Dark Energy

iBrian

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,732
Reaction score
238
Points
63
Location
Scotland
Oh, dear - the mag Science has awarded the postulated existence of "Dark Energy" as one of the top ten achievements of 2003. :rolleyes:

The Dar Energy argument is one of the most flawed in modern science - someone tries to view something, and seeing it not as clear as it should be, therefore concludes that a new form of energy and the entire fabric of space-time needs rewriting to account for it.

The problem here is that the speculative hypothesis has been taken on board entirely as fact, without any form of testing or - more importantly - any proper scientific explorations of alternative hypotheses.

"Dark Energy" is one paradigm that I'm hoping will die a natural death soon enough - certainly by cause of it's originating form.

Anyway, here's the article and quote from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3330527.stm

excerpt:
A series of breakthroughs in the quest to identify the mysterious fabric of the Universe has topped a list of the 10 key scientific advances of 2003.

The winning discoveries provide further evidence that the Universe is composed largely of dark matter and dark energy.

The eagerly awaited top 10, which is compiled annually by the journal Science, is always controversial, and this year's proves to be no exception.

...

The "concordance" model of the Universe proposes that over 70% is made up of dark energy, with around 25% composed of dark matter and only 5% of normal matter.

In this model, dark matter is constantly being stretched by dark energy. In February, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (Wmap) satellite took the most detailed picture yet of the cosmic microwave background - an image of the infant cosmos when it was less than 400,000 years old.

In July, astronomers from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), which aims to map out a million galaxies, published a research paper in which they superimposed their own galaxy-clustering data on Wmap's microwave data. They claim the results prove that dark energy must exist.

But on Friday (12 December), an international group of astronomers claimed analysis of data returned from the European Space Agency's (Esa) XMM-Newton satellite observatory casts doubt on the existence of dark energy.

The astronomers measured the quantity and energy of x-rays emitted by eight distant galaxy clusters. They say their results may imply that the density of matter in the universe is very high, contradicting the popular concordance model.

"To account for these results you have to have a lot of matter in the Universe and that leaves little room for dark energy," said Alain Blanchard of the Observatoire Midi-Pyrenees in France.
Click to expand...
 
God, the imp in the bottle

The imp in the bottle has come out, lurking behind that dark energy and dark matter. But it’s a benign or amiable imp.

No trouble with me from dark energy and dark matter.

Whatever science can dig out from the vast chasm of the universe, there is always God to assume the liability.

I read of a writer who fears that in parting the petals of a flower there is the discovery of nothing inside. Not with the universe; science can disentangle but cannot discard. And we are closer to God for the curiosity of scientists.

When the universe is wholly laid bare, then the whole universe is God; and we are all bits and pieces of that divine contrivance.

All praise to science for unraveling the fabric of God’s weaving, which is God Himself.

Susma Rio Sep
 
LOS ANGELES (AP) - The mysterious "dark energy" that is pushing apart the universe appears to be the constant force that Albert Einstein once predicted, according to measurements made by the Hubble Space Telescope. NASA scientists announced their findings Friday, and details are to appear in an upcoming issue of Astrophysical Journal. The force is an unknown form of energy that behaves in an opposite manner from the pull of gravity. Dark energy causes the galaxies within the universe to move apart from one another at ever-increasing speeds. Einstein called the force the "cosmological constant." He theorized its existence to balance the universe against normal gravity and keep it from collapsing on itself. Einstein ultimately dismissed the theory as his greatest blunder, but subsequent observations of supernovas, or distant stars that exploded long ago, gave it credence. Scientists now know dark energy causes the universe to expand and accelerate. It makes up an estimated 70 percent of the universe. What was unclear is whether dark energy is stable. If it grows stronger with time, the universe could end with galaxies, stars, planets and, ultimately, atoms coming unglued in a violent expansion that theorists call the "big rip." In the alternative, dark energy could fade away to the point where it flipped in force, pulling the universe back together in what's called the "big crunch." The latest Hubble observations announced Friday suggest dark energy is unwavering, just as Einstein predicted. "Right now, we're about twice as confident than before that Einstein's cosmological constant is real, or at least dark energy does not appear to be changing fast enough - if at all - to cause an end to the universe anytime soon," said Adam Riess, of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, which looks at data sent from the Hubble. Even if Einstein was wrong, dark energy won't spell an end to the universe for at least another 30 billion years, scientists said. The latest results come from the measurements of multiple supernovas that exploded when the universe was half its present age of nearly 14 billion years. The apparent brightness of a certain type of supernova allows scientists to gauge the expansion rate of the universe at different times in the past. That in turn allows them to measure any change in the strength of the force exerted by dark energy. Further research is needed to prove dark energy is indeed a constant force, scientists said. However, NASA's decision to no longer repair Hubble means the work will be interrupted until a replacement can be built and launched. --- On the Net: http://www.hubblesite.org/


