Wait, What Now? The Universe is Not Expanding, it is Contracting?

It’s Science Sunday!

A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since it was revealed that the universe was expanding. The original claim was made based upon work by Edwin Hubble who interpreted the red-shifting the light from stars as an indicator of their movement away from us. (Stars moving toward us are, yes, blue-shifted.)

Einstein at first didn’t believe this, he thought the universe was static and infinite, but there was an argument against that view of things. We have known since Newton that gravity is the force that rules the universe and gravity essentially manifests itself as an attraction of anything that has mass to all other things that have mass. If the universe were static, the gravitational attraction of stars for other stars would have the universe collapsing in upon itself.

When the idea of the universe expanding was proffered seriously, there was no cause for this, until the Big Bang Theory came along and argued that if the universe is expanding, it must have been much smaller in the past. Einstein “solved” this problem with his concept of expanding space-time. The parts of the universe weren’t just moving away from one another contra gravity, space it self was expanding and carrying such things along with it.

I have written before that such a concept is incoherent. Space is not a thing, so it can’t be welded to time, nor can it expand or contract, but the concept seemed to win over many physicists, possibly because they didn’t want to be considered as someone who couldn’t understand the genius Einstein.

More recently, it has been argued that data indicate that the expansion of the universe, still with no cause, is accelerating, again with no cause.

In science we expect new theories to explain all of the old data and also to be able to make sense of new data. No one anticipated this acceleration of the expansion of space-time, so it was justified by characterizing what must be causing it. The concept of dark energy was invented as the cause of the expansion and decades have been spent looking for evidence of its existence, with no success as of this date.

Recently (November 6, 2025) a paper published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of work done at the Yonsei University, South Korea declare that data is now showing that the expansion is not accelerating, it is decelerating!

Our study shows that the universe has already entered a phase of decelerated expansion at the present epoch and that dark energy evolves with time much more rapidly than previously thought.

If these results are confirmed, it would mark a major paradigm shift in cosmology since the discovery of dark energy 27 years ago. (Young-Wook Lee)

Note the researcher’s belief that dark energy is something that can evolve and that it was “discovered” 27 years ago. It wasn’t discovered, it was hypothesized. And if, for some reason the universe were expanding, gravity would be expected to slow the rate of expansion over time. So, these new results seem better anchored in reality. The claim that dark energy can evolve comes from the new data that fit a pattern that agrees with the mysterious dark energy changing over time. Again, these are not even hypotheses, these are interpretations of the data that may or may not represent anything real.

In the normal life cycle, theories begin by overcoming resistance to their acceptance by explaining data already known. Then if the theory explains new data as it is acquired (often the theories suggest what data need be sought) then it becomes more and more accepted (not proven … never proven). But the history of science is replete with theories that works for a while, some quite well, but then as new data accumulated, they couldn’t explain the new data so the theories are adjusted. Such adjustments are normal and part of the process of refining the theory. But some of these “adjustments” are ad hoc” that is added to just deal with the problematic data and not well connected to the theory (I call them “patches). If a theory ends up with many patches, it is a sign that the theory is not well formed in the first place and insisting on following it can lead to scientific Alice in Wonderland-type rabbit holes. The standard model, aka the BBT, currently has quite a few patches: cosmic inflation, no trigger mechanism for the original BB, dark energy, and dark matter and problem some others of which I am not aware.

Defenders of the “Standard Model” will bring up the earlier successes of that theory, but those are misleading. In order for the theory to be validated, it must explain new data and if it cannot, it must be modified so it can and if those modifications are ad hoc (patches, fixes of particular data problems, etc.) and not fundamental, then we recognize a theory in its final throes.

Postscript Some science wags invented The Ion Law of Data which insists that before one can argue over any theory and/or interpretation of scientific data, the data must be challenged and verified, otherwise one can end up arguing about things not real. This involves challenging the methodology of the studies involved, the interpretations of the data, demanding more evidence/data, especially to fill in gaps, and so on.

All part of the process. Calling an hypothesized cause a “discovery” is not. The data were discovered, interpretations are invented.

But, But, But …

The current theoretical darlings of cosmologists are dark matter and dark energy, even though there are no identifiable causes for their existence or mechanisms for their effects. Dark matter was conjectured because of phenomena observed that could only be explained by either the law of gravity varying from place to place or some new mysterious source of gravitational force existing, one that we cannot see. Well, everyone knew that gravity, or the law describing its effects, must be the same everywhere, so they settled for the mysterious source of gravitational force.

The same goes for dark energy. Since they believe space is expanding (specifically space-time, but only between galaxies, not within them) they were perplexed when their measurements showed the rate of expansion was increasing. Now, with no mechanism or description of how a non-material thing like “space” could expand, they came up with another mysterious force: dark energy, again something that we cannot observe, but is causing the expansion of space-time to accelerate.

