3 ms·
>like you said you have to explain a massive (orders of magnitude!) discrepancy. Yes, I admitted that earlier. This is the tricky part, not that dark energy ex
by wyager 10y ago
>like you said you have to explain a massive (orders of magnitude!) discrepancy.
Yes, I admitted that earlier. This is the tricky part, not that dark energy exists. There are a number of plausible theories as to why the magnitude of dark energy is much lower than expected, but nothing hard and fast yet.
- johncolanduoni 10y agoNo, the tricky part is where you conclusively link the cosmological constant to vacuum energy with no evidence for and a lot against. There are equally plausible theories that connect dark energy to completely different things like the Higgs field, or just leave them unrelated, so appealing to demonstrations of vacuum fluctuations as evidence of dark energy being "experimentally verified" makes about as much sense as calling string theory "experimentally verified" because it agrees with the QFT/GR in the proper domains. What verified, novel predictions do any of the plausible theories make that makes them the defacto solution? I'd be really curious to know because it doesn't appear that many physicists are aware of this defacto solution.