cosmological inconstant, supernovae 1a and decelerating expansion

8/3/2019 Cosmological Inconstant, Supernovae 1a and Decelerating Expansion

1/15

Cosmological Inconstant, Supernov 1a

and Decelerating Expansion

Russell Bagdoo

[email protected]@gmail.com

DEPOT SARTEC No 26940 18/08/2011

ABSTRACT

In 1998, two groups of astronomers set out to determine the deceleration of the universe bymeasuring the recession speeds of type la supernov (SN1a), came to an unexpectedconclusion: its expansion rate has been speeding up. To justify this acceleration, they

suggested that the universe does have a mysterious dark energy and they have proposed apositive cosmological constant consistent with the image of an inflationary universe. Toexplain the observed dimming of high-redshift SN1a they have bet on their distance revisedupwards. We consider that an accelerated expansion leads right to a dark energycatastrophe and we suppose rather that the universe knows a slowdown expansion underthe positive pressure of a dark energy, otherwise called a variable cosmological constant.The dark luminosity of the latter would be that of a tired light which has lost energy withdistance. As for the low brilliance of SN1a, it is explained by two physical processes: Thefirst relates to their intrinsic brightness supposedly do not vary over time which woulddepend on the chemical conditions which change with the temporal evolution; The secondwould concern their apparent luminosity. Besides the serious arguments already known, we

strongly propose that their luminosity continually fades by interactions with cosmic magneticfields, like the earthly PVLAS experiment which loses much more laser photons thanexpected by crossing a magnetic field. It goes in the sense of a tired light which has lostenergy with distance and, therefore, a decelerated expansion of the universe.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this paper is to propose theearthly experience Polarizzazione delVuoto con LASer (PVLAS) amalgamated

to the radiation of the SN1a, and show thatit corroborates the interpretation of thetheory of the Relation according to whichthe observation of the distant SN1a leads toa deceleration of the expansion and avariable cosmological constant.

We consider that the light of the SN1aloses its brightness through theintergalactic magnetic fields, in the sameway that the laser of the earthly PVLASexperiment loses photons by going througha magnetic field. This experiment tends to

demonstrate that the weakening of theapparent luminosity of the SN1a is due to a

physical process rather than a distance torevise upward as required by the theory ofinflation. This physical process is added to

some of the main propositions alreadyknown in opposition to the acceleration ofthe expansion. It leans toward a very lowdensity of matter and a flat universe, inaccordance with the results of the weighingof clusters of galaxies and those from thecosmic microwave background (CMB). Itimplies a deceleration of the expansion andappeals to a variable cosmologicalconstant which derives from the theory ofthe Relation of which we present some

aspects. The basic assumption of this newtheory excludes the original phase of

1
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/15

exponential growth of the cosmic inflationand uses rather a relativistic big bang [1],stemming from a previous universe, with a

primeval dark energy with a density of atleast 1060 times greater than the current

vacuum energy, whose high temperature"substance" would quickly have begun todisintegrate into ordinary matter and darkmatter, decay that would have continuedduring the history of the universe,especially with each broken symmetry,whenever the forces of interaction between

particles change their nature. The fullinitial quantum becomes the quantumvacuum of space through a variablecosmological constant, which is nothing

else than the dark energy which istransformed into common and dark matter.In this way, the dark energy catastropheis under control and a reconciliation

between particle physicists andcosmologists is effected.

INFLATIONARY SCENARIO

Before discussing the theory of inflationcurrently prevailing, let us mention that thecosmology, which exists hardly since theXXth century, grounded on the laws of

physics as we know them, and on theobservations done from the smallest to thelargest scales, has made up the standardmodel. This one is an archeology of theuniverse by the thought which goes backup to the big bang, and which appears asan apotheosis of physics. However in thelate 70, some pieces fit together very

poorly in the puzzle of the standard big bang theory. For example, observationsshow that on a large scale the matter iswidely distributed in a rather homogeneousway. How then to understand the formationof large structures (clusters of galaxies,superclusters), which show an extremeheterogeneity of the universe today? The

physical process at the origin of the smalldensity fluctuations was missing. Therewas also the riddles of a very flat universe,

broken symmetries, magnetic monopoles[2].

In 1980, a new hypothesis, issuing fromparticle theory, claimed its ability to solvethese conundrums, while preserving thesuccess of the standard theory. Theuniverse would have known very early in

the cosmic chronology a dazzling phase ofexpansion, the inflation. One can imagine,there are several tens of billions of years, auniverse whose energy was carried by afield, which was perched away from itsminimum energy state. Because of itsnegative pressure, the field drove anenormous burst of inflationary expansion.The space, driven by something akin to thecurrent dark energy, would have dilatedwith a gigantic factor, say 10100 [3]. Then,

some 10-35 sec later, as the field slid downits potential energy bowl, the burst ofexpansion drew to a close and the fieldreleased its pent-up energy to the

production of ordinary matter andradiation. For many billions of years,these familiar constituents of the universeexerted an ordinary attractive gravitational

pull that slowed the spatial expansion. Butas the universe grew and thinned out, thegravitational pull diminished. About 7

billion years ago, ordinary gravitationalattraction became weak enough for thegravitational repulsion of the universe'scosmological constant to becomedominant, and since then the rate ofspatial expansion has been continuallyincreasing [3, 4].

