This strikes me as rather ridiculous! There is a much simpler explanation - but one that will definitely upset physicist of all persuasions: the universal constants such as the speed of light and the gravitational constant are not constant, that is they vary over time (and perhaps place) in the universe. This is a very disquieting suggestion - because it make it really, really difficult to the math (unless of course you know the rate of change of the inconstant constants). But certainly postulating that the constants are not really forever and everywhere constant is a much simpler thing than postulating the existence of some exotic energy that can't be detected but that makes up most of the universe.
After all, what else in the universe is really constant - besides these assumed constants. Well, not really anything. Change seems to rule everywhere and for all time. So why should anything actually turn out to be constant. It's true that the universe is not a simple place - but it really doesn't seem to be made up of imaginary forces - just a huge amount of inconstant processes.
I know Occam's Razor is no proof, but it certainly give a good hint of the direction in which an explanation most likely lies - and it's certainly less complex to conjecture that nothing in the universe is constant than to conjecture some weakly interacting force that nonetheless is tugging harder at galaxies than gravity can.
I got first dibs on the Noble Prize in Physics for this!
Oops, somebody seems to have another very plausible idea:
Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy
Sounds good to me!
The fine-structure constant and the nature of the universe
Back to Essays
| Back to Leigh's Home Page | Site Map | Site Search |
/ Revised 16 July 12