3 ms·
I'm a little confused. If I understood the article correctly the argument is that the rate of expansion isn't increasing but staying constant while the rate ti
by iaw 12y ago
I'm a little confused. If I understood the article correctly the argument is that the rate of expansion isn't increasing but staying constant while the rate time passes is slowing.
Given that the rate of expansion is a measure of distance over time wouldn't the net effect be identical?
I guess the argument is that dark energy is in fact a manifestation of the physical rules of our universe, but in the end doesn't that violate the laws of energy conservation? Effectively if we observe acceleration of distant parts of the galaxy due to present time traveling slower relative to historic, where does the energy that causes the acceleration come from?
This is reminiscent of Feynman's explanation about magnetism [1] in that it leads back to the original question.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8
- gliese1337 12y agoI guess the argument is that dark energy is in fact a manifestation of the physical rules of our universe, but in the end doesn't that violate the laws of energy conservation? Yes, but that's OK because energy is only conserved to the extent that the laws of physics are time-translation invariant. Effectively if we observe acceleration of distant parts of the galaxy due to present time traveling slower relative to historic, where does the energy that causes the acceleration come from? From the alteration of the laws of physics (in this case, the rate of time).
- rd108 12y agoI think the concept is that the apparent "acceleration" of distant galaxies is really just their time being slowed down relative to our frame of reference. I wonder if this contradicts the idea of a Big Bang too. It seems like ALT is a superset of Special Relativity while explaining some physical phenomenon more cleanly.