After twenty years of works, theinflationary universe scenario was able to

make macroscopic random fluctuations ofenergy, inevitable at the quantum scale.With this theory, the most infinitesimalinitial irregularities in the distribution ofenergy can be grown enormously andcreate future centers of condensation ofmatter. These will in turn become the seedsfrom which the matter will gradually bestructured on scales larger and larger.

Despite this sketch of cosmic evolution, at

the end of the XXth century, views oninflation had failed in forming a definitive

2


3/15

scenario. Some astrophysicists were readyto raise arms and declare false the theoryof inflation (and even the big bang). Mostof the astronomers who had measured themass of distant clusters of galaxies were

convinced that matter represented only 20-40 % of the critical density of the universe,and that the latter should be close to thecritical density that makes it flat, but couldnot find the remaining 80 to 60 % [5].

SUPERNOV

In 1998, a revolution took place in theworld of the cosmology. The astronomersof the Supernova Cosmology Project and

of the High-z Supernova Search Teamannounced that the rate of the cosmicexpansion accelerates instead of slowingdown [4]. The astronomers used old starsthermonuclear explosions SN1a tomeasure the rate of expansion of theuniverse. They expected to measure adeceleration of the expansion, slowed bythe gravitational force attraction of thematter content of the universe. They werestunned to notice that the recession ofgalaxies, instead of slowing down as theuniverse grows older, seems to accelerate.

This announcement was consistent withmeasurements from previous studies,which evaluated the density of matter at 27%, with the largest part (~22 %) comesfrom the dark matter, still unknown butwhich exerts a gravitational influence onobservable galaxies [6]. Once this valuewas determined, researchers had only totake into account the contributions of Cobesatellite and Boomerang balloon, and ofcourse the theoretical framework of the big

bangs models. Those stipulate that thesum of three cosmological parameters(matter density, denoted , density curve,denoted K and cosmological constant,denoted by ) must be equal to unity.However, the results of Boomerang havefixed the density curve. Its value is null.

The meticulous analysis of the data led theastronomers to argue so: the recessionvelocity of a supernova depends on thedifference between the gravitationalattraction of ordinary matter and the

gravitational pull of the dark energy fromthe cosmological constant; taking thedensity of matter, whether visible orinvisible, equals to about 27 % of thecritical density, they concluded that theaccelerated expansion they haddemonstrated could be explained by a pushtowards outside due to a cosmologicalconstant which dark energy contributeabout 73 % of the critical density.

These two combined values bring the totaldensity of mass/energy of the universe toexactly the 100 % value predicted by theinflationary cosmology! [7]. Measurementsof SN1a and the theory of inflation werecomplementary and confirmed themselvesmutually, independently.

THE DARK ENERGY

CATASTROPHE

However, the concordance of all theexperiments which conducts to a spacealmost flat, ever expanding, startled morethan a cosmologist. At the dawn of theXXIth century, astrophysicists discoverthat all their theories are based only onobservation of visible 5 % of the totalenergy and 95 % of the universe iscompletely foreign to them. This does not

prevent them from continuing to build their

theoretical edifice. If the experimentalindications of a non-zero value for thecosmological constant comes not onlyfrom the SN1a, but also of independentmeasures on the fluctuations of cosmic

background radiation, what is its value?

The acceleration is very slow, which tellsus that the value of the vacuum energy,though nonzero, is extremely tiny. Thetheoretical problem with the observedvacuum energy is that it is far smallerthan anyone would estimate. According

3


4/15

to particle theorists estimates, energyshould be much bigger. But if it was, itwould justly not be able to lead to thisacceleration of SN1a so difficult tomeasure. With a huge energy, the

universe would have collapsed long ago(if negative) or quickly expanded into thegreat void (if positive). That is what wecall the dark energy catastrophe.

Thus, these fascinating measures also present a significant enigma. At this isadded the challenge of revealing the natureof dark energy, characterized by thecosmological constant. The vacuum energyis precisely the favorite candidate but

effectively, if so, the quantum physicistswould prefer to see it multiplied by at least1060 so that this vision of the cosmos suitsto the standard model of the physics of

particles [8]. Several models are possible, but the predicted value in most cases is10122 times above the limits prescribed byastronomical observation. Thecosmological constant is comparable to theinverse square of a length. For the

physicists of the infinitesimal, this length isinterpreted as the distance scale at whichthe gravitational effects due to the vacuumenergy become manifest on the geometryof space-time. They consider that this scaleis the Planck length, or 10-33 cm. For theastronomers, the cosmological constant is aforce of cosmic repulsion which affects therate of expansion on the scale of the radiusof the observable universe, that is 1028 cm.The ratio of both lengths is 1061, which is

the square root of 10

122

.The vacuum of the physicists is full ofenergy. Its energy fluctuations give birth to

pairs of particles. During the history of theuniverse, whenever the interaction forces

between particles change their nature, thusin every symmetry breaking, the vacuumcashed energy. Today, the vacuum energy,which constitutes the essence of thecosmological constant, should be much

larger than the value predicted by thecosmologists.

The observed SN1a seem to say that theseremaining two thirds of the critical densityseem to exist exist in the form of amysterious dark energy and to bolsterup the inflationnaire cosmology. But their

rate of acceleration may mean that thecontribution of dark energy to the criticaldensity is about 73 %, two-thirds whichmiss so that the universe is flat, as

predicted by the inflation theory,nevertheless this last one, as well as themodel of particles or strings, have toexplain why the universe's vacuum energyis as small as we know it must be. Their

best models of unification, expected tomake correct predictions in the field of

elementary particles, lead to some absurdcosmological consequences, and they haveno answer to this problem. Thus, fortheoretical physicists, the hope ofreconciling their models and those of theircolleagues cosmologists flew away. Some

physicists believe that there is no trueexplanation.

