The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests

A blue nebula looks like an eye in this NASA image
Astronomers use the light from distant stars, such as the Helix Nebula seen here, to measure the apparent expansion of the universe. New resaerch suggests there may be more to the pictue that we're not seeing. (Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SSC)

The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, a potentially controversial new study suggests. This rethinking of the cosmos also suggests solutions for the puzzles of dark energy and dark matter, which scientists believe account for around 95% of the universe's total energy and matter but remain shrouded in mystery.

The novel new approach is detailed in a paper published June 2 in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, by University of Geneva professor of theoretical physics Lucas Lombriser

Related: Dark energy could lead to a second (and third, and fourth) Big Bang, new research suggests

Scientists know the universe is expanding because of redshift, the stretching of light's wavelength towards the redder end of the spectrum as the object emitting it moves away from us. Distant galaxies have a higher redshift than those nearer to us, suggesting those galaxies are moving ever further from Earth. 

More recently, scientists have found evidence that the universe's expansion isn't fixed, but is actually accelerating faster and faster. This accelerating expansion is captured by a term known as the cosmological constant, or lambda.

The cosmological constant has been a headache for cosmologists because predictions of its value made by particle physics differ from actual observations by 120 orders of magnitude. The cosmological constant has therefore been described as "the worst prediction in the history of physics." 

Cosmologists often try to resolve the discrepancy between the different values of lambda by proposing new particles or physical forces but Lombriser tackles it by reconceptualizing what's already there..

"In this work, we put on a new pair of glasses to look at the cosmos and its unsolved puzzles by performing a mathematical transformation of the physical laws that govern it," Lombriser told Live Science via email.

In Lombriser's mathematical interpretation, the universe isn't expanding but is flat and static, as Einstein once believed. The effects we observe that point to expansion are instead explained by the evolution of the masses of particles — such as protons and electrons — over time.

In this picture, these particles arise from a field that permeates space-time. The cosmological constant is set by the field's mass and because this field fluctuates, the masses of the particles it gives birth to also fluctuate. The cosmological constant still varies with time, but in this model that variation is due to changing particle mass over time, not the expansion of the universe. 

In the model, these field fluctuations result in larger redshifts for distant galaxy clusters than traditional cosmological models predict. And so, the cosmological constant remains true to the model's predictions.

"I was surprised that the cosmological constant problem simply seems to disappear in this new perspective on the cosmos," Lombriser said. 

A recipe for the dark universe

Lombriser's new framework also tackles some of cosmology's other pressing problems, including the nature of dark matter. This invisible material outnumbers ordinary matter particles by a ratio of 5 to 1, but remains mysterious because it doesn't interact with light.

Lombriser suggested that fluctuations in the field could also behave like a so-called axion field, with axions being hypothetical particles that are one of the suggested candidates for dark matter. 

These fluctuations could also do away with dark energy, the hypothetical force stretching the fabric of space and thus driving galaxies apart faster and faster. In this model, the effect of dark energy, according to Lombriser, would be explained by particle masses taking a different evolutionary path at later times in the universe.

In this picture "there is, in principle, no need for dark energy," Lombriser added.

Post-doctoral researcher at the Universidad ECCI, Bogotá, Colombia, Luz Ángela García, was impressed with Lombriser's new interpretation and how many problems it resolves. 

"The paper is pretty interesting, and it provides an unusual outcome for multiple problems in cosmology," García, who was not involved in the research, told Live Science. "The theory provides an outlet for the current tensions in cosmology."

However, García urged caution in assessing the paper's findings, saying it contains elements in its theoretical model that likely can't be tested observationally, at least in the near future.

Editor's note: This article was corrected at 1:30 p.m. ET on June 20, to reflect that redshift is evidence of cosmic expansion, but not evidence of  accelerated cosmic expansion.

Robert Lea

Robert Lea is a science journalist in the U.K. who specializes in science, space, physics, astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, quantum mechanics and technology. Rob's articles have been published in Physics World, New Scientist, Astronomy Magazine, All About Space and ZME Science. He also writes about science communication for Elsevier and the European Journal of Physics. Rob holds a bachelor of science degree in physics and astronomy from the U.K.’s Open University

  • LaraK
    Is this new? I thought this already was a way to throw out the need for a dark matter and dark energy. Isn't that why protons decaying is something we want to observe?
    Reply
  • Johnnyreddogg
    Another theoretical and unobserved opinion. Acceleration has already been proven by observation and sound science.
    Reply
  • Aby
    "In this picture, these particles arise from a field that permeates space-time."

    How is this different from the Higgs Field?
    Reply
  • Jim H
    As an amateur observer I have a couple of issues with the assertion that the universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion based on increasing red shift at its distant regions.

    If the red shift is the same in all directions, does that mean we are at the center of the universe?

    The raw data that is observed at those great distances is many billions of years old.
    Reply
  • Joe Cogan
    If the universe is static, then General Relativity, which forbids a static universe, is fundamentally wrong. Given that it's among the most confirmed theories in the history of science, that seems wildly unlikely. And the notion of particle masses fluctuating over time completely blows up Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, nuclear physics, cosmology, and chemistry just off the top of my head, so pardon me if I take it less than seriously.
    Reply
  • Aby
    Jim H said:
    As an amateur observer I have a couple of issues with the assertion that the universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion based on increasing red shift at its distant regions.

    If the red shift is the same in all directions, does that mean we are at the center of the universe?

    The raw data that is observed at those great distances is many billions of years old.
    Actually, they theorize the red-shift will be observed wherever you go in the universe because it is supposedly expanding in all directions.

