Why is the universe expanding faster when it should be slowing down?

Because we can't fully explain it?

>spontaneous emission

>the Casimir effect

>the Lamb shift

Google is your friend.

>not understanding something
>a flaw in science

user, that's why we have science: because we don't understand things.

Us not knowing something doesn't indicate a flaw.

If we knew everything, then we wouldn't be doing science.

if the universe is infinite then how can it be expanding?

A finite region of space can expand indefinitely within an infinite space.

That's actually the answer, but I don't think that will help you.

How much physics do you know?

>I'm asking so I can recommend reading material

just classical physics, last course i took was physics 3, vibrations and waves, sprung and coupled systems etc

>Recommending anything less than the most rigorous GR and celestial mechanics textbooks you can think of.

Don't be a pussy.

First of all, who told you the Universe was infinite? We don't know that at all.

Second, consider the infinite sequence {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}.

Now replace every number X with X.0 through X.9.

>{0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, ...}

It's still just as infinite, but every sub-sequence has been expanded into a sequence ten times longer.

I tell you what, I'm going to try and explain this to you off the top of my head.

So, based on the inflationary model, the creation of our universe is equivalent to a phase transition resulting from energy density fluctuations.

For example, water situated in an environment with a temperature below 0 is said to be in a meta-stable state and upon experiencing an energy density fluctuation will phase transition to ice.

For the creation of our universe, a quantum energy density fluctuation would have led to energy being trapped in a region of infinite inflationary space, which is a situation we refer to as a quantum vacuum and is similar to the meta-stable state described above.

Then upon experiencing another quantum energy density fluctuation, this region would have phase transitioned in the form of a hot Big Bang from inflationary to non-inflationary, with its spatial geometry and physical laws being defined by the nature of the quantum fluctuation.

This region of non-inflationary four dimensional space is expanding due to the nature of its spatial geometry and physical laws; as it is flat, it will continue expanding indefinitely, slowing down but never quite stopping, so that at infinity velocity = 0.

This leaves us with a non-inflationary region of infinite dimensional space with three spatial dimensions and one time, expanding to infinity, however being finite within any given frame of reference.

That's how a finite space can expand within an infinite one.

I recommend ur mum lad m8.

Nice analogy.

The purpose of a model is to explain. Standard cosmology is incomplete because it can't fully explain dark matter/energy. That's not to say the whole model is bunk, just imperfect.

Dark matter/energy is the luminiferous aether of our time.

That's tantamount to saying science is imperfect, because we don't know everything.

Which makes you a faggot.

this is literally how every physics equation is put together.

physics ain't mathematics, motherfucker. physicists use math to describe the world and then experiment to verify. if the description doesn't hold up in the experiment, they deform the description until it does. you can call that circular reasoning or just accept the fact that it works, and it works simply by using mathematics like the little slutty whore that she is without giving a shit about her "feelings".

>too stupid to do math in 7th grade
>comes to Veeky Forums to talk math
ayyyy
in and out I am

Saying a particular scientific model is imperfect because it doesn't account for some something is not the same as saying science is imperfect, you fucking retard. You could believe all of our models are imperfect but at the same time believe that science can eventually come up wit models that account for all observable data.

Sigh...

It's the observable universe that's expanding, not the actual universe.

The observable universe is expanding because there exists at every point an equal amount of "unobserved" universe pulling on it, from all sides.

The actual universe IS slowing down, but its infinite, so we can't observe this.

All we can observe is our observable universe (a cylinder) expanding at a faster and faster rate, but all this means is that the actual universe's expansion is slowing down, and our observable one is catching up to the true size of the universe.

It's really quite simple tbqh.

Its amazing how a person so be so wrong on so many levels

No you said that science was a poo.

I heard you.

b8

>physics ain't mathematics
kek

>Universe should do what I want or expect
/thread

>and it works simply by using mathematics like the little slutty whore that she is without giving a shit about her "feelings".

Lost. Why did this make me laugh so much?

Maybe it has something to do with the nature of time and the effects gravity has upon it.

Negative energy density of otherwise empty space, likely provided by a set of scalar fields.