The so-called theories of quintessencewere born to dissipate this conception: thecosmological constant is replaced by avariable field during the time, very high inthe phases of the early universe, inagreement with the calculations of

physicists, but falls very low during thecosmic evolution, according to the valuemeasured by astronomers today. Thequintessence field would evolve naturallytowards an attractor conferring it a lowvalue, regardless of its original value.

Physicists consider that a large number ofdifferent initial conditions would lead to asimilar universe the one which is

precisely observed! But these theoriesrequire extra dimensions [3, 9].

Even if astronomers and cosmologists are probably right about the low predictedvalue of vacuum energy, and that it

belongs especially to particle physicists of better understan the theories of unification

and the true nature of the vacuum energy,we estimate that both groups are

4


5/15

conceptually wrong. Physicists are deludedinto believing that, if there was greatenergy at the beginning, there should bestill a great energy today. On the otherhand, cosmologists are mistaken in

believing that the vacuum energy wasalways the same, that is to say almost zero.For them, there is no real empty vacuum innature: constantly, particles are created andannilihated more or less virtually, whatexplains the presence of energy. To beconnected to this low density of thevacuum energy which has never changed,they need a constant energy density thatmodels the presence of a permanentcosmological constant.

A VARIABLE

COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT

WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK

OF THE THEORY OF THE

RELATION

A) SCENARIO OF THE THEORY

OF THE RELATION

The question to know why the density ofenergy is so tiny finds answer within theframework of the theory of the Relation[10]. This new theory uses a cosmologicalinconstant, or a variable cosmologicalconstant, which means a variable densityenergy during the cosmological time. Itdoes not require the presence of extradimensions: the universe has twocomplementary and interpenetrated

structures structures and four dimensions(one of time and three of space). Thestructure of the condensation has the aspectof the Einsteins gravific space-time andelectromagnetic (EM) matter, whereas thestructure of the expansion has someaspects of the Lorentz-Maxwells flat EMspacetime and ordinary matter.

Since the big bang, the EM structure of theexpansion with the variable cosmological

constant is in decline, having abandonedhis energy for the benefit of the increasing

structure of the condensation, positive andgravitational. Throughout cosmological time,a perpetual annihilation of the negativeenergy-mass is transformed into acontinual creation of positive energy-mass.

The first structure of condensationrepresents the positive solution of Diracsequation of energy, while the secondstructure of expansion express its negativeenergy solution which was eliminated by amathematical trick [8].

The negative energy-mass is assimilatedto the cosmological constant or the darkenergy. The variable density of darkenergy takes the form of a variable

cosmological constant directly related tothe full energy that will become theminimal energy of vacuum. We can saythat it starts with the energy of particle

physicists, with 10120, and leads to thealmost zero energy of the astronomers, thatis ~ 100.

Through the principle of compensation,the lost negative energy is transformed into

positive energy. Permanently, real positiveparticles (not virtual) are created and all donot disappear (in particular thosecorresponding to positive energy), hencethe presence of a growing positive matterand a weakening vacuum energy. The

principle of compensation says that thedecreasing of the negative EM energy-mass during the expansion induces a

proportional and opposite increasing positive gravitational energy-mass. The

EM wave of spacetime is supported by aninhomogeneous vacuum filled ofminimal negative energy perpetually ininteraction with positive matter.

B) GENERAL

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

THEORY OF THE RELATION

I) With the theory of the Relation, it is notthe dark matter which dominated from the

beginning but an expansive dark energy.(96) How does this anti-gravity manifest in

5


6/15

the theory of the Relation? It is as early asthe big bang related to the density of thefull quantum which existed in theearliest moments of the universe. This darkenergy varies over time, hence the term

variable cosmological constant. Therepulsive action of the full energy launchesthe universe starts in its infancy, between10-35 and 10-32 sec, in a crazy phase ofannihilation of dark energy and creation ofordinary and dark matter. Its huge negativedark energy is so transformed into positiveenergy/mass. It is at the same time energy,negative cosmological constant and arrowof time, because it creates space-time andmatter. It is associated with the topological

defects of the space bound to the various broken symmetries that the universe hasexperimented in the past. Dark energyempties its energy to reach the today'squantum vacuum or the cosmologicalvacuum energy, which reconciles the

particle physicist and the cosmologist.

II) The structure of expansion goes withdark energy. Globally, into the theory ofRelation, our complex universe is dual:

positive and negative. The negative part,which is a universe by itself, disintegrates,and creates our actual positive universe.The compensation principle asserts that the

permanent loss of negative energy of theexpanding EM wavelength of spacetimeinduces the positive gravific spacetimematter. Flat EM spacetime can yieldinduced gravity to ordinary matter.Gravific spacetime matter produced by the

expansion can flatten the EM spacetime.The deep meaning of the compensation principle is that when there is less EMmass/charge repulsive force in thestructure of expansion going forwardwith the arrow of cosmological time there is more mass/matter attractive forcein the other structure [10].

