The Universe is Expanding Faster Than it Should Be (nationalgeographic.com) 157
It's one of the biggest puzzles in modern astronomy: Based on multiple observations of stars and galaxies, the universe seems to be flying apart faster than our best models of the cosmos predict it should. Evidence of this conundrum has been accumulating for years, causing some researchers to call it a looming crisis in cosmology. Now a group of researchers using the Hubble Space Telescope has compiled a massive new dataset, and they've found a-million-to-one odds that the discrepancy is a statistical fluke. From a report: In other words, it's looking even more likely that there's some fundamental ingredient of the cosmos -- or some unexpected effect of the known ingredients -- that astronomers have yet to pin down. "The universe seems to throw a lot of surprises at us, and that's a good thing, because it helps us learn," says Adam Riess, an astronomer at Johns Hopkins University who led the latest effort to test the anomaly.
The conundrum is known as the Hubble tension, after astronomer Edwin Hubble. In 1929 he observed that the farther a galaxy is from us, the faster it recedes -- an observation that helped pave the way toward our current notion of the universe starting with the big bang and expanding ever since. Researchers have tried to measure the universe's current rate of expansion in two primary ways: by measuring distances to nearby stars, and by mapping a faint glow dating back to the infant universe. These dual approaches provide a way to test our understanding of the universe across more than 13 billion years of cosmic history. The research has also uncovered some key cosmic ingredients, such as "dark energy," the mysterious force thought to be driving the universe's accelerating expansion.
The conundrum is known as the Hubble tension, after astronomer Edwin Hubble. In 1929 he observed that the farther a galaxy is from us, the faster it recedes -- an observation that helped pave the way toward our current notion of the universe starting with the big bang and expanding ever since. Researchers have tried to measure the universe's current rate of expansion in two primary ways: by measuring distances to nearby stars, and by mapping a faint glow dating back to the infant universe. These dual approaches provide a way to test our understanding of the universe across more than 13 billion years of cosmic history. The research has also uncovered some key cosmic ingredients, such as "dark energy," the mysterious force thought to be driving the universe's accelerating expansion.
And what is really happening is (Score:5, Informative)
The current theories we have are broken. No surprise. Unless we eventually get quantum-gravity, I will regard all predictions about how large-scale or very small scale Physics "will" behave as speculation until experimentally verified.
Re: And what is really happening is (Score:2)
Unless gravity turns out to be even more fundamental than quantum mechanics.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem of course is that GR breaks down at quantum scales.
Does the universe truly contain singularities? Seems unlikely. But really, who knows. Maybe it really does.
It seems that GR needs some revisions for small scale gravitational interactions, even there aren't gravitons.
So far, the most success
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very much not a theorist but is it possible for quantum mechanics to no longer apply at extremely high energies, without violating any known experiments? Then the universe is just relativistic quantum mechanics (with some high energy cutoff) operating in curved space time.
Re: (Score:2)
Does GR break down at quantum scales or does quantum break down at very high energies? Both work fine under all experimental and observable conditions except for the very early universe.
Not just the very early universe.
Any GR singularity is a problem for QM.
I'm very much not a theorist but is it possible for quantum mechanics to no longer apply at extremely high energies, without violating any known experiments? Then the universe is just relativistic quantum mechanics (with some high energy cutoff) operating in curved space time.
Absolutely.
The current universe, described by QFT is "Just relativistic quantum mechanics"
With 1 major exception: Gravity.
Most QM physicists want gravity to be a force, but Einstein's postulates still remain true- Gravity isn't a force, and all attempts of describing it as one have failed.
Loop Quantum Gravity keeps General Relativity, but allows QM to not break down at high energies, but making more complicated spacetimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know the only observable singularity is the big bang.
That's fair.
What happens in black holes stays in black holes ;)
Not quite, but the technicality isn't worth getting into the Blackhole Information Paradox over.
