The Existence and Effect of Dark Energy Redshift on Cosmological Age

A derivation of Cosmological Age explicitly constrained by Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is presented, demonstrating that the correct value of Cosmological Age is equal to the Hubble Age. It is shown that utilizing “z= 0” for Cosmological Redshift in the Present Epoch introduces a fundamental flaw into Cosmological Age calculations. However, this flaw is captured and corrected by the Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) Model of Gravity developed by Puthoff, suggesting that the Dark Energy Field exists as a massive photonic field. Consequently, it is demonstrated that for a Dark Energy Driven description of Accelerated Cosmological Expansion, Cosmological Redshift takes a negative value in the Present Epoch.


Introduction.
e Standard Model of Cosmology (SMoC) utilizes Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) data to determine the age of the Universe, defined by [1] as 13.797 (Gyr) ± 23 (Myr). However, notably in contrast, the age of star HD-140283 is defined in [2] as 14.46 (Gyr) ± 800 (Myr). Although no emphatic contradiction exists between these two observations, due to the associated experimental tolerances, it provokes scrutiny as the HD-140283 lower observational limit is 13.66 (Gyr). Since the lower CMBR limit is 13.774 (Gyr), an arguably narrow 114 (Myr) congruence window exists between CMBR and HD-140283 measurements. Cognizant of the exponential rate of technological growth, one may well expect that the tolerance commonality between these two experimental sources might instantly vanish. For such an event to occur, the SMoC may require significant revision.
It seems improbable that the physical measurements gathered by the instrumentation utilized in the Planck Satellite [3] are flawed; the Science and Engineering underlying the technology is well-understood, and significant instrumentation defects would have become rapidly evident and subsequently corrected prior to deployment. It is equally improbable that the software associated with the observation and data collection processes might lead to incorrect results as the computational output is broadly peer-reviewed prior to publication. us, by elimination, the remaining candidate for scrutiny is the theoretical basis from which the final age determination is executed according to the SMoC relationship It is important to note that "z = 0" for the Present Epoch is an assigned value, not an assumed value. An assigned value is a man-made contrivance, whilst an assumed value can have natural origins. e assigned value for the Present Epoch seems reasonable, benign, and convenient, but what are the implications associated with this? To address this question and validate (2), we require an alternative representation of Cosmological Redshift. Fortunately, Puthoff [4] developed an alternative representation of General Relativity (GR) termed e Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) Model of Gravity. Since then, Depp et al. [5,6] and Desiato [7] have shown the PV Model of Gravity to be isomorphic to GR by satisfying the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstrom solutions.

e PV Model.
e PV Model of Gravity is an optical derivative, utilizing a Refractive Index value "K PV '." For an observer at the bottom of a gravity well, gazing upwards and backwards in time (e.g., at the surface of the Earth), the relationship between Cosmological Redshift "z" and "K PV " utilizing Puthoff relationships [4] is given by Hence, (1) expressed in PV form is given by (1) � (4); therefore, the PV Model of Gravity aligns precisely to the SMoC (as expected). However, (4) reveals an important fact regarding the assigned value of Cosmological Redshift "z � 0," utilized to formulate (2). at is, the Refractive Index value "K PV � 1" can only occur when the observer possesses the power of infinite gaze in our Universe or resides at infinity outside our Universe (e.g., in a Multiverse Cosmological Model). is means that the assigned value of Cosmological Redshift "z � 0" represents a nonphysical situation, thereby denoting an invalid procedural step. Utilizing "z � 0" requires e Observable Universe to be infinitely large, yet CMBR observations are seeking to measure a finite size. Hence, (2) is in conflict with CMBR experimental objectives, demonstrated by the Gravitational Refractive Index as implicitly asserted by Desiato [7], such that the value "K PV � 1" occurs as "r ⟶ ∞" according to Note: equation (5) represents the Metric Coefficient of the Schwarzschild Solution of Einstein's equations of GR.

Resolution
Equation (5) invokes the question if "r ⟶ ∞" should not be applied, what should be? To address this question, we shall conduct the following thought experiment: consider an Observable Universe of Hubble Radius "R H ." For an observer to circumnavigate this Universe, he/she must travel a distance of "2πR H = 2πc/H 0 "; hence, from the perspective of the observer, (5) is required to metabolize the condition "r = 2πc/H 0 ." Moreover, it follows that if the Universe is of Hubble Radius, then "M" relates to Hubble Volume; hence, "M" is equal to the Dark Energy Density Parameter multiplied by the Hubble Volume multiplied by the Critical Density, such that a Dark Energy Refractive Index "K Λ " may be formulated according to Substituting (6) into (3) yields the Dark Energy Redshift "z Λ " as follows: Combining (6) with PV Time Dilation of the form "Δt 0 � Δt·√K PV " as defined by Puthoff [4] yields a revised expression for Cosmological Age "t 0 " as follows: (6) was formulated for a eoretical Universe of Hubble Radius; hence, for the Hubble Time configuration t 0 � 1/H 0 , we obtain the following outputs: (iii) e proximity of our Ω Λ to SMoC results denotes initial evidence that the Hubble Age (8) [8][9][10][11],

