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.'"

6 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. More from Sean Carroll by joebebel · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. This history is getting twisted by jarek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. Dark Energy... only if it was a big bang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    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_SES06-2006-00005 4.pdf
    http://physics.fau.edu/Events/Gulf_Coast_2006/Talk s/Rudmin/POSTER0H.PDF

    1. Re:Dark Energy... only if it was a big bang by Decaff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      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.


      This needs a lot more explanation. There is no expansion at the centre of a black hole, only an inevitable collapse. A black hole analogy make have made some kind of sense if the universe was closed, but it isn't - it is not only open, but accelerating. If anything, the accelerating universe is more like a white hole (where separation becomes inevitable) than a black hole. There are other types of model that approximate the universe, like gravastars, but surely not black holes.

  4. Re:Suppose that gravity is conserved by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I love it when people who are not physicists try to think "wildly outside the box" ...about physics.

          Or anyone who tries to speculate about anything that is not their field. Human knowledge has become specialized for a reason. Anyone who has completed a university degree at the doctorate or masters level knows exactly how much detail you have to learn about something to really understand it. This doesn't apply to only physics. As a physician I know more about human bodies than most people - despite the fact they've lived their entire lives in one.

          Still I cannot fault the GP - such "speculation" is what drives the whole scientific process anyway. It's the first step. If only everyone would back up their pet hypothesis with experimentation we'd advance our knowledge even faster!

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  5. Anyone here care to try to poke holes in this? by Pictish+Prince · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.