This said, according to general relativity,even in the absence of particles, the

universe can carry energy known asvacuum energy, this energy has a

physical consequence: it stretches orshrinks space. The positive vacuumenergy accelerates the expansion of theuniverse, while the negative energymakes it collapse [11]. We do not contest

this classification, but in the theory ofRelation the positive vacuum energy andthe negative vacuum energy have anothermeaning. The first structure of condensation represents the positivesolution of Diracs equation of energy,while the second structure of expansionexpress its negative energy solution whichwas eliminated by a mathematical trick [8].(Let us say that in the expression E = mc2, E = + mc2 represents the positive

energy, while E = - mc2 represents thenegative energy. E = - mc2 is considered

just as a virtual energy, which is wrong,in our view.)So, in our theory, the negative vacuumenergy means dark energy also known ascosmological constant, while the positivevacuum energy means the structure ofcondensation, with the positive matter

which augments and the space whichshrinks. It is the inverse of Einsteinsclassification.

III) The cosmological constant provokesthe expansion of space and at the sametime its positive pressure exerted inwardsslows down its expansion. This is not the

positive pressure that induced deceleration but the transformation of the negativeenergy of dark matter into positive energy

that produces an attractive force ofgravity. The repulsive force of gravity ofthe primeval universe is a colossal negativeenergy which would result from the

presumable big crunch of a pre-universe.From 10-35 sec, we can say that full darkenergy had brutally begun itstransformation into white energy of the

primordial vacuum.

The total energy of matter increases as the

universe expands. Similarly the totalenergy of the graviton increases with

6


7/15

decelerated expansion of the universebecause it takes energy to the cosmologicalconstant. With the expansion of theuniverse, the loss of energy of photons

becomes directly observable, because their

wavelength lengthens they undergo aredshift and the more the wavelength ofthe photon lengthens, the less it has someenergy. Microwave photons of cosmic

background radiation are thus redshiftedduring nearly fourteen billion years, whichexplains their long wavelength (in the fieldof the microwaves) and low temperature.In this sense, we have a tired darkenergy, and the gravitons would haveextract some energy from the disintegrated

dark energy. In short, as the expansion ofthe universe decelerates, dark energy'snegative cosmological constant givesenergy to the gravitation of the positivematter, while the graviton takes energy tomatter and radiation [4].

IV) There is a transformation of thenegative energy (the EM spacetime wave,or dark energy, namely the cosmologicalconstant) into positive energy (ordinarymatter + dark matter), and we have agravitation (energy/mass) which increaseswith the cosmological time of expansion.The matter increases, so the total energyrelated to mass of the particle varies. Thereis creation of particles and therefore ofenergy/mass. (This does not violate the

principle of equivalence: the properenergy of the particles is equal to theirrest mass). What does not remain constant

is the global mass which grows with theexpansion. So, if RU, to and M are theradius, the time and the mass of ouruniverse:

to c = GM / c2, (1)

RU and M increase with time.The globalmass continues to enlarge because thedisintegration of the pre-universe after the

big bang is not yet finished.

V) What is the contribution of dark energyto the critical density in the theoreticalframework of the theory of Relation? Thefull dark energy transformed into whitevacuum energy, born in about 10-32 sec

after the big bang has left imprints on theCMB in the form of tiny densityfluctuations resulting from small variationsin temperature (the order of 0.001 %) ofthis radiation. By scrutinizing these tinyfluctuations in temperature with telescopes

perched on balloons or satellites (inparticular, the WMAP satellite launched byNASA in 2001), astronomers have inferredthat the amount of dark energy that wasresponsible for more than two thirds of the

critical density. In addition to thisevaluation of the density of energy,independently, physicists have determinedthe density of matter (visible and dark) ofthe universe. The apparent size ofheterogeneities of the cosmic backgroundon the bottom of the sky is partiallydetermined by the overall geometry of theslice of space which separates us from it.This apparent size provides an indirectmeasure of the total density of the universeand it appears that the quantities of darkand ordinary matter account for less than athird of the found value [4, 5].

Conscientious French researchers declaredthat to explain that the universe isEuclidian, such as was predicted by theWMAP satellite, we do not need thehypothesis of dark energy and that thedensity of matter, alone, is sufficient. It is

however necessary to put the hand on thismissing matter. This claim does notcorrespond to the theory of inflation. In itsframework, the concordance of theexperiments is consistent with a very lowdensity matter and the apparent abnormalrecession of SN1a led to a positivecosmological constant, sign of anaccelerated expansion. Its theoreticalframework is consistent with the results ofweighing of clusters, deriving from the

study of the cosmic microwave

7


8/15

background: an energy density of 73 %and a matter density of 27 %. This gives

73 % + 27 % = 100 % (2)

and involves a constant density of darkenergy, that is to say a positivecosmological constant, during time, sinceat least 6 billion years.

Nevertheless, it seems to us that theinflation does not correspond to the theoryof the Relation, no more than a universedominated by matter that would sound thedeath knell of dark energy. In therelationary cosmology, there is a negative

variable cosmological constant, inwhich dark energy density is reduced infavor of the density of matter consistentwith the results of weighing galaxyclusters. We obtain

(73 % - 20 %) + (27 % + 20 %) = 100 %.Dark energy Ordinary and (3)

dark matter

This expression means that the energywithout mass (without positive mass) ofthe cosmological constant that contributesabout 73 % of the critical density woulddecrease over time towards 50 %. What islost of the immaterial dark energy becomesmass, joins the 30 % coming from ordinaryand dark matter, and keep the positivematter growing bigger. This compensatory

balance maintains constantly the totalmass/energy of the universe at the full 100

%. Such a process implies a continuouscreation of matter throughout thecosmological time, translates a slowingdown expansion and explains a variablecosmological constant (~ 73 % ~ 50 %)which continues to fill the missing mass (~27 % ~ 50 %).

