The Search for Dark Matter and Dark Energy

mlimber writes "The New York Times Magazine has a lengthy article on dark matter and dark energy, discussing the past, present, and future. 'Astronomers now realize that dark matter probably involves matter that is nonbaryonic ["meaning that it doesn't consist of the protons and neutrons of 'normal' matter"]. And whatever it is that dark energy involves, we know it's not 'normal,' either. In that case, maybe this next round of evidence will have to be not only beyond anything we know but also beyond anything we know how to know.'"

Knowing Know

[Reason58]

In that case, maybe this next round of evidence will have to be not only beyond anything we know but also beyond anything we know how to know.

I knew he was going to say that.

Nothing to see here...

[L. VeGas]

Please move along.

Re:Knowing Know

[Tackhead]

> > In that case, maybe this next round of evidence will have to be not only beyond anything we know but also beyond anything we know how to know.
>
> I knew he was going to say that.

As long as we're quoting Rumsfeld, "You do high-energy physics with the particle accelerators you have. It's not the particle accelerator you might want or wish to be able to build at a later time."

Dazzling

[psaunders]

That same year, Michael Turner, the prominent University of Chicago theorist, delivered a paper in which he called this antigravitational force "dark energy." ... "It really is very different from dark matter," Turner said. "It's more energylike."

That's an educated opinion, if I've ever heard one.

Re:Telescopes invented 400 years ago?

[Tsiangkun]

I believe the children are the future.
I bet this one could have a nice career in the ministry of truth.

Re:I'm all for it

[Anonymous Coward]

If they want to find dark energy, then all they have to do is visit Redmond Washington. Steve Ballmer's soul is pure darkness and evil.

Re:Not really...

[Poruchik]

That's because dark matter is God!