Re: (Score:2)
So the question is whether there is a theory that looks like QM in curved space at "low" energies (eg
Can I have quantum mechanics operating as waves on some "classical" medium that doesn't obey the uncertainty principal, but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well since the universe is expanding, going forward in timespace 1 second is a longer distance than going back 1 second, making time-reversal symmetry sketchy except in limited fringe cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that problem only exists because Black Holes apparently evaporate, which is a bizarre effect of a bizarre confluence of GR and QM already.
I.e., the BIP is already 3 layers deep in hypothesized problems existing in theories with known open questions.
Personally, there's enough evidence suggesting T-symmetry is nothing but a postulate that made some early physicists feel better, that I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over violations of T-symmetry in GR. Particularly as long as there is actual o
Re: And what is really happening is (Score:2)
So am I wrong to think that what is more fundamental than what is a matter of perspective?
Re: (Score:2)
Did Einstein have any theories on this? He seems to be proven right on things many years later.
Re:And what is really happening is (Score:4, Interesting)
"einstein de sitter space-time"
einstein believed the universe is static. he forced this belief into his own equations by introducing a "cosmological constant" with a very specific value so they allowed for a static universe.
when other scientists showed that the field equations pointed at a dynamic universe anyway he found the idea preposterous and dismissed it as wrong interpretations or directly miscalculations. only after hubble brought up hard evidence did he reconsider, and presented a theory with de sitter for a continuously expanding universe. he didn't live to know that the expansion was actually accelerating.
the funny thing is that he could have realized all that from his own groundbreaking discoveries a decade earlier, had he not been so stubborn about that particular. even the brightest among us can only see that far.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless we eventually get quantum-gravity, I will regard all predictions about how large-scale or very small scale Physics "will" behave as speculation until experimentally verified.
So you are disregarding every prediction of Einstein then? After all General Relativity cannot explain what happens inside a black hole. The Milky Way does not rotate around a super massive black hole. It rotates around your mom. Thanks I'll be here all week.
Re: (Score:2)
After all General Relativity cannot explain what happens inside a black hole.
Sure it can, we just don't think it's correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the mathematics of General Relativity requires division by zero for inside black holes.
Which is a description of what happens inside. It's a singularity. A point of infinite density, the effects of which are limited only by the fact that spacetime has a maximal speed limit of time and space.
General Relativity describes everything else about black holes including how they form.
Yup. And it describes what's inside. We just don't think it's correct.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how 'division by zero' works. If you get a division by zero, then not only is the answer *unknown* (not wrong, or right, *unknown*), it also means the mathematical model you are using is not usable in that situation.
The *model* has a singularity at the center of the black hole. Because of that, it tells us nothing about what is actually at the center of a black hole.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not how 'division by zero' works.
That's entirely incorrect.
If you get a division by zero, then not only is the answer *unknown* (not wrong, or right, *unknown*),
Wrong again.
it also means the mathematical model you are using is not usable in that situation.
Wrong for the third time. I'll give you a caveat that it's a good indication that the model is incomplete.
There's no rule that says a singularity cannot be real, we just have strong suspicions that they are not.
The fact that the Schwartzchild Metric is over radius does not imply that it's not a valid physical description of spacetime.
In fact, the GR term for it is an incomplete geodesic.
Spacetime ends at the singularity.
There's no rule that says spacetime cannot e
Re: (Score:2)
There's no rule that says a singularity cannot be real, we just have strong suspicions that they are not.
And that is not how science works. By that logic, no one has proven Bigfoot does not exit therefore they must exist? Is that your logic? There's no rule that says spacetime cannot end. It just doesn't "smell right"
“Smells” right also is not science. Quantum mechanic principles also do not “smell right” either. Should we also discount them too?
Re: (Score:2)
And that is not how science works. By that logic, no one has proven Bigfoot does not exit therefore they must exist? Is that your logic? There's no rule that says spacetime cannot end. It just doesn't "smell right"
You just reduced the most successful forward-predictive theory of all time with Bigfoot sightings?
You're a fucking joke.
