Re: OT: Dark energy might not be constant at all

On a sunny day (Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:17:23 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <uuoc2m$18vkc$1@dont-email.me>:

On 05/04/2024 06:17, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Dark energy might not be constant after all
First results from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument offer hints of new physics.
  https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/

>
"Dark energy" is the constant that Einstein had to introduce into his
equations for the Universe to make a "Steady State Universe" model work.
>
The default solution to Einstein-Lemaitre was an exponentially expanding
one which he didn't much like. He described it as his greatest mistake
since reality was much more like his original equation solution as
Hubble later proved by observation.
>
It is ironic that with improved observational data the same constant now
seems to be making the universe fly apart at beyond exponential rate.
I'm no great fan of "dark energy" but I am told by my friends still in
the field that it is the least worst option now.
>
It means matter and radiation in the universe will eventually become
very very thin indeed as spacetime rips apart ever more rapidly with time.
>
TBH I'd prefer there to be something wrong with the Type Ia supernovae
standard candles in the early universe (making them overly bright).
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova
>
I understand that possibility has been ruled out but I don't know any
more details. They are very handy since when they go off they can
outshine an entire galaxy and are visible over huge distances.
>
You can measure the light curve and determine absolute brightness from
it provided that you catch it early. Amateur astronomers help the
professionals by monitoring galaxies and reporting events in realtime.
>
Pro scopes only divert to look at them if there is something to see.
(although there are some professional supernova systems as well)
>
The idea that the fundamental constants of nature might not be quite
constant dates back to Dirac who was the first to make that conjecture.

I have been re-reading the article just now and do find it unclear.
In my view, when 'universe' or rather what we see or think it is, is starting with a bang so to speak
a Le Sage model, where the Le Sage particles originate from for example processes in stars
or maybe black holes, IMPLIES the universe flying apart ever faster,
no mysterious 'dark energy', just simple physics.
It explains many other things too, like clocks slowing down in a gravity well (near some object), etc
And of course there must? have been multiple big bangs / universes and some of what we see may be from expansion of those?
Keep it simple.
Le Sage particles - or a state of those - could be EM radiation, that would then explain why gravity moves at the speed of light.
And of course, as things slow down over time, light speed and gravity may vary too over time.