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.
"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?
"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
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?