Dark energy in the framework of thetheory of the Relation with a variablecosmological constant with a maximum of

dark energy at the beginning and aminimum of matter/mass can not only

reconcile the model of physicists but alsoresolves the same endemic difficulties thatclaims to solve the positive cosmologicalconstant.

For example, the presence of a negativecosmological constant equal to about 73 %of the critical mass allows, as well than a

positive constant, to settle an annoying paradox: the present universe is veryheterogeneous if one judges by thedistribution of matter, nevertheless theexpansion seems perfectly uniform in alldirections. By using both constants, thecontradiction disappears with an energydistributed in a homogeneous way and

which would govern the expansion...Except that, in parallel, the dark energy ofthe positive constant carries back into the

past the beginning of the cosmicexpansion. If its value was large enough itcould even repel it to infinity (big bangeliminated). Whereas dark energy of thevariable negative constant can back upuntil Plancks time and space time andspace, starting from the vacuum energy ofthe cosmologists to the full energy of the

physicists. The compensation principlereveals a hidden, evolutionary, variablesymmetry which explains the above value

but close to the zero of the currentcosmological constant.

DISTANCE ON THE RISE

OR PHYSICAL PROCESS

TO EXPLAIN THE LOW

LUMINOSITY OF THE SN1a?

To explain the low brightness of distantSN1a, scientists had two choices: either a

physical process weakened their radiation,or their distance should be revisedupwards.

In 1998, the results of the weighing of

galaxy clusters, those from the study ofcosmic microwave background and the

8


9/15

latter resulting from the observation ofdistant SN1a, formed parts of a cosmic

puzzle which matched to present the imageof a nearly flat universe with a matter,whether dark or ordinary, which

represented only ~ 27 % of the criticaldensity of the universe. Two internationalteams clamored that the luminosity ofdistant SN1a were 25 % weaker than theirclose colleagues. When we observe such asupernova in another galaxy, it is enoughto compare its visible magnitude with itsintrinsic magnitude (brightness if is wasnext to us) to know its distance. Bydecomposing through a spectrograph thelight of those stars taken by the expansion

of the universe, astronomers determine theredshift, and consequently their recedingvelocity. These two values, bound by theexpansion which depends itself on thecontents of the universe, showed a redshifthigher upper to the predictions.Astronomers were quick to conclude thatthey are more distant than previouslyexpected: it was a matter of distance. [12,13]

The results on supernov jibes with theinflationary cosmology. Everything washeld so that the expansion acceleratesthrough a positive cosmological constant.Although the case appears heard for mostastronomers, it seems problematic if noterroneous. The astronomers had considereda priori that the luminosity of SN1a isalmost always the same: 5 billion times theSun. Only there is this: is the intrinsicmagnitude of SN1a really constant?

This one is indeed known only due to theexplosion models developed byastrophysicists. However, somemechanisms ruling the explosion are stillmisunderstood and some features of thesemodels are still unprecise, what couldmodify the fragile value of the intrinsicmagnitude that they predict. It is unclear,for example, if the explosion is due to a

deflagration propagating slower than soundor to a supersonic boom. Such an

uncertainty incites certain cosmologicaltheories to postulate a variation of theconstants of the nature, of which theconstant of gravitation, although noobservation or experiment showed some

variation of G. A variable cosmologicalconstant would be, however, more likely tochange the value of the energy (and henceof the intrinsic magnitude) released by asupernova. Indeed, this energy dependsamong others on the reaction speed ofsome elements synthesized during theexplosion such the nickel. If thecosmological constant, or dark energydensity, has not the same value at themoment of the supernova as today

(contrary to what is usually assumed), thereaction rate and the chemical compositioninvolving the nickel would not be the onesenvisaged by astrophysicists. There would

be an evolution of the system overtime andthe measures of luminosity of supernovwould then be corrected.

On the other hand, the result of theobservations of the satellite XMM-Newtonof Agency's European Space X-rayobservatory (ESA) around 2003-2004implies a decelerating expansion andexcludes a distance in the increase toexplain the excessive paleness of distantsupernov 1a [14, 15]. This is consistentwith the theory of the relation.

Within the framework of the theory of theinflation, the concordance of the experimentsgoes in the direction of a very low matter

density and the apparent abnormalrecession of SN1a led to a positivecosmological constant. The choice of a

physical process that weakens the radiationof supernov was quickly dismissed andastronomers opted for the scenario of anaccelerated dark energy which would havetaken the upper hand during the secondhalf of the history of the universe. Thisscenario is difficult to check, unless weobserve clusters of galaxies today and in

the past when the universe was only halfits current age. Indeed, in a world

9


10/15

dominated by this strange energy thataccelerates the expansion, the clusterswould be very difficult to form. Galaxiesare too distant from each other and wouldfail to assemble. In the history of such a

universe, since very early no more clustersof galaxies would be constitute. Those wesee today were formed in the distant past.The question to be answered to determinethe existence of dark energy was simple:yes or no, were clusters of galaxies formedin the second half of the life in theuniverse? It turns out that the XMM-

Newton has returned data about the natureof the universe indicating that the universemust be a high-density environment, in

clear contradiction to the concordancemodel relying on the theory of inflation.In a survey of distant clusters of galaxies,the results of the satellite revealed thattoday's clusters of galaxies are superior tothose present in the universe around seventhousand million years ago. Such ameasure logically inclines toward adecelerated expansion.