But now, as the blog EarthSkyNews reports: “A new analysis of nearly 2,100 supernovas hints that dark energy – the mysterious influence driving the expansion of the universe – might change strength over time. If so, it would point to surprising new physics that could affect the fate of the universe.”

What the fuck, Cosmo-nerds? Gravity cannot vary from place to place but dark energy can? Apparently they haven’t noticed that if one peruses the problems by speculating that gravity can vary, most everything falls into place and no weird conjectures need be made. I guess they really like the rabbit hole they have plunged into. Now where did that damned White Rabbit go?

Postscript Would it break their spirits to say “the hypothetical mysterious influence driving the expansion of the universe” or the mysterious influence conjectured to be driving the expansion of the universe”? Scientists do tend to talk about hypotheticals as if they were real because everyone in their audience knew what was what. (“Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?”) but this is wildly inappropriate for things written for lay audience. What were their editors thinking?

Finally, A Reexamination of Dark Energy and Cosmic Expansion

When something sounds too audacious or too stupid to be true, it is always worthwhile to re-examine the possibilities. I have been saying for quite some time that cosmology is very ripe for re-examinations of things like an expanding universe, cosmic inflation, dark energy, and dark matter. Well, there is some light at the end of the tunnel.

This is from the Universe Today Blog (1-12025)

New Study of Supernovae Data Suggests That Dark Energy is an Illusion

Dark energy is central to our modern understanding of cosmology. In the standard model, dark energy is what drives the expansion of the Universe. In general relativity, it’s described by a cosmological constant, making dark energy part of the structure of space and time. But as we’ve gathered more observational evidence, there are a few problems with our model. For one, the rate of cosmic expansion we observe depends on the observational method we use, known as the Hubble tension problem. For another, while we assume dark energy is uniform throughout the cosmos, there are some hints suggesting that might not be true. Now a new study argues we’ve got the whole thing wrong. Dark energy, the authors argue, doesn’t exist.

Let’s start with what we know. When we look out across the billions of light-years of cosmic space, we see that matter is clumped into galaxies, and those galaxies are groups into clusters so that the Universe has clumps of matter separated by great voids. On a small scale, this means that the distribution of matter is uneven. But as we go to larger scales, say a billion light-years or so, the average distribution of matter evens out. On a large scale, the cosmos is homogeneous and not biased in a particular direction. This means we can broadly describe the Universe as the same everywhere. This is known as the principle of homogeneity. By applying this principle to cosmic expansion, we can model the Universe by the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric, where dark energy is a cosmological constant.

Opponents of the standard model argue that the principle can’t be applied to cosmic expansion. Some even argue that the basic principles of general relativity can’t be applied on cosmic scales. In one such model, known as the Timescape model, it’s argued that dark energy would violate the principle of equivalence. Since the principle equates inertial energy and gravitational energy, there is no way to distinguish cosmic expansion as a real effect. Furthermore, since we know that gravitational fields affect the rate of time, the Timescape model argues that the Universe can’t be homogeneous in time. Basically, the model argues that within the gravitational well of a galactic cluster, clocks would run more slowly than they would within the vast empty cosmic voids. Over the billions of years of cosmic history, this difference would build up, creating a variance of time throughout the Universe. It is this time divergence that would give the appearance of cosmic expansion.

I have no idea whether this interpretation will hold up but at least people are trying to eliminate incoherent concepts, such as dark energy and dark matter.

If the Universe is Expanding . . .

We are told that the universe is expanding and on top of that not just that the component galaxies are spreading apart, but that space itself is expanding. Then that claim is double-downed upon by the claim that the rate of the expansion is accelerating. So, the obvious question is why, what is the cause of this expansion and its acceleration?

Einstein got the ball rolling by changing his mind from the universe being static to being expanding, and that the cause of the expansion was an expansion of space. Einstein’s idea was that space was not a static framework, but a flexible one, that it was distorted by the masses embedded in it. This distorted space gave us the illusion of a force of gravity when all it was was that moving bodies were moving along distorted paths in space.

So far, I have not discovered the reason why masses would cause such distortions, or how those distortions could be realized, but no other cause of space being distorted was in discussion until some evidence showed up that the rate of expansion was increasing. So, we do not know why space was expanding and we certainly do not know why it was expanding faster over time. (Note that the data suggest that the expansion is between galaxies, but not within galaxies, so something weird is going on.)

The dominant conjecture for the cause of this expansion and its acceleration is the so-called “dark energy.” “Dark energy” is a term scientists use to refer to whatever is causing the universe to expand faster over time. It’s a catchall term because no one knows what dark energy is—no one has ever directly seen or measured it. This is a counter to gravity apparently.

