A couple of fairly new articles and papers caught my attention recently. As you may know, the LCDM model is in a world of hurt with respect to the Hubble constant. The constant as measured by SN1A data is a different number than the same figure which is based on Planck data, and they're outside of the error bars of both methods by more than five sigma now. That's some very serious tension which cannot simply be ignored.
It turns out that there's a "relatively easy" way to reconcile the two Hubble constant figures, but unfortunately for astronomers, the "fix" for the Hubble constant problem also highlights the absurd, redundant and ridiculous nature of the LCDM "dark energy" claim.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-mystery-e ... verse.html
https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article/2 ... 01/5529353
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub
https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article/117/6/1067/1917367In particular, about 10% difference between the local and global Hubble parameters may be safely explained within the framework of linear perturbation theory, with the help of the spatial averaging procedure defined over a finite spatial domain in the t=constant hypersurface . Finally, we would like to mention an interesting possibility of solving the apparent acceleration of cosmic expansion. One of the present authors has reanalyzed the observed magnitude—redshift (m—z) relation of type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) and has examined the possibility that the apparent acceleration of the cosmic expansion is not caused by dark energy but is instead a consequence of the large-scale inhomogeneities in the universe [5]. He has concluded that, assuming the inhomogeneous Hubble parameter, a larger value of H0 in the nearby, low-redshift region than that in the distant, high-redshift region may be sufficient to explain the observed m—z relation for SNe Ia, without introducing dark energy. (Reference listed below).
Essentially both the current tension in the Hubble constant, and enigma of "dark energy" could both be nothing more than mathematical "artifacts" which are related to the density differences within the universe at various scales. It's a potential solution that solves two major problems in astronomy today, and it *seriously* threatens the dark energy claims of the LCDM model.
This is an obvious case of astronomers wanting to have their cake and eat it too. If one accepts the possibility that density variations in the universe eliminate the tension in the Hubble constant, then it's just as likely that 'dark energy" is also resolved for the very same reason. The appearance of acceleration over time is simply an artifact of local density variation, and there's no logical need for any dark energy. There goes the evidence to support 70 percent of the LCDM model. The most logical "fix" of the LCDM Hubble constant problem is also the death sentence of the dark energy hypothesis. They can't have it both ways.
It also turns out that simply adding a new "early dark energy" component to the LCDM model doesn't even resolve the Hubble constant tension:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.07355
On the other hand, we can remove *all* dark energy, embrace density variation in the universe, and *fix* both the Hubble constant and dark energy problems at the same time. A simple application of an Occam's razor test completely destroys the entire dark energy argument. It's 1000 times more rational to believe that density variation at scales is the real cause of both the Hubble constant problem and the "illusion* of acceleration of any sort. There's no rational need for dark energy to explain acceleration in the first place, because it's simply an artifact of density variation to start with. That's why the universe "seems" to be expanding more 'slowly' in the early universe, and it "seems" to be expanding faster now. It's not actually changing at all, it's just experiencing density variations over time and distance.
But watch how fast astronomer run from that issue. They'll *desperately* try to cling to 'dark energy" while simultaneously trying to fix their Hubble constant problems with density variation. It can only be one or the other, not both. There's simply no logical need for *both* dark energy *and* density fluctuation. The only reason they won't admit it is because they've already handed out Nobel prizes for dark energy and nobody want's to admit it was a mathematical artifact to begin with. This is definitely a major problem for the LCDM model.
The LCDM model is falling apart of the seams and we haven't even seen the first JWST deep field images yet. This is going to be a very long, difficult and uncomfortable next decade for LCMD proponents. They're essentially peddling a dark energy Ptolemy model for no good mathematical or logical reason. Watch the absurd and bizarre rationalizations begin.