For his part, the American astrophysicistBradley Schaefer obtained a result of therelation distance/luminosity whichdetermines an inconstancy of the density ofdark energy [16]. His idea consists to usesome gamma ray bursts (GRBs) asdistance indicators which would mark outthe distant universe. Hundreds of times

brighter than supernov, GRBs can indeedbe detected at distances much greater thanthese. So they would probe the dynamics

of the expansion in an age of the universevery old and still poorly known. In this purpose, he began to analyze gamma-raybursts detected by satellites Swift and Hete2. Schaefer said he established the distanceof 52 GRBs to about 12.8 billion lightyears. He compared the intrinsic intensityof the 52 gamma flashes with the intensityseen from Earth, determined their distanceand established a relationship between thisone and their luminosity. He found that the

bursts to the same distances as the distantsupernov are fainter and therefore further

that if the current expansion of the universewas decelerating, thus confirming theacceleration recorded using SN1a. Incontrast, the most distant bursts atdistances much greater than those where

SN1a can be observed with presenttechniques, seem rather more brilliant andtherefore closer than expected if theacceleration was due to a cosmologicalconstant. Since the brightness of 52 GRBsmeasured until the borders of the universeis too intense for the acceleratingexpansion is due to the cosmologicalconstant, Schaefer concluded that thedensity of dark energy, instead of beingconstant, had to vary [16].

This finding does not seem to stand outfrom the current framework of acceleratedexpansion and from increase of distance toexplain the low luminosity of the distantSN1a [17]. The fact remains thatastronomers know while acknowledgingnot knowing enough about the secrets ofexploding supernov to be sure of theirluminosity that the synthesis of heavyelements in stars was different in the pastfrom what it is today. It is therefore likelythat the bursts due to the older stars havehad at their disposal a larger reservoir ofenergy at that time. Ultimately, if the mostdistant bursts are the brightest, this is duerather to the evolution of objects that are atthe origin than to the expansion..

Let us underline that Jayant V. Narlikarshowed at the beginning of the years two

thousand that the observed SNIaexplosions, that were looking fainter thantheir luminosity in the Einstein-deSittermodel, could be explained by the presencein galaxies of a certain type of dusts,forming needles. The absorption of light bythe inter-galactic metallic dust wouldextinguishe radiation travelling over longdistances. The galactic dusts would be

produced by condensation of iron rejected by previous generations of supernov.

Explanation which has the merit to lean onfacts, since laboratory experiments show

10


11/15

that indeed this type of condensationproduct of dust-like needles [18, 19].

If the issue of absorption of light bymetallic dust ejected by the supernov

explosions is generally ignored in thestandard approach, that of a process oftired light which would weaken the lightis completely excluded. The tired light is atheory proposed by Albert Einstein toreconcile its hypothesis of static universewith the observation of the expansion of theuniverse. Einstein had emitted the hypothesisthat light could, for an unspecified reason,lose energy in proportion to the distancetraveled, hence the name of tired light.

The term was coined by Richard Tolman as an interpretation of Georges Lematreand Edwin Hubble who believed that thecosmic redshift was caused by thestretching of light waves as they travel inthe expanding space. Fritz Zwicky in 1929suggested, as an alternative explanation toan expansion which derived from theobservation of a redshift proportional tothe distance of the galaxies, that the shiftwas caused by photons which graduallylose energy with the distance, probably

because of the resistance to the gravitationalfield between the source and the detector.Obviously, the ideas of Einstein andZwicky, in a supposed static universe, werequickly ruled out.

With the the theory of the Relation, a formof tired light is indistinguishable fromthe assumption of a decelerated expansion

of the universe with a variablecosmological constant. We are talkingabout the presently undetectable radiationof dark energy. Note that the tired light ofthis theory has nothing to do with thetraditional model of light tired of the staticuniverse in irreconcilable contradictionwith the expanding universe. In the case of

primeval photons, the tired light is alsoconnected to the expansion of the universe.The distribution of these photons presents

today a blackbody spectrum from the hotand dense phase experienced by the early

universe. Due to the expansion, of athermal imbalance with a temperature thatdecreases with cosmic time, the blackbodyspectrum of CMB observed by the COBEsatellite in early 1990 is similar but not

identical to that of the recombination,approximately 380 000 years after the big bang. The photons during the expansionwould have lost energy (collectedelsewhere), changed frequency without

being deformed, as evolve the cells of aliving body between the early youth andthe advanced age.

SUPERNOV AND PVLAS

EXPERIMENT

That said, we present a novel argument,though slightly approached [20], alsosupported by an earthly experience, whichcould explain the weakening of the visibleluminosity of SN1a by a physical process.The general idea is that their light loses of its

brightness by interactions with cosmicmagnetic fields, quite as the laser of thePVLAS experiment loses photons by

crossing through a magnetic field [21-22].On one hand, we have the Italian physicistsof the experience PVLAS who studiedin 2000, in a laser device, the way amagnetic field affects the propagation of a

beam of polarized light. The waves ofthis type of light oscillate on the same

plane, characterized by an angle.Theoretical models predict a slightmodification of this angle, because a small

number of photons are deflected by themagnetic field and disappear from the beam. Except that the variation observed by Italian physicists was ten thousandtimes larger than expected. They spent thenext five years to verify this result, somuch the stakes were potentiallyimportant. They acquired in 2006 thecertainty that the strange phenomenon theyhad observed at the beginning of themillennium is not the result of a bias.

