3 with ρ$_{m}$ ( t ) = ρ$_{m}$ ( t$_{0}$ ) a ( t ) − 3 and ρ$_{γ}$ ( t ) = ρ$_{γ}$ ( t$_{0}$ ) a ( t ) − $^{4}$. For the observed accelerated expansion, the most popular approach is to add to the sources, in Eq.(1), a dark energy term ρ$_{DE}$ ( t ) with where ω = p/ρc 2 is the equation of state parameter. For the case ω = − 1, as for a cos- mological constant, Λ, and discarding the matter and radiation terms which are relatively negligible we can easily integrate the Friedmann-Lemaˆıtre equation to find where √ 3 H = √ Λ = √ 8 πGρ$_{DE}$ . By differentiation of Eq. (4) with respect to time p times we obtain for the p th derivative Therefore, if Λ > 0 is positive, as in a De Sitter geometry, not only is the acceleration ( p = 2) positive and non-zero, but so are the jerk ( p = 3), the snap ( p = 4), the crackle ( p = 5), the pop ( p = 6) and all p ≥ 7. The insertion of the dark energy term Eq. (3) in Eq. (1) works very well as a part of the Λ CDM model. However, it is an ad hoc procedure which gives no insight into what dark energy is. Identifying the cosmological constant with vacuum energy leads to the infamous cosmological constant problem: the observed value of the cosmological constant ρ$_{Λ}$$_{obs}$ ∼ (10 − $^{3}$eV)4 and the theoretical prediction (assuming a UV cutoff at the Planck scale) ρ$_{Λ}$$_{th}$ ∼ (10 $^{18}$GeV)$^{4}$, disagree by an embarrassing 120 orders of magnitude. With this background, we shall now move to a different explanation for the accelerated ex- pansion which obviates the need for any ambiguous dark energy component, including scalar fields. This approach (which does not directly solve the cosmological constant problem) even leads to new insight into the perplexing ratio ρ$_{Λ}$$_{obs}$/ρ$_{Λ}$$_{th}$ ∼ 10 − 120 discussed above. a ( t ) = a ( t$_{0}$ ) e Ht (4) d p dt $_{p}$a ( t ) |$_{t}$$_{=0}$ = ( H ) p (5) ρ$_{DE}$ ( t ) = ρ$_{DE}$ ( t$_{0}$ ) a ( t ) − 3(1+ ω ) (3)