    I have another theory: Quantum Mechanics proves that particles form and annihilate each other in vacuum space. This process would create a slight "resistance" to the travelling photons and cause dispersion over distances of billions or trillions of light years, effectively causing energy loss and therefore a frequency shift. None of the astronomical simulations account for this Quantum Mechanical effect.
    Reply
  • Aby
    Joe Cogan said:
    If the universe is static, then General Relativity, which forbids a static universe, is fundamentally wrong. Given that it's among the most confirmed theories in the history of science, that seems wildly unlikely. And the notion of particle masses fluctuating over time completely blows up Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, nuclear physics, cosmology, and chemistry just off the top of my head, so pardon me if I take it less than seriously.
    Actually, GR is only partly confirmed: if you look at the galactic lensing, or black-hole lensing, it turns out that there are variations / deviations from GR that Astrophysicists cannot explain. Similarly GR doesn't work on galactic scales and that is why they have to insert Dark Matter to obtain simulation results that match observations. However, in 20 years of experiments, Dark Matter is nowhere to be found.
    Reply
  • Hartmann352
    An international team’s project using cosmic microwave background data inferred a Hubble constant of 67, substantially less than the 73 or 74 based on actually measuring the expansion (by analyzing how the light from distant supernova explosions has dimmed over time).

    When this discrepancy first showed up a few years ago, many experts believed it was just a mirage that would fade with more precise measurement. But it hasn’t.

    “This starts to get pretty serious,” Adam Riess said at the astronomy meeting. “In both cases these are very mature measurements. This is not the first time around for either of these projects.”

    One commonly proposed explanation contends that the supernova studies are measuring the local value of the Hubble constant. Perhaps we live in a bubble, with much less matter than average, skewing expansion measurements. In that case, the cosmic microwave background data might provide a better picture of the “global” expansion rate for the whole universe. But supernovas observed by the Hubble telescope extend far enough out to refute that possibility, Riess said.

    “Even if you thought we lived in a void…, you still are basically stuck with the same problem.”

    Consequently it seems most likely that something is wrong with the matter-energy recipe for the universe (technically, the cosmological standard model) used in making the expansion rate prediction. Maybe the vacuum energy driving cosmic acceleration is not a cosmological constant after all, but some other sort of field filling space. Such a field could vary in strength over time and throw off the calculations based on a constant vacuum energy. But Riess pointed out that the evidence is growing stronger and stronger that the vacuum energy is just the cosmological constant. “I would say there we have less and less wiggle room.”

    Another possibility, appealing to many theorists, is the existence of a new particle, perhaps a fourth neutrino or some other relativistic (moving very rapidly) particle zipping around in the early universe.

    “Relativistic particles — theorists have no trouble inventing new ones, ones that don’t violate anything else,” Riess said. “Many of them are quite giddy about the prospect of some evidence for that. So that would not be a long reach.”

    Other assumptions built into the current cosmological standard model might also need to be revised. Dark matter, for example, is presumed to be very aloof from other forms of matter and energy. But if it interacted with radiation in the early universe, it could have an effect similar to that of relativistic particles, changing how the energy in the early universe is divided up among its components. Such a change in energy balance would alter how much the universe expands at early times, corrupting the calibrations needed to infer the current expansion rate.

    It’s not the first time that determining the Hubble constant has provoked controversy. Edwin Hubble himself initially (in the 1930s) vastly overestimated the expansion rate. Using his rate, calculations indicated that the universe was much younger than the Earth, an obvious contradiction. Even by the 1990s, some Hubble constant estimates suggested an age for the universe of under 10 billion years, whereas many stars appeared to be several billion years older than that.

    Hubble’s original error could be traced to lack of astronomical knowledge. His early overestimates turned out to be signals of a previously unknown distinction between different generations of stars, some younger and some older, Riess pointed out. That threw off distance estimates to some stars that Hubble used to estimate the expansion rate. Similarly, in the 1990s the expansion rate implied too young a universe because dark energy was not then known to exist and therefore was not taken into account when calculating the universe’s age.

    So the current discrepancy, Riess suggested, might also be a signal of some astronomical unknown, whether a new particle, new interactions of matter and radiation, or a phenomenon even more surprising — something that would really astound a visitor from another universe.

    See: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/speed-universe-expansion-remains-elusive
    Recent efforts to measure the Universe further from Earth, like the SH0ES project led by Nobel laureate Adam Riess, have used Cepheids alongside Type Ia supernovae, which was used as a standard candle by Nobel Prize winning Saul Permutter's team when they extrapolated the ever faster expansion rate.. There are also other methods to measure Hubble's constant, such as one that uses the cosmic microwave background - relic light or radiation that began to travel through the Universe shortly after the Big Bang. The problem is that these two measurements, one nearby using supernovae and Cepheids, and one much farther away using the microwave background, differ by nearly 10%. Astronomers call this difference the Hubble tension, and have been looking for new measurement techniques to resolve it. But, the data from a magnified, multiply imaged supernova, which was discovered by a team of astronomers, including Dr Or Graur at the University of Portsmouth, provides insight into a longstanding debate in the field and could help scientists more accurately determine the Universe's age and better understand the cosmos.
    Hartmann352
    Reply
  • Kurt Poulsen
    Yes and no. Expansion is universe in relative. Like time. Every single gravity is universe in relative. Yes black hole is a black hole from outside. From inside is expansion. Not White hole. But universe in relative. Watch that to understand 9cO1O6smTH0View: https://youtu.be/9cO1O6smTH0
    Reply
  • Yvonne F
    What a wonderful article. Nothing in science is ever completely "proven", though many things can be disproven. There is only ever, at best... tons of supporting evidence and no good alternative theories to evaluate and compare.

    So a whole new way to look at things that causes many inconsistencies with and among current theories is spectacular. Yay for mathematical transformations! Ok maybe that was a little geeky.

    However if this holds, who knows what else might pop out of the math.
    Reply