Slashdot Mirror
Simulation Suggests 68 Percent of the Universe May Not Actually Exist (newatlas.com)
boley1 quotes a report from New Atlas: According to the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (Lambda-CDM) model, which is the current accepted standard for how the universe began and evolved, the ordinary matter we encounter every day only makes up around five percent of the universe's density, with dark matter comprising 27 percent, and the remaining 68 percent made up of dark energy, a so-far theoretical force driving the expansion of the universe. A new study has questioned whether dark energy exists at all, citing computer simulations that found that by accounting for the changing structure of the cosmos, the gap in the theory, which dark energy was proposed to fill, vanishes. According to the new study from Eotvos Lorand University in Hungary and the University of Hawaii, the discrepancy that dark energy was "invented" to fill might have arisen from the parts of the theory that were glossed over for the sake of simplicity. The researchers set up a computer simulation of how the universe formed, based on its large-scale structure. That structure apparently takes the form of "foam," where galaxies are found on the thin walls of each bubble, but large pockets in the middle are mostly devoid of both normal and dark matter. The team simulated how gravity would affect matter in this structure and found that, rather than the universe expanding in a smooth, uniform manner, different parts of it would expand at different rates. Importantly, though, the overall average rate of expansion is still consistent with observations, and points to accelerated expansion. The end result is what the team calls the Avera model. If the research stands up to scrutiny, it could change the direction of the study of physics away from chasing the ghost of dark energy. "The theory of general relativity is fundamental in understanding the way the universe evolves," says Dr Laszlo Dobos, co-author of the new paper. "We do not question its validity; we question the validity of the approximate solutions. Our findings rely on a mathematical conjecture which permits the differential expansion of space, consistent with general relativity, and they show how the formation of complex structures of matter affects the expansion. These issues were previously swept under the rug but taking them into account can explain the acceleration without the need for dark energy." The study has been published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. You can view an animation that compares the different models here.
This was published March 30, 2017 so it's not a April fools joke.
Suck it, dark matter! You ain't real, bro! *High-fives girlfriend* Aww, she's not real either. ;(
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
This was published March 30, 2017 so it's not a April fools joke.
In your face, dark matter! You ain't real, bro! *High-fives girlfriend* Aww, she's not real either. ;(
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
INB4:
Black Matter Lives!
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
"Maybe nothing can go faster than the speed of light because that's the tick-rate of the server our simulation is running in."
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Can you make it brighter, so it makes my eyeballs bleed?
I think 100% of the universe exists. It seems the real story is that scientists just don't know what that 100% is comprised of.
If the expansion of the universe is not consistent, what causes the variation?
Einstein's equations are non-linear. The metric expansion of space-time depends on how much matter and energy there is inside that portion of space-time.
Also, quantum fluctuations in the hot dense "quantum soup" before the big bang grew into large scale structures: mass seems to be concentrated in the walls of huge bubbles, as super-clusters of galaxies, with very little mass/energy inside.
At the largest scales, the universe is still homogeneous, so on average, the expansion rate should be constant. But on the scale of the "bubbles", the differences in mass/energy density cause differences in the metric expansion of space-time.
Until recently, this was ignored in simulations, because Einstein's equations are currently impossible to solve exactly at that scale. So now they used better approximations than before, that include this varying metric expansion, and found they don't need dark energy flows to explain some observations. Instead, differences in expansion rates make it appear that some regions "flow" towards other regions, despite everything expanding.
From our point of view expansion appears to be accelerating because of this, causing us to believe that the cosmological constant Lambda (a.k.a. Dark Energy) is not zero. So now it seems they can explain a seemingly accelerating expansion with Lambda=0 using normal metric expansion.
a very questionable understanding of this reality
Wait, do you have an understanding of this reality that agrees with observation? That would be revolutionary.
what happened *prior* to the "Big Bang"
*prior* is a function of time. Time didn't exist until the Big Bang. Hawking's equations suggest that time only approaches a limit of zero at the Big Bang but never achieves it. Ergo, the question you're asking doesn't even make sense semantically. cf. "do you have an understanding of this reality that agrees with observation?"
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
There didn't seem to be enough matter to explain the evolution of the universe, so scientists guessed at what might be causing it. It looked like there was more matter that we couldn't see, so they invented the idea of 'dark matter', which was something that had mass but was otherwise pretty inert so we didn't see it. BTW: 'dark' here is an old use meaning 'unable to be seen', such as 'the dark side of the moon' being the side that faces away from earth, not the side that is not lit by the sun. The other possibility was that gravity was somehow slightly different when operating over very large distances and times. This was settled because astronomers got better at calculating the distributions of mass in the universe when they thought there was something interesting to find, and found there were cases, such as the 'bullet nebula' where there were very significant amounts of mass in different places to the star-like matter we could see. This gives credence to the idea that 'dark matter' is a real sort of 'stuff', our can be treated as a sort of stuff, rather than just an systematic difference in the equations.
Okay, suppose we assume for now there is lots of invisible stuff that has mass and momentum, but otherwise does not interact with anything else much (think of neutrinos, but more so). If we take our best assumptions as to the right amount of dark matter, then there is a slight error which means something else is pushing the universe apart. If it looks like extra energy, we call it 'dark energy' and astronomers start looking for ways to detect it. In the meanwhile, other people look for a rival model where there is a systematic error in the equations for very large distances and times. That's pretty much where we are now. Indeed, the two explanations are not different - one just describes the error as 'extra energy' and the other one does not - until we get some new experimental evidence that shows which explanation is more useful.
Dark energy is a small correction term to our universe. If you want something we really don't understand, try the inflationary period of the early universe. We know it got really big, really fast, but really evenly; but we don't have any of the details.
"Time didn't exist until the Big Bang. "
Of course it did. What preceded Big Bang was Seinfeld.
Er, no - that's not entanglement. In quantum entanglement changing the state of one particle instantly changes the state of the other.
*prior* is a function of time. Time didn't exist until the Big Bang. Hawking's equations suggest that time only approaches a limit of zero at the Big Bang but never achieves it. Ergo, the question you're asking doesn't even make sense semantically. cf. "do you have an understanding of this reality that agrees with observation?"
Ergo, it's fucking stupid. If you suppose that some initial state of the Universe existed at some fundamental T0, before the clock started ticking, then:
How was it set into motion? Who created the initial state? Why does the Universe exist at all?
These aren't questions for science to answer. This is the realm of religion. To suggest that the universe we're in is a simulation is no different than suggesting some deity created everything. These questions are by their nature unanswerable. If we pierce the veil and escape from our simulation, meet some god, ascend to another plane, etc., we'll just be at level 2 wondering if there's a level 3. There always exists the possibility that there's something beyond your bubble that is influencing your bubble in ways you can't perceive.
If you are stating that "hidden information" is possessed by the entangled particles, Bell's Inequalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... refutes that. Or at least it refutes "local hidden variables".
IOW, Bell's experiment showed that the entangled particles can't be established as opposites at the time of creation.
(||) Nehmo (||)
I applaud your strategy of getting the hard stuff done first.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."