Necessity of Dark Energy Questioned

ttnuagmada points us to an article about scientist David Wiltshire's suggestion that theorized dark energy is not needed to describe the expansion of the universe. His work challenges assumptions made about the distribution of matter in the universe. Early solutions to general relativity were based on a "smooth distribution" of matter. Wiltshire's approach focuses on a "lumpy" dispersal, which more accurately fits data from modern studies. We have discussed other theories about dark energy in the past. Quoting: "Through observational projects like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2 Degree Field survey, we now have a much better picture of the large-scale structure of the universe and we know that galaxies are not uniformly distributed. 'Rather, they are in clusters sprinkled thinly in filaments and "bubble walls" surrounding huge voids hundreds of millions of light-years across,' Wiltshire says.

Comments

Meanwhile, on the Neutral Planet

[davidwr]

As Zapp Brannigan is in lukewarm discussions with the Neutral Planet president, the planet's scientists are holding a lukewarm debate over the possible existence of Grey Matter.

I need my dark energy

[russlar]

'Dark energy', which researchers have spent years trying to fathom, isn't necessary to explain our universe after all I don't know about those guys, but I usually do my best work after a cup of dark energy.