Share This Article:

Do We Need Dark Energy to Explain the Cosmological Acceleration?

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:121KB) PP. 1185-1189
DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2012.329153    4,418 Downloads   6,743 Views   Citations
Author(s)    Leave a comment

ABSTRACT

The phenomenon of the cosmological acceleration discovered in 1998 is usually explained as a manifestation of a hypothetical field called dark energy which is believed to contain more than 70% of the energy of the Universe. This explanation is based on the assumption that empty space-time background should be flat and hence a nonzero curvature of the background is a manifestation of a hidden matter. We argue that quantum theory should proceed not from space-time background but from a symmetry algebra. Then the cosmological acceleration can be easily and naturally explained from first principles of quantum theory without involving empty space-time background, dark energy and other artificial notions. We do not assume that the reader is an expert in the given field and the content of the paper can be understood by a wide audience of physicists.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Lev, F. (2012) Do We Need Dark Energy to Explain the Cosmological Acceleration?. Journal of Modern Physics, 3, 1185-1189. doi: 10.4236/jmp.2012.329153.

References

[1] S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, et al., “Measurement of Omega and Lambda from H42 High-Redshift Supernovae,” Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 517, No 2, 1999, pp. 565-586. doi:10.1086/307221
[2] A. Melchiorri, P. A. R. Ade, P. de Bernardis, et al., “A Measurement of Omega from the North American Rest Flight of Boomerang,” Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 536, No. 2, 2000, pp. L63-L66. doi:10.1086/312744
[3] D. N. Spergel, R. Bean, O. Dore, et al., “Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology,” Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 170, No. 2, 2007, pp. 377-408. doi:10.1086/513700
[4] K. Nakamura and Particle Data Group, “Review of Particle Physics,” Journal of Physics, Vol. G37, No. 7A, 2010, Article ID: 075021.
[5] E. Bianchi and C. Rovelli, “Why All These Prejudices against a Constant?” 2010. arXiv:1002.3966v3
[6] T. D. Newton and E. P. Wigner, “Localized States for Elementary Systems,” Review of Modern Physics, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1949, pp. 400-405. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.21.400
[7] F. Lev, “Positive Cosmological Constant and Quantum Theory,” Symmetry, Special Issue: Quantum Symmetry, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2010, pp. 1945-1980.
[8] F. Lev, “de Sitter Symmetry and Quantum Theory,” Physical Review, Vol. D85, No. 3, 2012, Article ID: 065003.
[9] F. Lev, “Finiteness of Physics and Its Possible Consequences,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, Vol. 34, No. 2, 1993, pp. 490-527. doi:10.1063/1.530257
[10] F. Lev, “The Problem of Interactions in de Sitter Invariant Theories,” Journal of Physics, Vol. A32, No. 7, 1999, pp. 1225-1240.
[11] F. Lev, “Could Only Fermions Be Elementary?” Journal of Physics, Vol. A37, No. 9, 2004, pp. 3287-3304.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.