11


12/15

On the other hand, we can briefly saythat supernova has roughly the volume ofthe Earth, the mass of the Sun andluminosity five billion times that of thislast one. And therefore, one can easily

conceive that the light emitted by a SN1acan be as brilliant and coherent than thelaser, if not more.

Laser light has special and exceptionalqualities which rank it in a separatecategory. At first, this light is extremelyintense: much more than the Sun. It ismonochromatic and pure, that is to say of asingle color and the same energy for all the

photons of the beam. It is temporally and

spatially coherent because the timeinterval between the passage of a crest of awave and that of the next is always thesame. Finally, it is directive: the laser beamis very narrow and spreads very little. TheSN1a constitute, despite differences, thecandidate who can best resemble the laserlight [23].

In 1916, Einstein remarked that an electronlocated in a low energy level can absorb aquantized energy hv and jump into anupper level; if the same energy hv is thenreceived by the atom, it cannot be anymore absorbed because the electron isalready in the high energy level; Einsteinthen anticipated that the atom will behaveas if it still wanted to absorb this energy: asit could not do, the excited electron willreturn to the fundamental state by emittingthe energy hv: we say that this energy is

stimulated the total energy emitted by theatom is thus hv not captured + hvstimulated = 2 hv [24, 25, 26]. We cancompare a SN1a, which corresponds to theexplosion of a white dwarf star after theaccretion of matter and wave carrying theenergy nhv extracted from a close giantstar, to an atomic system with scales ofenergy.

The SN1a form a relatively homogeneous

class of objects, both in their mechanismsof explosion and in their spectroscopic and

photometric observed characteristics. Theirstandardisable character authorizes to usethem to build a diagram of Hubble

permitting the determination of thecosmological parameters [27]. Due to the

low dispersion of their maximum ofluminosity in the spectral band B and theirimportant luminosity which allows toobserve them at very high-redshifts, theyhave become the standard candles tomeasure great distances and constrain thecosmological parameters. Their maximumluminosity presents a 40 % dispersal,which is still largely homogeneous. Likelaser, which is a macroscopic quantumobject, a SN1a emits photons which have

almost all the same wavelength, are almostall in phase, move all according to parallel

paths. Their luminous waves are waveswhere the radiation emitted by atoms aresynchronized between them [28].

The light from supernov, assimilated to alaser beam, suggests a supernova-amplifier of EM waves based onstimulated emission, which would crossthrough cosmic magnetic fields by losingsome energy-luminosity, like the PLVASlasers. The radiation of the supernovwhich inevitably passes through themagnetic fields of galaxy clusters, stars,and interstellar space, gives up photons,which would be transformed into darkmatter. The brightness of an EM energythat loses photons and frequency in thelong run, without its speed of light beingaffected, can only wane.

We would so obtain, corroborated by thePVLAS experiment, a kind of tired lightthat weakens the brightness of supernov.If the most distant supernov are fainterthan expected, this would come from thefact that, at such distances, losses ofluminosity by tired energy were able tofinally be detected. And this observational

bias could constitute a method to establisha distance-luminosity relation in the distant

universe, predict a change in the density ofdark energy and play a crucial role in the

12


13/15

determination of the constancy or not ofthe density of dark energy.

Since the confirmation of the experiencePVLAS, physicists have been particularly

obsessed with the creation of axions inorder to demonstrate the existence of darkmatter. Is it the fear of a bad incidence ontheir conclusions that prevented theastronomers from imagining that a similar

physical process can weaken theluminosity of the cosmic probes?

DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSION

Since its discovery during the late 90's, thedimming of distant SNIa apparentluminosity has been mostly ascribed to theinfluence of a mysterious dark energycomponent. The discovery was able toconfirm the ideas of inflation and theacceleration of the expansion. Cosmologyhas achieved its inflationary version of astandard model, called the cosmicconcordance, within the strongly tested

framework of the hot big bang model.However, in this paper we argue that theofficial declaration of the astronomers in1998, to the effect that the expansion of theuniverse accelerates, was precipitated anderroneous. Furthermore, a drawback totheir conclusion: The dark energycomponent or a positive cosmologicalconstant represents, in the currentconcordance model, about 70 % ofthe energy density of the universe.

Nevertheless, a cosmological constantis usually interpreted as the vacuumenergy and current particle physicscannot explain such an amplitudeapproaching zero. No theoretical model,not even the most modern, such assupersymmetry or string theory, is able toexplain the presence of this mysteriousdark energy in the amount that ourobservations require. On the other hand, ifdark energy were the size that theories

predict, the universe would have expandedwith such a fantastic velocity that it would

have prevented the existence of everythingwe know in our cosmos. This negative

pressure fluid remains a seriousweakness known as the cosmologicalconstant problem. We dubbed it the

dark energy catastrophe [29, 30].

We propose the theory of the Relation witha variable cosmological constant, whichexplains the early universe as well as thestate of the current universe, and whichleads to a deceleration of the expansion,what has the merit to resolve the paradoxof the cosmological constant. Theexpansion of the universe is so likened to a

positive pressure and to a negative

cosmological constant. It has deceleratedsteadily throughout cosmological timedueto the presence of dark energy that variesdown in favor of a matter/mass which doesnot stop growing since the beginning.

