New Clues About the Nature of Dark Energy 166
Jim Mansfield writes "With the Hubble space telescope no longer being serviced by NASA, it's good to see one of their hardest working and most famous satellites in the news again. According to their press release on the nature of dark energy, Einstein may have been right after all - and even if he turns out to have been wrong, it seems that dark energy is not going 'to cause an end to the universe any time soon' ... whew, that's a relief." See also a space.com story.
Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:1, Informative)
While this may be a completely seperate idea, it definitely appears that the author is mixing these two (Dark Energy and Ether) Einstein theories.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The restaurant at the end of the universe (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Relief? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dark Matter and Ether (Score:5, Informative)
IANA astronomer, but that's what I've understood from the stuff that I've read about it. Pop science ofcourse because the math is way over my head.
http://www.ebtx.com/ntx/ntx16.htm (Score:5, Informative)
I suggest reading www.ebtx.com on the nature of dark energy. This guy is right, or at least close.
Matter attracts matter; this we know. The rest of the theory explains that space attracts space, and matter repels space. Matter and space are polar opposites (as well as logical opposites).
Einstein wasn't relative enough in his theories. He declares C as constant and bases all other observations off it, when in fact you can change all the physical constants continuously and arrive at the same results. If C changed, as long as h, G, and about 18 other 'constants' also changed, we couldn't tell, from our point of view.
Is the universe expanding, or are we all shrinking? From a relative point of view there is no difference.
Re:Einstein was wrong anyway (Score:4, Informative)
Big Rip a Big improbability (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dark Matter and Ether (Score:4, Informative)
The Tully-Fisher relation has been explained by dark matter for some time. You can find a brief derivation in Carroll & Ostlie p. 1002, for instance. There's no need to invoke MOND at all - it just comes from the fact that the luminosity is proportional to the maximum velocity to the 4th power, which you can get by using the expression for total mass contained within the galaxy derived from rotational velocity curves.
Re:non-physical physics (Score:4, Informative)
Great man.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Big Rip != Acceleration (Score:5, Informative)
There's more to dark matter... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:...End of time? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, if you've done any General Relativity you'll know that for a standard cosmology (FLRW cosmology), the final state is one of recollapse, asymptotic expansion, or accelerating expansion. This end state depends on the total mass-energy content of the universe and the nature of the dark energy (cosmological constant). It really isn't a lack of understanding of "basic calculus", but rather a deeper understanding of the physics involved. So, basically, we don't need to know all the derivatives -- we just need to have an understanding of the potential in which our universe evolves.
Re:non-physical physics (Score:2, Informative)
Re:...End of time? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course they understand basic calculus. They just also understand the currently prevailing model for the constitution of the universe and its evolution. To have the accelerating expansion stop accelerating, decelerate, or turn over would require some additional, extremely bizarre physics that's not indicated by any observation or experiment we presently have. This may seem like an odd constraint for me to place when we're talking about something as bizarre as "dark energy", but it isn't. There were a lot of theoretical reasons from both cosmology and elementary particle physics (and even a few vague extragalactic observational reasons) to at least consider that the cosmological constant may be nonzero; that's why the two high-z supernova teams did their work. And now there's still harder data suggesting same. In contrast, there's just no reason whatsoever to presume unbelievably bizarre physics of the form necessary to produce the behavior to which you appeal. The scale-factor dependence of the currently-known components of the Universe don't have the higher-order derivative behavior you appeal to; while coming up with a hypothetical field that does is pretty damned hard. That doesn't mean you're wrong, of course; it just means the odds are very highly against you. The claims they're making are almost certainly true.
Re:Einstein was wrong anyway (Score:3, Informative)
Not exactly. Einstein didn't "put in" the cosmological constant; it emerged naturally from the derivation of the equations of General Relativity. But the theory did not provide its value; it was a free variable. It needed to be given some value, and there was at the time no firm observational data to do that. The mathematically simplest course would have been to arbitrarily assume that it had a value of zero, effectively "getting rid of it." That would have implied an expanding universe, and Einstein would have scored quite a coup by predicting the expansion well before the data came in to confirm it. Instead, Einstein chose to assume a value that brought his theory into line with the then-current astrophysical view of the universe--i.e. that it was static. So Einstein didn't "put it in;" he merely chose not to arbitrarily take it out. Yet another possible value of the cosmological constant yields an accelerating expansion. But that is different from the value that Einstein assumed. So the only sense in which the "Einstein was right after all" statement applies is that the correct value may not be zero, after all.
The main problem with Dark Energy... (Score:3, Informative)
Many formulas and theories are based on observations, however, a good theory not only describes current observations, but predicts things which are not observed, yet. Like Einstein's theory predicted time-dilation, the curvature of space-time, etc. and gave a solution to the orbit of Mercur (which Newton's theory was unable to explain).
A new theory may be needed to include the Dark Enegy from its foundations or to explain these phenomenas without Dark Energy.
Re:No info... (Score:2, Informative)
Regards Luke
Re:Dark Matter and Ether (Score:5, Informative)
Yes and no: The typical Tully-Fisher coefficients for Sa, Sb, and Sc type galaxies are 9.95, 10.2, and 11.0 or so. These are all within 10%, and for Sa and Sb types, within 5%, of 10. Simple assumptions get you a coefficient of 10, if you assume that the mass-to-light ratio is the same for all spirals, and that the surface brightness is the same for all spirals.
The first assumption (mass-to-light ratio) is a clearly idiotic assumption. It assumes that galaxies form with same proportions of light and dark matter, which we *know* is not true for other types of galaxies (dwarf ellipticals, in particular). Aside: This is also the "nail in MOND's coffin", more or less - MOND was hoping to replace the dark matter hypothesis by saying physics works differently at large distances. The problem is that galaxies which contain the same amount of light-emitting matter and have the same spatial extent should therefore have the same rotation curves. This isn't true. You then have to add a new parameter with MOND to fit it, which is OK, sure, but now you've started to lose the elegance originally intended, and now MOND becomes a more complicated theory than the dark matter hypothesis, which just says "well, that galaxy formed around less dark matter."
Anyway, back to the subject: the point is that those two assumptions clearly are not completely true, and therefore there's plenty of room for a 10% correction due to forming biases in spiral galaxy types. If the mass-to-light ratio is a very weak function of mass (which is believable - perhaps smaller galaxies formed when the dark matter density was slightly lower, due to their late formation times), you can easily get those corrections.
MOND allows you to get that 10% correction due to the parametric fit of the rotation curve, which is essentially identical to the way that it's done in the dark matter case - the corrections are due to the variation in the rotation curve, which MOND says is due to a modified Newtonian field, and dark matter says is due to a dark matter density. It's the same reasoning - one isn't more natural than the other.
(It should also be noted that the Tully-Fisher data has a crapload of spread to it, just like all astronomical data. Each galaxy varies a fair amount.)