“Smells” right also is not science. Quantum mechanic principles also do not “smell right” either. Should we also discount them too?
Quite a bit of science is based on smell. When something doesn't smell right, you go looking for correct answers.
No one is discounting anything. They're looking for possible better answers.
Back to school, fuckwit.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I want you to boldly exclaim to him that it must be wrong, because of the singularity in the calculation.
When you're done with that, go explain to the QM guys how the quanta for the electromagnetic field actually doesn't live forever, thus photons decay, because there's a singularity in the math.
Congratulations, you've just disproven modern physics. Because singularities mean something's wrong.
You've just di
Re: (Score:2)
You just reduced the most successful forward-predictive theory of all time with Bigfoot sightings? You're a fucking joke.
No, you did. Your argument is a triple negative argument: "There's no rule that says a singularity cannot be real, we just have strong suspicions that they are not." Something cannot exist because no one has proven that it cannot be real?
Quite a bit of science is based on smell. When something doesn't smell right, you go looking for correct answers.
Again wrong. Science is not based on smell. Science is based on evidence. Hunches, guesses point to possible answers. Answers still require evidence.
No one is discounting anything. They're looking for possible better answers.
Except you just did. Did you scroll up?
Back to school, fuckwit.
So you are the type of person to resort to insults when challenged. That is who you ar
Re: (Score:2)
The supermassive black hole in our galaxy is speculated as 146 million miles acress. We can't _measuer_ what is inside it, but there is no reason to suspect it is a point mass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What part of general relativity says _anything_ about the interior density or structure of a black hole. Even popular science magazines like Discover have gotten this right, see https://www.discovermagazine.c... [discovermagazine.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
At the point of collapse, it will collapse infinitely.
The only possible result is a single mathematical point.
Even popular science magazines like Discover have gotten this right, see https://www.discovermagazine.c... [www.discovermagazine.c] [discovermagazine.com] .
FTA:
At some point, the collapsing core will be smaller than an atom, smaller than a nucleus, smaller than an electron. It’ll eventually reach a size called the Planck Length, a unit so small that quantum mechanics rules it with an iron fist.
This is the quantum mechanical argument.
GR is quite clear- it's a single mathematical point. GR doesn't observe the planck length.
Until there is an accepted theory of quantum gravity, GR is the only real model we have, and it says it's a point.
Re: (Score:2)
GR absolutely predicts that it is a single point.
That's why it's called a singularity.
Re: (Score:2)
But your mom has a black hole. Thanks I'll be here all week.
Re: (Score:2)
> After all General Relativity cannot explain what happens inside a black hole.
It doesn't need to. The boundaries of a black hole are not a sharp cutoff. They describe a time-space that we can't reacive any more information from, but there is no reason to think it is unique, especially since black holes can _evolve_ from collecting matte together, such as a large enough star cooling down and compressing below the Swarzschild radius.
Re: (Score:2)
The current theories are mathematical constructs. For them to be broken can only mean they are inconsistent. Newton's theory of gravity is not inconsistent, it works great inside its boundaries. Same for Einstein and quantum theory.
If you mean the current theories are incomplete, then duh, who knew?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Quantum theory and General relativity apply to the same subject and are really one theory. And that theory _is_ inconsistent.
Re: And what is really happening is (Score:2)
The difference between speculation and science is measurement. That's obvious.
What's a little more subtle is that not all measurements are created equal. Most of the more famous verifications of relativity were made from Earth or very near the Earth.
I would exclude things like empirical verification of the Shapiro delay because it made a radar measurement of the travel time to a different planet at two different phases of its orbit, so the measurement spanned a bigger baseline than Earth or its gravity well
Re: (Score:2)
Quite true.
No Limits (Score:2)
Unless we eventually get quantum-gravity, I will regard all predictions about how large-scale or very small scale Physics "will" behave as speculation until experimentally verified.
Physics is an experimental science: you should always regard any prediction about how physics will behave as speculation until experimentally verified. No matter the scale and regardless of whether we discover a theory of quantum gravity, this will still remain true.