The accelerated cosmic expansion of theuniverse is mostly based on the apparentfaintness of the distant SN1a. Two meanswere available to explain the wanness:revise the distance on the rise, whichmeans an acceleration, and the physical

process which means a deceleration. Theastronomers hurried to accredit the distanceon the rise which was consistent with thetheory of inflation. They have disregardedarguments brought by several physicists-theorists and experimentalists (XXM-

Newton) that foster physical processes.

We subject an argument susceptible to

explain by a physical process the decline ofthe visible luminosity of SN1a. It is aboutthe PVLAS experiment which revealed aloss of intensity of the luminosity of laserradiation in a magnetic field. Further tothis experiment, physicists have struggledto discover the mysterious particle of thedark matter which would explain the lossof photons. They seemed to be obsessed bythis single issue, without even consideringthat light from distant quasars and

supernov could also lose brightness whenit passes through the inevitable cosmic

13


14/15

magnetic fields. If the loss of photonsexperience PVLAS was ten thousand timesgreater than expected, and if it isappropriated to compare this laserexperience with the radiation of SN1a, we

can therefore hardly doubt that this is a physical process of tired light whichincreases the redshift, weakens theapparent brightness of SN1a, whatindicates a deceleration of the expansionwhich excludes the increase in distance.

Not to take into account of this strong possibility from now on would hold asmuch from the stupidity as fromintellectual dishonesty.References

[1] Russell Bagdoo, ARCADE 2 EXTRAGALACTIC EMISSION AND DARK

MATTER AS SEEN BY THE THEORY OF

RELATION, Gravitationalanomalies, Scribd,Issuu (2009).

[2] Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji, Michel Spiro, Lamatire-espace-temps, Fayard, p. 316, 325(1986).

[3] Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos,First vintage books edition, p. 301, (2005).

[4] Patrick Peter, De quoi est fait lUnivers ?Dossier Pour la Science, N 62, jan-mars, p.75-6 (2009).

[5] Serge Jodra, La tyrannie de lnergiesombre, Ciel & Espace, N 370, mars, p. 44-46(2001).

[6] Trinh Xuan Thuan, Origines, ditionsFayard, folio essais, p. 95, 96 (2003).

[7] Azar Khalatbari,Lexpansion de lUniverssacclre, Ciel & Espace, N 384, Mai, p. 30(2002).

[8] Jacques-Olivier Baruch, Et pourtant ilacclre, La Recherche, N 361, fvrier, p. 37(2003).

[9] Jean-Pierre Luminet, LUnivers chiffonn,ditions Fayard, folio essais, p. 87, 320-322(2005).

[10] Russell Bagdoo, The Pioneer Effect: anew Theory with a new Principle, Scribd,Gravitationalanomalies, The General ScienceJournal (2009), Issuu (2010).

[11] Lisa Randall, Warped Passages, HarperPerennial, p. 198 (2006).

[12] Jean-Franois Hat, LUnivers acclre,Ciel & Espace, N 429, fvrier, p. 34 (2006).

[13] Stphane Fay, Des chandelles fiablespour mesurer lUnivers ? Ciel & Espace, N

443, avril, p. 44-45 (2007).

[14] Azar Khalatbari, Lnergie sombreremise en question, Ciel & Espace, N 405,fvrier, p. 34 (2004).

[15] S. Fay, P. Henarejos, Sale temps pourlnergie sombre, Ciel & Espace, N 422,

juillet, p. 27 (2005).

[16] Bradley E. Schaefer, The Hubble

Diagram to Redshift >6 from 69 Gamma- Ray Bursts, arXiv: astro-ph/0612285 v1, 11Dec (2006)

[17] Stphane Fay, Des sursauts gamma poursonder lnergie sombre, Ciel & Espace, Mai,p. 35-37 (2006).

[18] Jayant V. Narlikar, Croire au Big Bangest un acte de foi, La Recherche, N 372,fvrier, p. 66 (2004).

[19] R. G. Vishwakarma, J. V. Narlikar; QSSCre-examined for the nearly discovered SNe 1a;arXiv: astro-ph/0412048 v1, Dec (2004).

[20] Linda stman, Edward Mrtsell; Limitingthe dimming of distant type!a Supernovae;arXiv:astro-ph/0410501 v1, Feb (2005).

14


15/15

[21] Zavattini et al ., Photons et massemanquante, LA RECHERCHE, N 397, mai,

p. 12 (2006).[22] E. Zavattini et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.,96,110407, (2006).

[23] M. Brotherton, Fonctionnement etutilisation des masers et lasers, Dunod, Paris,

p. 3, 56 (1970).

[24] Bernard Maitte, La lumire, dition duSeuil, 296, 1981.

[25] Francis Hartmann, Les Lasers, PressesUniversitaires de France, Que sais-je ? p.16(1974).

[26] Ronald Brown, Les Lasers, Larousse,Paris, p. 19 (1969).

[27] Jrmy Le Du, Standardisation spectroscopique des supernov de type 1a

dans le cadre du sondage supernov legacysurvey, Thse, Universit de la Mditrrane,U.F.R. M.I.M. (2008).

[28] D. Park, Aspects de la physiquecontemporaine, Les lasers, Dunod, Paris, p.

143-146 (1968).

[29] David Appell, Scientific American, p.100-102, May (2008).

[30] Marie-Nolle Crlier; The Accelerated Expansion of the Universe

Challenged by an Effect on theInhomogeneities; arXiv:astro-ph/0702416v2; (2007).

15

cosmological inconstant, supernovae 1a and decelerating expansion

Documents