Slashdot Mirror
9 Billion-Year-Old "Dark Energy" Reported
loid_void writes to mention a New York Times article about the discovery that dark energy, or antigravity, was present at the formation of the universe. A team of 'dark energy prospectors' at the Space Telescope Science Institute theorizes that this may have directed the evolution of the cosmos. By observing supernova activity almost 8 billion years in the past, the team was able to study whether or not dark energy has changed over the millennia. From the article: "The data suggest that, in fact, dark energy has changed little, if at all, over the course of cosmic history. Though hardly conclusive, that finding lends more support to what has become the conventional theory, that the source of cosmic antigravity is the cosmological constant, a sort of fudge factor that Einstein inserted into his cosmological equations in 1917 to represent a cosmic repulsion embedded in space. Although Einstein later abandoned the cosmological constant, calling it a blunder, it would not go away. It is the one theorized form of dark energy that does not change with time. Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology who was not on the team, said: 'Had they found the evolution was not constant, that would have been an incredibly earthshaking discovery. They looked where no one had been able to look before.'"
Sean Carroll (and some other notable physicists) have a blog which covered this in more detail. See http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/11/16/dark-energy-h as-long-been-dark-energy-like/
He provides a great explanation for the reader without familiarity with advanced physics, but at a level which is still interesting to the technical reader.
A while ago I was reading a similar post on slashdot about dark matter, energy etc. One gentleman calld it all bs and pointed out a link to a website http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=knb8hx 39&keywords=darkenergy#dest which I decided to follow for the heck of it that basically had conventional eletromagnetic explanations for absolutely every mystery in astrophyics. Apparently the whole dark energy fiasco in astrophysics arises only because astronomers don't study the physics surrounding plasma and electricity enough to recognise the kind of events that are really happening in space. I think the idea is enticing. So in short this could be more evidence that really dark energy is a misinterpretation of real physics or data from redshifts and so on that is a systemic error, always leading to the same result
When Einsteins introduced the general theory of relativity, the universe was believed to be static. Hence, Einstein introduced a constant to make it so. The expansion of space is inherent to the original formulation. Later when Hubble presented his findings that the universe was in fact not static, Einstein realized that he made, what he called, the blunder of his life.
Just trying to wildly "think outside the box" here: suppose that gravity is conserved - for every quantity of gravity that is exerted by matter, an equal quantity of antigravity is left behind in the "ether".
The antigravity drives the expansion of the universe, and the gravity drives the accretion of matter into stars and planets. The "big bang" then was some kind of probabalistic quantum event that separated out some gravity and antigravity.
This is not science, I know. But sooner or latter all of these complicated theories are going to be superseded by something simpler and more encompassing, as surely as nested epicycles were inevitably superseded by the idea of the sun at the center of the solar system.
Paid Q&A/Research
Honestly, there are real alternatives to the big bang theory. One of them is the idea that our "universe" is at the center of a black hole, which effectively places the same limits (you can't get out, and neither can light) on the boundary.
5 4.pdfk s/Rudmin/POSTER0H.PDF
If that's the case, the "big bang" turns into the initial collapse; and the "dark energy" that drives expansion becomes the space-energy expansion inside the schwarzschild radius that is needed for conservation of energy.
I have a relative who is working on some of this...
http://absimage.aps.org/image/MWS_SES06-2006-0000
http://physics.fau.edu/Events/Gulf_Coast_2006/Tal
Dark energy doesn't exist. Rather, the strong equivalence principle is exactly correct: Matter creates space-time and gravitational effects are due to space being created by a massive body, making a reference frame at rest with respect to the massive body an accelerated frame.
This obviates the need for "dark energy". If matter creates space then of course the universe will expand. No need for a fudge factor. I have read through James Lawler's "photonic theory of matter" several times and I can't find much wrong with it.
Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
A constant vacuum energy of about -1 probably rules out some of the wilder ideas about the future of the universe, like the Big Rip, in which the end of the universe could be only a few tens of billions of years away.
So this is kind of good news....
"Dark energy makes us nervous."
/. before but this quote is a good example of what's been discussed. Does it bother anyone else when a scientist makes a statement like this to a layman audience (i.e. majority of NYT's readership)?
This topic has been worn out on
It makes it seem like refinement or going back to the drawing board is a bad thing. As opposed to what it really is, a step forward to discovering the correct basis of how the universe works through the scientific method. Using words like "nervous" implies a thought process where science is equivalent to religion based on unwavering doctrine. Imho, half of the problem with the perception of science today is due to this (as an obvious example, ID).
It's kind of like if the original Ohm's Law was E=IR+1 and the "+1" was swamped out by tolerance. Then someone comes along and says that we haven't been looking at this right. Wouldn't the correct response be "Well, it's really exciting that we're discovering that E=IR may be the correct equation. If it pans out, it will add to scientific knowledge and open up all sorts of possibilities. If not, then we'll just keep searching."
