AG-2025.11-652·astro-ph.CO·cross-listed: gr-qcmath-ph
How Dark is Dark Energy? A Lightcones Comparison Approach
Authors
- Mauro Carfora
- Francesca Familiari
Abstract
We present a geometrical approach that provides a non-perturbative technique, allowing the standard FLRW observer to evaluate a measurable, scale-dependent distance functional between her idealized FLRW past light cone and the actual physical past light cone. From the point of view of the FLRW observer, gathering data from sources at cosmological redshift $\widehat{z}$, this functional generates a geometry--structure--growth contribution ${Ω_Λ(\widehat{z})}$ to the FLRW cosmological constant ${\widehatΩ_Λ}$. This redshift--dependent contribution erodes the interpretation of ${\widehatΩ_Λ}$ as representing constant dark energy. In particular, ${Ω_Λ(\widehat{z})}$ becomes significantly large at very low $\widehat{z}$, where structures dominate the cosmological landscape. At the pivotal galaxy cluster scale, where cosmological expansion decouples from the local gravitation dynamics, we get ${Ω_Λ(\widehat{z})/\widehatΩ_Λ}\,=\,\mathscr{O}(1)$, showing that late--epoch structures provide an effective field contribution to the FLRW cosmological constant that is of the same order of magnitude as its assumed value. We prove that ${Ω_Λ(\widehat{z})}$ is generated by a scale-dependent effective field governed by structure formation and related to the comparison between the idealized FLRW past light cone and the actual physical past light cone. These results are naturally framed in the mainstream FLRW cosmology; they do not require exotic fields and provide a natural setting for analyzing the coincidence problem, leading to an interpretative shift in the current understanding of constant dark energy.
Submitted
29 November 20254 months ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2512.02067
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.