Why does nobody dismiss dark energy as an observational anomaly? For example, it takes a lot less assuming to say the rate of the passage of time is non-linear by a very small margin. This coupled with the vast distances between galaxies causes them to seem to be redshifting more and more over time and accelerating. When in reality they are expanding away from eachother at a constant rate. Occams Razor says to pick the explanation with the least assumptions and is rarely if ever wrong. Im putting my money on non-linear time over some invisible, undetectable, and unexplainable negative energy that seems to permeate the universe.

>Occams Razor

Get out.

Whats wrong with resorting to the theory that makes the least assumptions?

>For example, it takes a lot less assuming to say the rate of the passage of time is non-linear by a very small margin.
Does it? It's very easy to claim that but you have put zero effort into showing it's consistent with the data. You've also handwaved away the fact the "rate of time" is varying, how and why? A cosmological constant is the simplest model, until you try to explain it. Have you explained this variation? No.

And unexplained is not explainable.

>Occams Razor says to pick the explanation with the least assumptions and is rarely if ever wrong.
That however isn't quantified, what is an assumption? The modern interpretation of Occam's Razor is Baysian hypothesis testing. That weighs the explanatory power of your model against the number of free parameters. So how many free parameters does you model have? Is it even consistent with the CMB, BAO and CFHTLens data simultaneously? You don't know because it's not comparable to real cosmologies.

Please don't assert X hypothesis is superior before you've even tested it.

>doesn't know what occam's razor is
All things being equal, the simpler explanation tends to be the better one

How are 'all things equal' here? Dark energy fits with a crapload of experimental phenomena only requires a little tweaking of the currently well-established laws of general relativity and the like. Please explain how 'nonlinear time' explains these anomalies better than dark energy does. I'm all ears.

Its consistent with the data because if time was say slowing down, when the light was emitted it would have been bluer than when we observe it because we are observing the waves at a slower rate, hence increasing redshift. As for how and why im not claiming to know that. How and why does dark energy work? Im just saying its much less complicated in my eyes to say time could pass at a different rate than saying theres negative energy everywhere in the universe but we have no known way to observe it.

>Is it even consistent with the CMB, BAO and CFHTLens data simultaneously? You dont know because its not comparable to real cosmologies.

Studying spacetime and how it may be different from what we know isnt real science guys. Dark matter exists and that is final. We know everything. Dont even question the mighty, invisible, ever permeating negative energy force that we cant detect. Its there.

Jesus christ you sound like a religious nut.

It's not a scientific principle.

It's not scientific at all.

There's no reason to adhere to it, nor any informally logical reason to accept it.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Yeah I actually used occams razor exactly how i should have. So now your credibility is in question for not knowing what occams razor is yet spouting insults like you did know. Care to present some of this experimental data that is consistent with dark energy? Increasing universal expansion rate doesnt count because the slowing time theory has that covered.

"In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic technique (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models, rather than as an arbiter between published models.[1][2] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[3][4][5]"

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

>not scientific at all

And thats when i realized you were retarded. It may not be scientific fact, but general scientific practice is to go with the theory that requires the least assumptions until math or experiments prove otherwise.

>competing hypothesis
do you know what a hypothesis is
do you know what competing is

I think you should reassess your position carefully.

How does your 'nonlinear time' explain the observational data?

cfhtlens.org/public/what-dark-energy

Have a read :) especially the 'useful links'

And then commit suicide. (this is Veeky Forums after all) ;)

>Its consistent with the data because...
Restating your hypothesis is not showing it is consistent with the data. You can only do that with actual fucking numbers.

>How and why does dark energy work?
Which model? The cosmological constant is well explained in GR, it's not understood how it comes about from particle physics but if there is no cosmological constant then that isn't understood in particle physics either.

> Im just saying its much less complicated in my eyes
But you haven't show that and that's the problem. Saying your model is simpler is easy, showing it is is hard.

>Studying spacetime and how it may be different from what we know isnt real science guys.

>Ignore what was said.
>Insert stawman argument.

It isn't real science because you haven't made a real model. It isn't comparable to real cosmologies because you don't have a model which describes the observables. But apparently pointing out you haven't shown a single hard truth makes me religious. Real science is objective, it is quantitative.

Fuck off.

m.phys.org/news/2014-12-alternative-explanation-dark-energy.html

Yeah. Pretty sure dark energy violates GR.

I'm about to go to sleep, will have a proper read in the morning but
>References hollywood in the 2nd paragraph
>"A molecular geneticist whose lab works on cell cycle regulation, Kipreos became interested in cosmology and the theory of special relativity several years ago."
>Kipreos said. "If you look at the GPS satellites, the satellite time is slowing down, but according to the GPS satellites, our time is not slowing down—which would occur if it were reciprocal. Instead, our time is going faster relative to the satellites, and we know that because of constant communication with the satellites."
fucking lol

Heat death assumes a lot as well.

Finite energy in an infinitely expanding universe... seems like a very lopsided equation.

If entropy is the end product of the big bang then how come self-arranging shit like crystals and cellular life, and artificial intelligence exist?

Is extropy a thing?

Then you don't know anything about GR or dark energy. The cosmological constant was part of GR from the very beginning. It is a single parameter. It is consistent with all the data on dark energy to date.

>phys.org/news/2014-12-alternative-explanation-dark-energy.html

>An alternate Lorentz transformation, Absolute Lorentz Transformation (ALT), has similar kinematics to special relativity yet maintains absolute simultaneity in the context of a preferred reference frame. In this study, it is shown that ALT is compatible with current experiments to test Lorentz invariance only if the proposed preferred reference frame is locally equivalent to the Earth-centere non-rotating
inertial reference frame

Advocating geocentrism in 2016 is quite a stretch. But also note he's fitting a single observational test. He ignores BAO, flatness, the ISW effect... This is not a model of equal explanatory power, it hasn't even been tested against most of the probes of dark energy.

Might this be true?

Anything could be true. It's useless if you have no hypothetical cause of this effect.

>wondering why grant-chaser logic is wrong

>Cosmological constant is the energy density of the vaccum of space
>dark energy claims space is expanding at an increasing rate but the energy density remains the same

>this means energy is coming from nowhere

How stupid are you?

Ad hom.

>Cosmological constant is the energy density of the vaccum of space
No, that's what particle physics attempts to explain it as. The cosmological constant is the constant of integration in the field equation. GR does not describe the physical nature of the constant.

>dark energy claims space is expanding at an increasing rate but the energy density remains the same
As is true of a cosmological CONSTANT.

>this means energy is coming from nowhere
I don't think you understand the concept of zero point energy.

You know literally nothing about the subject and yet you call people stupid. Instead of trying to defend any of your claims you just shift to new ones and ignorantly insult people.

>density remains the same
>volume expands at an increasing rate

Tell me how this isnt making something out of nothing and i will leave Veeky Forums forever. Go ahead, i will wait.

>Tell me how this isnt making something out of nothing and i will leave Veeky Forums forever.
It's zero point energy. It's as close to nothing as you can possibly get.

>to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models, rather than as an arbiter between published models.

>Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result

You just contradicted yourself faggot.

Dark energy model is a published model.

The zero energy universe model is a published model.

Therefore, there is no basis for appealing to Occam and his blunt as fuck razor, you pleb cunt.

It is tantamount to something out of nothing.

That's why it's so hilarious.

>'How can something come from nothing?' say the theologians and philosophers.

>you pleb cunt
Not him but, all this knowledge and you can't bring insults to the next level?

I was expecting this and it is warranted.

I just woke up; I apologise.

user, if I wanted to kill myself, I would climb the unimaginably high wall of your delusion, throw myself off and proceed to plumet to the level of your IQ.

P.S. You're a wank puffin.

Self-arranging crystals and life and stuff are actually entropically favourable because they disperse heat more effectively than uniform systems.

quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

or if you know thermodynamics
englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf

I accept this theory with no prior knowledge of it, based solely on the fact that it looks like a sine function.

>proceed to plumet to the level of your IQ
Have fun falling for an eternity. Make sure to bring some books with ya.

>P.S. You're a wank puffin.
>wank puffing
I could swear this is such a typical British insult. I'm gonna miss you guys.

Veeky Forums is hilarious

Books are a social construct.