Re: (Score:2)
Physics is an experimental science: you should always regard any prediction about how physics will behave as speculation until experimentally verified. No matter the scale and regardless of whether we discover a theory of quantum gravity, this will still remain true.
Well, if the get the theory fixed, I am willing to regard predictions made with it as "good initial hypotheses". Sure, that is just a different way of saying "speculation of higher quality".
Re: And what is really happening is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Even the statement "the universe is expanding" isn't quite right. We can see things moving further away from each other, but we can't see the edge of the universe. There probably isn't even an edge at all, just the furthest point any part of the big bang has reached.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be trying to conceive of the expanding universe as if it were an inflating balloon you are looking at from the outside, where thinking of it of it from the inside like measuring the moon's orbit to the Earth with measuring sticks that are shrinking and clocks that are slowing down would be a better model of reality.
Should? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Universe is Expanding Faster Than it Should Be
Ha! I love how whenever there is a disagreement between model and reality, people tend to blame reality for not doing what it should.
I mean, 'Universe Expanding Faster Than Models Predict' or 'Models Underestimate Expansion of Universe' would be far more accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! I love how whenever there is a disagreement between model and reality, people tend to blame reality for not doing what it should.
But we wouldn't know there was anything interesting going on, were it not for the fact that we had a theory, that fails to predict reality. In this case, a "failed" theory conveys information. It is worth noting that Newton's laws of motion are a "failed" theory under the extreme conditions that result in relativistic effects, but scientists and engineers continue to use the old theory, because it is not obsolete, but merely incomplete. Relativistic effects only make sense with respect to Newtonian mechanic
It has to. (Score:2, Funny)
Hard sell on national geographic... (Score:5, Informative)
... so here's the content:
Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Reality doesn't match our model so reality must be wrong?
Is this what we've regressed to now?
Re: (Score:2)
Reality doesn't match our model so reality must be wrong?
I think quite a common reaction to unexpected outcomes is "this cannot happen". Prudent software engineers trap errors that logically cannot happen, based on code analysis, but nonetheless, impossible things have an annoying tendency to occur. This is where you can indulge in a little witticism, such as "This error is logically impossible. Please adjust your universe."
Sure it is (Score:2)
Things to do, people to kill...
There may be no acceleration at all ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait ... Hear me out ...
Subir Sarkar [ox.ac.uk] is a professor of theoretical physics at Oxford. He has done important work in providing evidence that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating.
Instead, he is saying that there is a dipole effect because earth, and the galaxy cluster that we are in, are all moving in space, and that gives the effect of accelerating expansion.
He provides compelling evidence (for a non-specialist at least) for what he says. He also casts doubts on the evidence for acceleration by analyzing their data (supernovae as standard candles, and their red shift), since a dipole effect is observed on that.
Watch his lecture at Oxford [youtube.com] , or his shorter talk with Sabine Hossenfelder [youtube.com] (no slides though).
If his findings hold up to scrutiny, this will lead to the Nobel Prize for the acceleration no longer being true. Saul Perlmutter and Adam Reiss jointly got it for the discovery of dark energy. The latter is the one quoted in the article and summary.
Reiss has dismissed Sarkar's finding, so far.
This is exciting, since it removes one mystery about dark energy. More importantly, it shows the rigors of the scientific method.
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to dismiss your comment as "crank," but then I saw Sabine Hossenfelder's name. So now I'm listening!
Re:There may be no acceleration at all ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Did you actually listen to any of the videos I linked to?
Did you check the credentials and work of the authors?
Correction (Score:3)
The universe is expanding exactly as fast as it should be. It's our understanding of it that isn't expanding fast enough.
NO, it's NOT (Score:2)
"The Universe is Expanding Faster Than it Should Be"
No, I guarantee you it isn't.
It's just expanding faster than we think it should, which means we're missing something or that we have a faulty model.
