This article is useless for explaining anything. But, it is a great example for how much the "standard" cosmological model simply invokes additional unexplained energy parameters to make it fit observations. At this point, there are really 3 different, unexplained, unconnected, "extra" energy concepts: the one that caused initial "inflation", the one that most recently causes accelerated expansion of the universe, and now this "early version" which supposedly:
"In principle, early dark energy should have been similar to the dark energy driving the expansion of the universe today. The difference, however, would be that, while modern dark energy began acting around 4 billion years ago, early dark energy would have appeared briefly in the early cosmos just thousands of years after the Big Bang. Then, it would have disappeared entirely. [emphasis added]
Nothing about why or how, so not an explanation.
And, further on, it states:
"It is unclear just how early dark energy could have led to the early formation of large galaxies in the infant universe — yet, the fact that this model could kill two cosmic birds with one stone means the team thinks it's worth pursuing."
So, they are already assuming that they can somehow find a way to claim that "early dark energy" can solve this problem, too, without even claiming to have done so , yet!!!
I guess that is a good assumption, considering that it is based on being able to imagine anything without having to explain it with physics that anybody actually understands.
But, to me, "explaining" an observation with an "explanation" that is simply putting another name on something that nobody understands is not an explanation at all.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram