9 Billion-Year-Old "Dark Energy" Reported 118
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.'"
Does this really mean anything... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Does this really mean anything... (Score:2, Interesting)
This history is getting twisted (Score:5, Interesting)
Suppose that gravity is conserved (Score:2, Interesting)
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 But sooner or latter all of these complicated theories are going to be superseded by something simpler and more encompassing, as surely as nested epicycles were inevitably superseded by the idea of the sun at the center of the solar system.
Dark Energy... only if it was a big bang (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Suppose that gravity is conserved (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Anyone here care to try to poke holes in this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Dark energy doesn't exist. Rather, the strong equivalence principle [wikipedia.org] 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" [owt.com] several times and I can't find much wrong with it.
Re:Dark Energy... only if it was a big bang (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Quote from article (Score:2, Interesting)
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."