Are there any examples in nature of energy causing things to expand? Yes, there are. For example, if you heat a piece of metal (or really much of anything) as its temperature goes up, it expands. The rate of expansion can be controlled somewhat by the rate of heat injection into the system. But in this case the heat is coming from outside of the metal and in the universe there is no outside, so where could this energy be coming from?

So, we do not know what dark energy is. We do not know where it is coming from and if it is already here is it having the effect it is because it hasn’t been fully distributed yet?

Clearly the expansion could not be fueled by mass. If masses displace space, it could cause what remains to expand, but for that expansion to accelerate, the amount of mass would also have to accelerate and what would be causing that? And the observable mass of the universe seems to be unchanging, confined to very small changes here and there. Therefore, it doesn’t seem that mass could be the cause of the acceleration or the expansion in the first place. And since the universe seems to have only two components, matter and energy, it therefore falls to energy to be our cause, but the behavior of such an energy is unlike any other energy known to us. All forms of energy that are known to us are interconvertible: we can change one into another or several of the others with no losses, so if this “dark energy exists,” is it also interconvertible, or is it not and thus again different from any other energy we know of?

WTF? The Mysterious Force We Call Dark Energy Makes Up More Than Two Thirds of the Universe

The sentence in the title above came from the EarthSkyNews blog/newsletter. I expect better from sources purporting to explain scientific concepts.

“The mysterious force we call dark energy makes up more than two thirds of the universe.”
(www.earthsky.org, 11-13-2024)

First “Dark Energy” is indeed mysterious as it is entirely hypothetical, the concept being created to explain the hypothetical acceleration of the hypothetical expansion of space, or space-time if you prefer, in the universe. No one has yet found evidence to support its existence (the original issue leading to it being hypothesized does not count as evidence).

Using the label “energy” for a “force” is quite odd as these two are not the same.

Force is an external factor which can change the state of rest or state of uniform motion of an object. (Newton’s first law)

Energy is defined as the “ability to do work, which is the ability to exert a force causing displacement of an object.”

So an object able to exert a force possesses energy to do so, and so energy is the source of the ability to exert a force or forces.

Dark energy is not a force, it is an energy which is the source of the force causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, or so it is proposed.

Moving on to “dark energy makes up more than two thirds of the universe.” This should be better stated as “dark energy, if it is real, would make up more than two thirds of the universe” or “the theory hypothesizing the existence of dark energy also claims that it would make up more than two thirds of the universe.”

Under no circumstances should a mysterious energy, lacking any proof of its existence, be referred to as if it were a fact, certainly not in the same sentence!

Still Perplexed

You probably already know that our solar system is part of a much larger group of stars, the Milky Way Galaxy. And also that galaxies seem to be arranged in clusters. Some of these clusters are so large that they are called “super clusters.” The biggest single entity that scientists have identified in the universe is a super cluster of galaxies called the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall. It is so wide that light takes about 10 billion years to move across the entire structure.

So, our galaxy, which light could traverse in about 100,000 years is puny compared to this super cluster. But what I do not understand is that galaxies move and their speeds have been measured at from 0.05% and 1% of the speed of light, at the maximum. But all of the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall’s stars were cheek-by-jowl, right next to one another, according to the Big Bang Theory. In order for the farthest reaches of that super cluster to get that far apart, at the speed at which galaxies travel, would require one trillion years.

Now the universe is supposedly 13.8 billion years removed from the start of the Big Bang, according to that theory, so there hasn’t been enough time for those galaxies to get that far apart, traveling at the speeds galaxies do.

So, the solution? Obviously space-time is expanding. Bt there has never been any proposed explanation for why space-time would expand, much less that expansion accelerate as it is now claimed to be doing . . . well, none but the ad hoc, mysterious “dark energy.” To claim dark energy is the cause of that expansion is grotesquely misleading because it was hypothesized to explain that expansion, so its characteristics are being inferred from what it is supposed to explain, so it is tailor made to do just that. The only problem is no evidence of its existence has been found, so it is pure speculation. I might also note that dark energy has no behaviors it shares with any known phenomenon of the universe. In other words, you can’t use the “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, it’s a duck argument” because no form of energy behaves at all like the proposed dark energy. In fact it is only being called an energy because it is proposed as the explanation of an action. But no known form of energy comes close to doing what is claimed dark energy does.

So, while those galaxies are tottering along at at most 1% of the sped of light, the universe is expanding to make up the difference, which means it was expanding faster than the speed of light. (I don’t know how one could measure the speed of expansion of space and I have no reason to believe that expansion is limited to the speed of light (in a vacuum), but everything else seems to be.)

I am ready to admit I am a bear with very little brain when it comes to this topic, but still I tend to cringe at the outlandish number of ad hoc bizarre concepts being offered up. And, like string theory, there may be some truth there but it is impossible to test.