eoretical Solution. Equation
where H α = Big-Bang Hubble Constant = 8. Note: H α and St T are forwardly derived from first principles; they are not reverse-engineered, ad hoc, or tailored constants; refer to [10] for the derivation. e calculated permissible range values for "Ω Λ , Ω m , K Λ , z Λ , H 0 and t 0 " are displayed in Table 1.

Heuristic Solution.
For the Hubble Time configuration t 0 � 1/H 0 utilizing key SMoC data ranges [1], we calculate the outputs as displayed in Table 2.
e following are the key points: (i) e SMoC determination of Cosmological Age [1] does not concur with CMBR Temperature observations (i.e., t 0 is in conflict with T 0 ) (a) e use of (9) provides supporting evidence for the Hubble Age (8) Table 3.
e following are the key points: (i) Many SMoC combinations of Ω Λ and H 0 exist to satisfy observational CMBR Temperature requirements, validating (9) (ii) e SMoC "Ω Λ + ΔΩ Λ " limit violates the SMoC "H 0 + ΔH 0 " limit (iii) Our dark energy plus CMBR Temperature-constrained eoretical Universe is a useful representation of physical reality

Discussion
e preceding analysis clearly demonstrates the correlation between physical reality and our eoretical Universe of Hubble Radius, offering a persuasive argument supporting the contention that the Hubble Age is the true Cosmological Age, not the present value as calculated by the SMoC [1]. So, why is the SMoC determination of Cosmological Age inaccurate? Primarily, it is because the method of calculation does not include a direct and clear relationship to CMBR Temperature. Cosmological Age, Hubble Constant, Dark Energy and CMBR Temperature must be related, yet e SMoC solution only embraces three of the four critical elements for physical meaningfulness. is is the first clue as to why the SMoC determination of Cosmological Age is inaccurate. e second clue is in the fact that the SMoC value is 663 (Myr) less than the value for HD-140283. Although observational tolerances ensure that the results are not in conflict in this case, it is prudent for us to emphasize the meaning of error bars. Error bars provide no guarantee that the central value is not incorrect to begin with, only that the central value lies between certain limits. e assertion of experimental consistency between two data sets based solely upon tolerance overlap is not a robust defence. If either Advances in Astronomy 3 central value evolves from a fundamentally incorrect approach, the tolerance overlap is valueless. Our significant deviation from SMoC doctrine warrants explanation, satisfying the question as to how this oversight occurred. Herein, we have identified the cause (z � 0), proposed a resolution z Λ , and quantified the outcome Ω Λ . e next logical question to investigate is why an assigned value of z � 0 is inappropriate to apply, that is, why is (2) inaccurate? Considering the synergy between our eoretical Universe and physical reality, we propose that (2) is incomplete because it does not adequately consider the time dilation effects of a Massive Photonic Field.
We propose that the Dark Energy Field is a massive photonic field Evidence for this claim arose in 2008, where Storti [8] accurately calculated CMBR Temperature utilizing (9) and predicted the value of the Hubble Constant in advance of experimental measurement: where m cc = Photon Mass-Energy = 3.19515507344683 × 10 −45 (eV) [12], h = Planck's Constant = 6.62607015  Table 4. e following are the key points: (i) Equations (9) and (10)  (v) e effect of Accelerated Cosmological Expansion is to "pull" time dilation in the "opposite direction," acting to "stretch time" (vi) Cosmological Inflation and Accelerated Cosmological Expansion are derived naturally and without "fine tuning" or "retro-fitting" in [8][9][10][11].
(vii) e true value of Cosmological Age equals the Hubble Age Upon consideration of all results presented herein, we predict that future experimental observations will tend to yield values of Dark Energy Density Parameter increasingly approaching the present SMoC lower limit "Ω Λ − ΔΩ Λ ". Moreover, we propose that the difference between our theoretical Ω Λ value and the present SMoC lower limit may represent a possible candidate for spatial curvature Ω K , as follows: (i) e present SMoC Ω Λ lower limit = 0.685-0.007 = 0.678