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.'"
More from Sean Carroll (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Does this really mean anything... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
It's more likely that the cosmologists make some basic assumptions to fit the preconceived evolutionary philosophy of immense periods of time for all cosmological processes. Another assumptions made is that gravity was and is the dominant force controlling the formation and operation of the universe on the large scale as well as it small beginni
Re: (Score:2)
The red shift is a primary observation. That was and is still INTERPRETED to be due to the familiar doppler effect, which implies motion. Interpreting the red shift as caused by motion is the primary cause for much of the difficulties currently accepted cosmology is having in trying to make sense out of some of the other observations made. There is also evidence from discoveries such as the fact that the red shift is "quantized", that negate the still
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I totally agree! And while we're at it, what's the deal with these so-called "a-toms"? Have you ever seen an atom? No! No one has. Atoms are just hypothetical constructs invented to maintain the dominance of the currently-funded paradigm,
Re: (Score:1)
But the point is not to explain what we see in the sky now. The point is to be able to make testable predictions about what we will see in the sky when we have the means to look in new ways with new telescope technology and deployments at some time in the future.
The problem with many alternative theo
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] can.
Re: (Score:2)
For some people it's much easier to make things up or believe in utter horse-shit rather than actually take a little time to read up on something and learn the truth. I'll never understand why most humans are that way. I guess it's part of being on the _other_ side of the Gauss curve...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This history is getting twisted (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This history is getting twisted (Score:4, Informative)
Nonetheless, Einstein's cosmological constant is not just a fudge factor he introduced. The equations of general relativity are the most general equations you can write down consistent with certain principles (the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, among others). The main terms relate the curvature of space to the local matter/energy distribution, but there is one more term which is consistent with the principles and should be included - the cosmological constant. The constant may be zero, of course, but a priori it's something you need to understand. Einstein chose a particular value of the constant to produce a static universe - a blunder, since he could have realized that almost any value of the constant gives an expanding or contracting universe.
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 com
Re: (Score:2)
Even more outside the box, is antimatter affected by gravity? If you throw a positron (the antiparticle of an electron) into an electric field it will behave oppositely to an electron. Logically, if you throw any particle with antimatter into a gravitationa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I have my doubts about that because that would imply a negative mass too would it not? Given this assumption though, then there is only one speed that antimatter would be traveling at, 100%
Re: (Score:1)
How about greater than C and it's travelling backwards through time?
Re: (Score:1)
I love it when people who are not physicists try to think "wildly outside the box"
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!
Re: (Score:1)
Only the other way round - I love it when physicists, computer guys and basically anybody with a bit of spare time, think that because they are recognized specialists in their field, they can authoritatively speak about philosophy, arts, literature, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, it is pretty annoying when someone thinks they know ev
Re: (Score:2)
I love it when art snobs think their opinion matterrs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Not to mention the number of IANAL posts that abound on Slashdot on any law-related topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
During 1905, in his spare time, he wrote four articles that participate
Re: (Score:1)
BTW, why are you posting
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, history has shown that as a general rule, simpler theories tend to be more successful.
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: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.
Re:White holes and black holes... drumroll.. pleas (Score:2)
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 l
reversed timeline singularity theory .. (Score:2)
"This needs a lot more explanation. There is no expansion at the centre of a black hole, only an inevitable collapse .."
.. :)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
That is why I said it was more like a white hole.
Also, it just doesn't work to reverse things. For example, if you reverse the timeline of the expansion of the universe you would get a decelerating collapse. Inside a black hole there is an accelerating collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
The universe is in a state of accelerating collapse. The timeline is reversed. That's why you see it expanding.
reversed timeline singularity theory doesn't work (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite, objects approach the event horizon and find it increasingly difficult to move away from it, but they don't cross it. They never even reach it. That also means a black hole cannot acrete mass, in turn meaning it can't even form to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
That's from the viewpoint of the falling object; from our point of view observing them they never finish forming. Your representation of the experience of the faller is also wrong:
Since every object that falls even a tiny moment after another sees the nearer one take an infinite time to reach the event horizon it, too, cannot reach the event horizon until an infinite time has passed (else it would over
The Many Directions of Time (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
One should wonder if when we look at possible black hole whether or not any of our understood laws of physics work inside its schwartzchild radius - assuming it has one (isn't spinning). Now one perhaps should wonder if our uni
Re: (Score:2)
But that isn't our universe's size. The oldest light we can see is close to 14 billion years old, but the universe has been expanding while that light has been travelling, and the light gets carried along with it - the 14 billi
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: (Score:2)
But if that were the case why isn't the universe collapsing due to the fact matter naturally collects and eventually forms black holes.
Even with the fact that matter creates space-time and gravitational effects, why doesn't matter simply attract all other matter in the univ
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It does.
Actually, I think I just agreed with you except if that were the case then that would mean the universe isn't actually expanding, but rather the observations we are getting from other galaxies is itself changing because of increased gravity we get the shift in the spectrum by getting less and less of that energy from other galaxy.