In reality, it's expanding at exactly the rate it "should" be.
No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific theory though just has a lack of understanding and data to explain it.
This is precisely the driving force behind scientific discovery. Before we can discover that the universe is expanding faster than we expect, we have to have an existing theory of an expanding universe. We discover interesting stuff to study, which is interesting because it is not what we expected. If we just blundered about without any theory at all, I would suggest that we would not discover anything.
I come to this as an engineer, not a scientist. I like lots of theory. I work out what I think an electron
Could we be in a void? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it possible that this apparent acceleration could also be explained by the visible universe (or a large part of it) being in a region of unusually low density in the universe (so the effect of gravity from the more densely packed parts of the universe we can't see is stretching our part of the universe out)?
I'm curious if this would explain the observations and if so whether this explanation would require more or less change to our existing theories. I'm guessing there is a good reason (not just the assumption we are in a typical part of the universe) why this explanation isn't considered (I think maybe something to do with CMB) but I'm hoping someone can explain why.
Re:Could we be in a void? (Score:4, Informative)
No, and for two reasons.
Firstly, the universe is expanding symmetrically - all points are moving away from all other points. Any 'outside' force causing that would have to be symmetrical, but since gravity is an inverse square force, a spherically symmetrical amount of mass outside the sphere of the observable universe would have zero net gravitational effect on anything in that sphere. e.g., if the earth was a hollow sphere, you would feel no net gravitational force inside it because the gravity from one side would cancel the gravity from the other side.
Secondly, just as the light from outside the observable universe will never reach us because that region of space is expanding away from us faster than the speed of light, so will any gravity from outside never reach us, since gravity also moves at the speed of light. Everything outside the cosmic horizon is causally disconnected from our region of space. But the expansion of the universe is uniform everywhere, from regions far distant (and closer to the cosmic horizon), to regions closer to us that are causally disconnected from anything outside the observable universe.
Well, that's my understanding of it anyway..
The Universe is expanding faster (Score:2)
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all night. Tip the veal and try your waitress.
Re:The Universe is expanding faster (Score:4, Funny)
Then it should be. Just like my wife.
They say that women who put on a bit of weight as they age tend to live longer than the men who point it out to them.
It's caused by Universal Observing (Score:2)
Observing the Universe makes it expand faster, due to a quantum quirk. We have to shut out all telescopes or risk the Great Rip, tearing matter apart, which some scientists say is even worse than Covid.
Misnomers: "dark energy" and "dark matter" ... (Score:2)
Dark energy is more properly, "invisible energy" and dark matter is really "invisible gravity."
Physics and magic (Score:2)
Fred Hoyle's Steady State Theory and black holes ---- there's your answer!
Duh (Score:2)
You do realize that the universe is asymptotically contracting, right? I donâ(TM)t understand why this concept is so hard for people to grasp, this is relativity 101. We exist within the event horizon of a black hole, so the equation would be (E)^2 = (m(s^2 + t^2))^2
Re: Simulation (Score:3)
That's what happens when you use floating point numbers instead of integers in your simulations!
But more seriously, that our understanding of the Universe needs refinement is without question. See our attempts at reconciling the theory of gravity with quantum gravity, and our lack of a theory of everything (TM).
Re: (Score:2)
Ha jokes is on you, what you think is gravity is merely the acceleration required to remain stationary in a collapsing TimeSpace field; there is no such force as gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that one can map the contents of the universe to a sphere surrounding it is merely a mathematical mapping, nothing more. There's no one or thing outside shining a light making the universe a hologram.
Anyhow, the whole idea is what philosophers would call brittle. What makes you think you are a simulation? The simulation? In which case, if we are in a simulation, then your belief that we are is a simulated belief and not a well-founded one. If we are not in a simulation, then your belief is simply i
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually an interesting question. If the universe is a black hole, if there is enough to matter in our universe for it to have a Swarzschild radius, are there regions closer to the extremes of the structure that can see a bit further out than the central structure? Boundaries of black holes are not strict. And even then, is there a region that is effectively outside our own black hole which can detect our universe's gravitational mass, velocity, angular momentum, and charge? Was our universe formed ins
Re: I think I know why (Score:2)
I think someone should check on Anonymous Coward.