 
Well...

I may be misreading I,Brian's opening to this thread, but we have to remember that we are dealing with the philosophy of the Quantum Mechanics here. Einstein was in opposition to the very core of Quantum physics, that a system of science is complete enough if it can predict observable events. He spent a great deal of time trying to refute the "new" science and thus it should be little suprise that the theory he felt was his worst work would find a home amongst those upstarts who dared to challenge the classical thought of physics.
It is unlikely that the Dark Matter theory will die a natural death, except in the case of a new theory that better explains the observations comes into popularity.
In Quantum physics there are multiple theories to explain/compute the same observations and these physicists simply use the one that best fits what they are trying to investigate. The Copenhagan Interpretation states that a thought is True not because it is closer to Absolute Truth (understanding) but it is true because it best corresponds to our experiences...
 
Namaste Windchange,

welcome to the forum.

interestingly, Roger Penrose argues against the Copenhagen Interpetation in a series of lectures with Stephen Hawking, who argues for the Copenhagen Interpetation.

i suppose that i'm a bit biased in this regard towards Dr. Hawking, as such, i tend to agree with the Copenhagen Interpetation as well :)
 
Dark matter and Buddhist universe

Dear Vaj:

I humbly request of you to give us or at to me, you being an adept in Buddhistic metaphysics, how the soul in its chain of reincarnations toward Nirvana figures in the universe where dark matter and dark energy make up a big contribution.

Susma Rio Sep
 
Namaste su,

there is no soul in Buddhism.

in any event.. that's outside the scope of this forum and thread.
 
Please help me!

Vajradhara said:
Namaste su,

there is no soul in Buddhism.

in any event.. that's outside the scope of this forum and thread.
Click to expand...

Vaj, good friend, I must make an admission: I really don't understand much about dark matter and dark energy -- maybe not even correctly at all.

Seriously, can you if you have the time and the generosity tell me in your own words for a layman as I am what are these entities called dark energy and dark matter?

I will be most obliged. Just in a few short paragraphs. You see, if a non-physicist who can understand these concepts explain it to another non-physicist, then I think I could know as well as you or to a greater extent than at present.

Sometimes I am afraid to enter into a discussion for fear that I might be altogether thinking in a totally different domain of discourse than that situated in by other posters.

Please help. Pray, don't refer me to websites. I want something personal.

Just that if you have the time and the generosity.

Susma Rio Sep
 
Namaste su,


i suppose that i could try to explain what i think it is.. though my description is bound to be inaccurate and would probably muddy the water more than clear it up.

i seriously recommend that if you have a interest in this subject that you visit any of these sites:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/ask_an_astronomer.html

this is a great one.. it's called "Ask a High-Energy Astronomer" and should be a great resource for you.

from the site:

The Question

(Submitted January 04, 2001)




What is the difference between Dark Energy and Dark Matter; aren't they considered the same thing?

The Answer

Dark Energy appears to be, based on the brightness of the most distant type-Ia supernovae, a mysterious force that is accelerating the expansion of the universe. These recent discoveries have provided good evidence that there is such an outward force on the universe (variously called the cosmological constant, "quintessence," or "dark energy").