Versus "This fundamental change to Ohm's equation makes us nervous."
Can someone tell me when I get my anti-grav car?
Read the linked article. And do some of your own schneidics, instead of acting like a nerdy science bully.
--
make install -not war
There is a collapse only the timeline is reversed so we see the universe expanding
Re:Dark Energy... only if it was a big bang (Score:5, Interesting)
davecb5620@gmail.com
I thought matter was coiled space / time bound by some form of energy... Isn't it?
"the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure"
If you're so clever answer this then. If a dropped cat always lands on its feet and dropped toast always lands butter side down, what happens if you strap a slab of toast butterside up, to the back of a cat and drop it out a window.
davecb5620@gmail.com
The universe is in a state of accelerating collapse. The timeline is reversed. That's why you see it expanding.
In our timeline we see the universe in a state of accelerating expansion. If you reverse that, you get decelerating collapse.
No amount of timeline flipping will produce a state of accelerating collapse.
The reverse of accelerating collapse is decelerating expansion. But we don't see that - supernova data at the end of the last decade revealed we see accelerating expansion.
It's funny when people say things like "the source of cosmic antigravity is the cosmological constant". It's like saying that airplanes are kept aloft by bernoulli's equations.
No, equations and models do not give rise to physical effects. They attempt to describe the observed effect.
What? Me? Sig?
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Very bad article from the NY Times.
If our universe is a black hole in some other universe, who says that the natural laws of that uber-universe are anything like ours?
If it doesn't act like a black hole, it isn't a black hole. Black holes accelerate matter towards their centres. We have models of condensed states where that does not happen, but we don't call them black holes. An example is the gravastar.
Will the scientists exploring this metal become the first team of costumed superheroes, evolving themselves due to the cosmic radiation.
Am I the only one who giggles at the prospect of "radiation allowing you to stretch your cells". I still think Dr. Fantastic (PHD) should just call himself "Tumor Man" and let all speculative debate about his powers lie to rest.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
Bing bang theory is the equivalent of the theory that is saying that earth is flat and that earth or sun is the center of the Universe. At the beginning is the wrong assumption that time is liner and unidirectional. Alexander Franklin Mayer thinks this is not true and I full agree. Some very exciting stuff can be found here: http://www.afmayer.net/. Basically Universe is eternal, doesn't have beginning nor have end as a whole because time has no beginning or end. Universe is finite but unbounded.
Well, clearly it must or we couldn't be inside one. Jeesh, think about these things before you post...
Sarcasm aside, you've hit the nail on the head for these "alternate theories". We should be poking around looking for new ways to understand things, but most of these people are cracked.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The existence of neither dark energy nor dark matter have been materially proven, yet already "scientists" are treating them as gospel and trying hang yet more theories off the presumption that they exist. There's a word to describe such mentality: religion. Physicists and cosmologists hellbent on identifying a Unifying Theory of the Universe would be wise to take a dozen steps back and reflect: a Unifying Theory sounds an awful lot like a monotheistic god. Jehovah/Allah is the original "unifying theory" for billions of believers. People who now believe in dark energy might just as well be attending church services. It's the same neurology at work.
loid_void says "It is the one theorized form of dark energy that does not change with time." There are some now who accept the "constant" but who think that it is a variable, yielding various results concerning the expansion of the universe.
then it will be in a quantum state that is 50% up and 50% down. That was easy, though I guess we need a Schroedinger's pot of butter too.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
Perhaps the universe is doing BOTH which is exapanding and collapsing - at the same time.
This is meaningless.
Ps: I believe it was Einstein who suggested that "Imagination is more important than knowledge".. So, please, let others expand their imaginaition and stop pretending like you know everything - you limit your own potential through your inability to consider the implications of what is being offered.
Einstein was entitled to say that. Others are entitled to expand their imaginations as much as they like, but if they then claim that the results of their imaginations is scientific, then they should expect to be judged scientifically. If they want to use terms like 'black holes' they have know what that term actually means. You can't use such terms freely, and to do is itself to pretend to know more than you do, and to not consider the implications. Black holes have known properties. That includes accelerated expansion to the centre (at least to the Plank length); no amount of wild imagination can change that without breaking special or general relativity. You are quoting Einstein - are you claiming to know more than him about those?
Just a thought, cheers.
All I am asking for is some thought....
the discovery that dark energy, or antigravity, was present at the formation of the universe. "...[T]he source of cosmic antigravity is the cosmological constant, a sort of fudge factor that Einstein inserted into his cosmological equations in 1917 to represent a cosmic repulsion embedded in space."
Revised: Nature has a love-hate relationship with vaccum.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?