<Your vacuous Subject here> (Score:2)
Okay, you were probably going for Funny, but why not replace the vacuous Subject with your joke?
Re: I think I know why (Score:2)
Re: I think I know why (Score:2)
Regarding career choice, mine is at least good enough to make my tax returns annoyingly complicated for my accountant.
No doubt Greggs or Sports Direct payroll does all tax automatically for you. (Substitute national equivalent companies where appropriate for your locale.)
Re: I think I know why (Score:2)
Then why don't you move along?
Who elected you hall monitor?
Unsolicited humble brag noted.
You (or some other AC with similar writing style) raised the subject of my career choice.
You'd get along great with creimer... You both seem like gasbags who like talking about yourselves?
Literally no idea what you are talking about.
If all you have is this juvenile crap rather than something relevant about universe expansion, then maybe you should "move along", as you put it,
Re: I think I know why (Score:2)
Yes, of course seen these puerile references to creimer occasionally over the years. Literally no idea what it's about and don't care either.
Re:Dark energy aka magic... (Score:5, Informative)
asserting it's 'dark energy' allows astrophysicists to avoid having to admit be being bad magicians
You clearly have exactly zero understanding of how science and research function.
For those who may have been misled by the above post: "Dark $NAME" is a simple way of referring to an unknown quantity or behavior which exists between a given model or theory and observed data. It's no different from referring to a "Black Box" action inside, e.g., the brain-gut interactions which we know exist but have yet to isolate down to stimuli or dedicated proteins, etc. "Dark Energy" isn't dark, and may not be "energy." It's just another black-box in another area of unsolved physics.
Re: (Score:2)
Not according to some its advocates, who've announced quite extraordinary phenomena from very little data, an entirely distinct form of matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Your gonna need a citation for that claim.
Scientists have *always* said "Dark energy" is a stand-in term to capture what we do and don't know.
We know the universe's expansion is accelerating, its just just inertia. And we know that acceleration requires energy (thats just basic high school newtonian mechanics). Ie "Energy". And we dont know what that energy is, we c
Re: (Score:2)
Look for "non-baryonic dark matter". Examples include: this Nature article:
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
It's become a pretty commonplace claim that the "dark matter" is quite exotic, though it's not provided consistent enough explanations of existing data or predictions of new data to support its extraordinary claims.
Re: (Score:2)
You may have read stuff you didn't like or talked to people you didn't agree with, but please tell if you expect people to understand rather than imagine or guess, unless that is what you were going for.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, "dark matter" is the root of string theory, non-baryonic matter impossible to detect except gravitationally. I'm not seeking to disprove one specific theory, because they are founded on such poor data with so much uncertainty. But it's been very commonplace.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
These theories have resembled "the luminiferous aether" in their extremity and their deductions of extraordinary requirements for their characteristics.
Re: (Score:2)
They argue that "the generic formulation of string theory leads naturally to dark energy", then propose the supporting mathematical equations to support some models. They do not claim in any way that "dark matter is the root of string theory".
Whether non-baryonic matter can be detected by any other means than gravity is unknown. I'm not sure how one could claim for sure that it is impossible. That does not appear to be discussed in the link provided though, an
Re: Dark energy aka magic... (Score:2)
Are we supposed to know by 'dark osmosis' which "advocates" and which "extraordinary phenomena" 's you are referring to?
That depends on whether you want to participate in the discussion about "dark osmosis" or not.
If you want, then generally, yes, you need to know that.
If you're so unacquainted with the topic at hand that you don't even know the meaning of the terms used, then please gently STFU; alternatively, refrain from making statements at a such an early stage of your knowledge, and stick strictly to asking clarifying questions until you know. Also, in this context the words "please" and "thank you" come to mind.
You'r
Re: (Score:2)
You're most welcome.
Re: Dark energy aka magic... (Score:2)
No, but a scientist isn't Miss Icklepickle from your 3rd grade, legally required to teach you stuff come hell or high water, either.
If you want to partixipate in a scientific discussion, it's on you to get up to speed with the topics. Usually, scientists are pretty nice folks, who, given some basic decency and polite interest, will happily explain plenty of things to help you there.
But that's not what you were doing. Nobody owes you anything.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that I made up a silly term shouldn't determine if I know something about the subject matter. As for needing your permission to comment, that is simply quite amusing.
Re: Dark energy aka magic... (Score:2)
I'm not aware of any physicist that has done that.
I am, however, aware of several cosmological theories and/or models, which, within current understanding of physics, allow/suggest the multiverse interpretation. And I'm also aware of their authors.
But who sold you that as Reality... I have no idea.
Re: (Score:2)
For those who may have been misled by the above post...
+1 good boy virtue points have been deposited into your account for upholding the unassailable Cult of Science (tm)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dark energy aka magic... (Score:2)
The physics community seems to be completely open about this shortcoming in current theory, all the way from published technical papers right down to Discovery Channel universe documentaries.
Do you think you have discovered some hidden dirty secret?
Science not Magic (Score:5, Interesting)
About as useful an explanation at the moment, but asserting it's 'dark energy' allows astrophysicists to avoid having to admit be being bad magicians...
There is nothing magic about Dark Energy: it is simply the energy of free space. The problem we have in physics is figuring out where it comes from. You can actually calculate it using all the fundamental quantum fields we know of the problem is that when you do this you get a value that is over 100 orders of magnitude different compared to measurement.
Errors like this have occurred before in physics. A great example is the UV catastrophe where, using classical physics, you can predict the emission spectrum of a so-called "black body" i.e. an object that absorbs all EM radiation and emits radiation based only on its temperature. This gave a prediction that the shorter the wavelength the stronger the emission and, since everything around us is not radiating high energy gamma rays, the prediction is clearly very wrong - infinitely wrong in fact.
The solution was quantum physics - each frequency of EM radiation has a quantized energy and, when this is added, the same basic model matches reality precisely. Clearly, something like this is happening with Dark Energy. We are making an assumption in calculating the Dark Energy that is not valid. This is the bleeding edge of science: our best understanding of how things work fails and so we investigate and study these discrepancies in the hope that, as it has in the past, it will give us clues as to how we are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Science not Magic (Score:2)
What do you mean by that? Phrasing what exactly?
Re:Dark energy aka magic... (Score:4, Informative)
How is it "admitting to being bad magicians" to say "Theres something odd at work here but we dont know what it is"? Because thats all that scientists mean when they say "Dark energy". And they will explain that to anyone thats listening.
Look, we've known for a good while now that the universes expansion is accelerating. We know it is, because we've looked.
And consistent wiith fundamental newtonian mechanics (And einsteinian), anything that accelerates requires the exertion of force. Which means that something is causing it. It can't happen on its own. In other worrds, energy is being expended. And we have no idea what that energy is. ergo we call it "dark energy".
Asking scientists to be dishonest by claiming to know what it is, or denying that the phenomena exists is not "bad magicians", its straight up good science.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction because Slashdot needs an edit button:
For that last sentence read.
"Asking scientists to be dishonest by claiming to know what it is, or denying that the phenomena exists is not good science , and accusing them of being "bad magicians" its nonsensical.
Thanks for an illuminating discussion (Score:2)
I mainly intended the comment as fairly light hearted, but it's generated some great responses. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I give up, how has Biden caused inflation? Years of low interest rates coupled with past spending coupled with the economy opening up after the freeze is what caused the inflation. To much money chasing too few goods. Now go back an learn Econ 101.
Re: (Score:2)
You are still a moron.
The lucid articulation of your astute logic has convinced me of the soundness of your argument.