Data about the rotation of galaxies shows us that the outer parts rotate as fast as the inner parts. This only makes sense if there is a spherical distribution of matter in each galaxy, which is not what we see. Therefore we infer that there is a certain amount of Dark Matter in each galaxy. This could be some exotic particles, or just lots of stars too small to have ignited.

Aside from this, there is also the Dark Matter that we think is there, based on theoretical arguments. This is something we can measure by looking at the cosmic microwave background and distant supernovae. These are the measurements (recently made) that imply the existence of both Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

You can read a bit about these recent results at

http://sciencenews.org/20000429/fob1.asp


And more detail than you probably want at

http://panisse.lbl.gov/public/

Hope that helps. -Kevin Boyce and Martin Still,
for "Ask a High Energy Astronomer"
 
Typo and God

Data about the rotation of galaxies shows us that the outer parts rotate as fast as the inner parts.

Is there an error in the line above? Shouldn't the phrase, 'as fast as' be 'faster than'?

Data about the rotation of galaxies shows us that the outer parts rotate faster than the inner parts.

Or I am a dummy for not knowing the absolutely true physics or mechanics or optics of a rotating disk? Isn't the nearer any part of the disk is to the center or hub, the slower the speed, and the more distant from the center the faster the speed? That's why a car runs faster with larger wheels than with smaller ones.

Well, that comes from not knowing the astrophysics of dark matter and dark energy. Anyway, I will just content myself with the vague knowledge that dark energy is not known directly but can be inferred, so also dark matter.


About God and Buddhism, Vaj, I think I am making some headway in understanding your point that there is no God in Buddhism, meaning that God of the Apostles' Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth...

The whole caboodle is it, and it's not God as distinct from any heaven and earth.

Now, the next inquiry is to make some kind of survey asking the ordinary Buddhists in Tibet certain questions, like:

Do you have a word for God in your language?

Is there such a God in your Buddhist religion?

Do you know anything about the God of the Christians?

Do you relate to Buddha like Christians relate to their God?

Susma Rio Sep
 
Namaste Su,

thanks for the post.

you ask:

Now, the next inquiry is to make some kind of survey asking the ordinary Buddhists in Tibet certain questions, like:

Do you have a word for God in your language?

Is there such a God in your Buddhist religion?

Do you know anything about the God of the Christians?

Do you relate to Buddha like Christians relate to their God?

i reply:

well.. there is a Tibetan language bible.. so i'm pretty sure that some folks know about the God of the Christians.

there is no creator deity in Buddhism.

Buddha isn't God or a god, despite how many monotheists may interpet things, the historical Buddha was a regular human, like you and i.

i would suspect that the closest word that you'd find would be either MahaBrahma or Om, depending on which aspect of the Christian God you were talking about. MahaBrahma would be, i suppose, an analog to God the Father and Om would be an analog to the Holy Spirit.

now.. you should know, of course that there are Christian Tibetans, Muslim Tibetans, Baha'i Tibetans et al. further, there are Bon Tibetans, which was their shamanistic tradition prior to the arrival of Buddhism.

 
"Or I am a dummy for not knowing the absolutely true physics or mechanics or optics of a rotating disk? Isn't the nearer any part of the disk is to the center or hub, the slower the speed, and the more distant from the center the faster the speed? "This is for a rigidly connected disk. In a planetary system, the outer planets move more slowly since they are further from the center of gravity. The galaxies ought to behave like this.
 
how cool they have a new name for ether (actually i not sure how to spell ether).

soon we will be looking for dark matter drift.
 
Actually, I've never really understood what "energy" is supposed to be! The definition seems to be "the potential for action"...but not actually substance itself. Only action?
 
Dear FYI

Ah energy in motion.....the attractive and intelligent force of consciousness the cause and effect.....

being love

Kim xx
 
In the 15th century they thought the earth was flat(or at least some did). When they found out it was round they were amazed.

We are viewing certain aspects of the universe as "flat." Won't it be exciting to see what actually turns out to be round?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top