Earlier this year, Carver Mead of CalTech published a paper which seems to be garnering a lot of attention:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.04866
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw180.html
I also watched the video of his talk at CalTech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdiG6ZPib3c
The Q&A at the end of this talk seemed to indicate that he may be misapplying GR equations for tasks for which they may not have been designed or for which they need proper manipulation.
The G4v theory claims, among other things, that it does away with the need for a Cosmological constant (which, based on the gravitational wave uses, I can understand) and also DOES AWAY with Dark Energy. It seems future LIGO experiments could provide supporting or refuting evidence for G4v.
My Question: How/why does this theory do away with the need for Dark Energy?
Does it invalidate prior calculations that the univerise is expanding at an accelerating rate? Or does it just describe the accelerating expansion without the need for the cosmological constant? If the latter, that still requires something accelerating the expansion, so I'm confused.
Answer
John G. Cramer discussed G4V in a recent Analog Alternate View Column (Mar. 2016), and how Advanced LIGO data could possibly falsify G4V, General Relativity or even both of them (Their predicted gravity wave signatures signatures differ.)
Cramer also stated that there would be no dark energy since G4v explains distant receding Type IIa supernova dimming as partially due to relativistic beaming leaving no need for a cosmological constant.
In other words, the accelerated expansion is an illusion because more distant Type IIa supernovas appear dimmer than previously predicted if G4V is correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment