest evidence yet for the mysterious dark energy that stretches and flattens out the universe.
The research, led by astrophysicist Dr István Szapudi of the Institute for Astronomy at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, is published online on the arXiv.org physics website ahead of publication in Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Little known but pervasive
Dark energy is a little understood type of energy that pervades space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.
The researchers looked for signs of it in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) as mapped by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), which aims to map one-quarter of the universe. The CMB is made up of the relict microwaves left over when photons interacted with newly recombined atoms soon following the Big Bang.
While the CMB has remained relatively unchanged since the beginning of the universe, subtle variations can illuminate how radiation travels through regions of space.
Like a watery pudding, the universe is split on a massive scale into dense and less dense areas. Dense regions where galaxies cluster are called superclusters and relatively empty areas of space are called supervoids.
The researchers looked at 50 of the largest superclusters and 50 of the largest voids and measured the strength of the microwave radiation travelling through these regions.
Dark energy in action
As expected, the survey showed that microwaves were stronger if they passed through a supercluster and weaker if they passed through a supervoid.
"We were able to image dark energy in action, as it stretches huge supervoids and superclusters of galaxies," Szapudi said.
"When a microwave enters a supercluster, it gains some gravitational energy, and therefore vibrates slightly faster. Later, as it leaves the supercluster, it should lose exactly the same amount of energy," he said. "But if dark energy causes the universe to stretch out at a faster rate, the supercluster flattens out in the half-billion years it takes the microwave to cross it. Thus, the wave gets to keep some of the energy it gained as it entered the supercluster."
The same old nonsense
The whole dark matter concept is a patch up band-aid to save big bang from the dustbin of scientific history. It is futile. Einstein’s field equations for the static vacuum gravitational field, i.e. Ric = 0,violates his ‘Principle of Equivalence’ – the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and the laws of Special Relativity, cannot manifest in a spacetime which is by definition empty, that contains no matter. QED. Consequently, if his energy-momentum tensor is zero there is no Einstein gravitational field. Hence his field equations take the following form:
Gij/k + Tij = 0, (subscripts)i,j = 0,1,2,3, k = constant,
wherein the Gij/k are the components of a gravitational energy tensor. Thus the total energy of the gravitational field is always zero; the Gij/k and Tij must vanish identically; there is no possibility for the localisation of gravitational energy (i.e. there is no possibility for Einstein’s gravitational waves). Moreover, this means that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity violates the experimentally well established conservation of energy and momentum, so if the usual conservation of energy and momentum is valid (bearing in mind that there is no experimental evidence to refute it) then Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is invalid. Also, Einstein invented his pseudo-tensor by which he and subsequent big bangers and LIGOers claim that his gravitational energy can be localized. However, Einstein’s pseudo-tensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols for the following reason – it implies the existence of a 1st-order intrinsic differential invariant which depends only upon the components of the metric tensor and their 1st-derivatives (to see this just contract his pseudo-tensor and apply Euler’s theorem). But the pure mathematicians G. Ricci-Curbastro and T. Levi-Civita proved in 1900 that such invariants do not exist! In addition, Einstein and the subsequent big bangers and LIGOers resort to linearisation of Einstein’s field equations to localize his gravitational energy. This too is nonsense, because linearisation implies the existence of a tensor which, except for the particular case of being precisely zero, does not otherwise exist, as proven by H. Weyl in 1944. So the big bangers and the LIGOers and their international counterparts such as the AIGO in Australia and VIRGO in Europe, are all destined to detect nothing.
As for black hole collisions, mergers and binaries producing gravitational waves, that too is nonsense by the foregoing. To amplify, let’s assume for the sake of argument that black holes are predicted by General Relativity. The simplest black hole is the so-called “Schwarzschild black hole”, obtained from Ric = 0, which is a statement that there is no matter in the Universe. Since the ‘Principle of Superposition’ does not apply in Einstein’s theory, owing to it being non-linear, one cannot, by an analogy with Newton’s theory (where the Principle of Superposition holds), just arbitrarily insert lumps of matter into any given spacetime for his gravitational field. Now according to the black holers and gravitational wavers , two “Schwarzschild” black holes (concocted by stupidly applying the ‘Principle of Superposition’ of Newton’s theory), each obtained separately from Ric = 0 (an empty spacetime), can mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by definition contains no matter! That is nonsense, but the simplicity of it escapes their poor brains. However the issue is moot, since black holes are in fact forbidden by the Theory of Relativity (it forbids infinite densities), and owing to the violation of the usual conservation of energy and momentum, General Relativity is invalid.
For those who want the mathematical proofs, go here:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-12-11.PDF
And here: http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-09-14.PDF