This is a sensible suggestio
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Dark energy does not violate the strong equivalence principle.
Matter creates space-time and gravitational effects are due to space being created by a massive body
That's not what the strong equivalence principle says. Read your own link.
making a reference frame at rest with respect to the massive body an accelerated frame
That exists in ordinary general relativity: you have to accelerate to hover at rest above a gravitati
Re: (Score:2)
In general, the Lawler piece looks like an exercise in numerology and formula hunting. In chapter 2, for example, he appears to use his composite photon model to explain the spectral lines of halogens, and suggests that this relationship is startling. But this is just the 1
Re: (Score:1)
Coiled space/time (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that GUT is at least PhD level material, I would suggest that no GUT be taken seriously until it has been peer reviewed by experts - something that does not appear to apply to Dr. James H. L. Lawler's theory (what you linked).
I did some searching on this name and found a variety of things, something about "electrical rockets," and a website purporting to show his "Professor Dr.James H.L.Lawler's revolutionary oil recovery method designed
Not Ripped Off (Score:2)
So this is kind of good news....
Tanks for the Nemories (Score:1)
Matter is denser energy. And energy is denser information.
NASA scientists estimate that 23% of matter is dark, and 73% of that dark matter is dark energy. Likewise, the majority of that dark energy is dark info.
Dark info is all that would have transpired in our universe once it ends/rebe
Re: (Score:2)
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"
Re: (Score:1)
"Nervous" is a scientists way to saying that something odd is happening in which they don't have enough information or have a big hole in a model. It does not mean they won't look into it. It is just a human way of expressing the encounter of a rough spot.
Re: (Score:1)
Does it bother anyone else when "scientists" engage in rational metaphysics and invent new forces/particles, that can not be observed or directly measured, in order to explain some theory. Does this invention of forces/particles not strike others as being unscientific.
I'm not a physicist but... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
When you build it. The info is out there, if you can find it, and tell it apart from the hoaxes.
The energy cartels of the world are not going to let anyone put anti-grav cars into production, at least not in the first half of this century, by my guess. Have you noticed how hard it is just to start production of an electric car, no matter which country you try in, even though the first electric car was built over 150 years ago?
Alternatively, you could ask the U
I sneeze on your theory .. (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(A test for mods to see if they can find humor in a more-than-usual obscure, yet obvious reference...)
Re:I sneeze on your theory .. (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sorry, but you're intruding on my patent. See, I patented this technology several years ago as a means of contragravity. But you've made a serious mistake in your description. Quite simply, the cat/spread begins to spin and hovers. The distance above the surface at which the invention hovers is based on a complex formula, but contains four variables: species and age of the cat, the type of spread, and the quality of the material below the invention.
That is, if you use butter and drop an adolescent tabby cat out the window, the cat invariably will land on its feet. This is because the spread/material quotient is non-optimized. If instead you drop the same tabby cat over an expensive, light-colored, Persian carpet and the spread is grape jam, then the cat will typically hover about 16.1415 cm above the surface. Naturally, other species of cats will vary the height, as will the age of the cat--so left to its own devices, the older cat will cause the balance to tip in favor of the spread and the carpet will be stained. (This was important when responding to a USPTO office action as they initially thought the invention might be a perpetual motion devices, and therefore, unpatentable.) Conversely, a kitten would spin so fast as to create instability in the system or even cause poor kitty to fly apart from the force.
My company's current project is to manufacture an enclosure that allows the cat to be used to create lift. The goal is to create a vehicle useful for local commutes. It operates similarly to the Wankel rotary engine, in that the walls are all lined with the same quality carpet (to maintain stability) and the spread is added as needed from an intake port. A slightly opened area on the bottom allows the force of the cat's rotation to generate lift (the exhaust port) on the appropriate surface. We believe if roadways were repaved with green outdoor carpeting, then we can solve reliance on petroleum-based fuels. Propulsion is generated by having two pairs of these devices that rotate as needed to push the vehicle forward.
Naturally, the cats will need to be changed out every few days due to nausea, dehydration and hunger. We also recommend that cats be replaced every six months for optimum performance.
Hey, if dark energy is possible, then so is the catatronic (tm) drive.
If it is a Schroedinger's cat (Score:1)
cart before th horse (Score:2)
No, equations and models do not give rise to physical effects. They attempt to describe the observed effect.
Re: (Score:2)
So, the assumption is what we're observing is correct, and so the equations and models are correct. That's what is great about assumptions---they can be completely wrong and still justify the outcome. I believe this falls into a circular reasoning fallacy. We observe X and use formulas to prove that X is true.
So, if we're all color-blind, then our observations would be totally off---but at least the m
Dark Matter is not Antigravity (Score:1)
But... (Score:1)
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.
Dark energy smells like religious mysticism to me (Score:1)
debates about the constancy of the "constant" (Score:1)
Nature abhors... scratch that. (Score:2)
Revised: Nature has a love-hate relationship with vaccum.