Dark Energy's Demise? New Theory Doesn't Use the Force

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Dark Energy's Demise? New Theory Doesn't Use the Force


news.nationalgeographic.co.uk

Dark energy, a mysterious force proposed more than a decade ago to explain why the universe is flying apart at an increasingly faster clip, is no longer necessary.

That's the conclusion of a controversial new theory that shows how the accelerated expansion of the universe could be just an illusion.

n a new study, two mathematicians present their solutions to Einstein's field equations of general relativity, which describe the relationship between gravity and matter.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I'd imagine, if your anything like me, the specifics of their theory may be a bit too complicated.

But a theory that potentially disproves Dark Energy is quite a big deal.

Here is a interesting article on Dark Matter and Energy:

Dark Matter and Dark Energy: One and the Same?


Dark matter and dark energy are two of the most vexing problems in science today. Together they dominate the universe, comprising some 96 percent of all mass and energy.

But nobody knows what either is. It's tempting to consider them products of the same unknown phenomenon, something theorist Robert Scherrer suggests. The professor of physics at Vanderbilt University says "k-essence" is behind it all.


The theory in a nutshell:


To find a dark-energy alternative, other scientists have proposed versions of the newly supported theory that our galaxy sits inside an expansion wave, a ripple of space with low density.


And from Wikipedia


In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe. Dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 74% of the total mass-energy of the universe.


Even if they are right, I feel it will just create more questions than provide answers!


news.nationalgeographic.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 22-8-2009 by kiwifoot]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
As I understand it the problem with this "wave theory" is that it would make our galaxy the center of the observable universe.


This is obviously a pretty big "coincidence" to accept.

I doubt this theory will catch on



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrVertigo
 


thats assuming the galaxy is not only observable from the point of the observer
( us )



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I've always had trouble with the concept of dark energy. It seems like they invented it to explain something that sounded a bit vague to begin with. Of course, I'm not a physicist, don't know the first thing about all this, so my opinion means nothing.

The violation of the Copernican principle simply means that there is something about our local space that is unusual. The basic principle is that, on the large scale, any given point in the Universe would look roughly like any other point. There would not be any special points where things were very different. In other words, what we see from Earth would not be special.

The violation is that we're in some sort of rarefied area of space that doesn't exist throughout the whole Universe. It doesn't mean that we're unique; it just means that we're in a sort of bump or void that, in general, other observers wouldn't see. That could easiiy happen, just like someone could be living on a mountain, even though most of the Earth isn't a mountain. But using such an explanation to explain something makes scientists uncomfortable.

As for the statement that somehow we'd be at the center of the Observable Universe - we *are* at the center of the Observable Universe. Every observer is. Our view of the Universe is about the same distance in every direction, putting us smack in the middle of it. But someone way on the edge, right at the limit of what we could see, would also be at the center of the Observable Universe - the Universe he could observe. However, some of the Universe he could observe would be beyond what we could observe.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
its not an old theory;
alot of people used to call it the universal ether;
or :the source",,,,,



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I think this is the same topic but it was posted online on Sept 25, well after this thread was created:

Mathematicians' Alternate Model of the Universe Explains Away the Need For Dark Energy

The basic concepts of the mathematicians' theory are more or less in English in that article (as opposed to the "Greek" used by physicists and mathematicians). One interesting precept of the theory is that it would put Earth near the center of the universe which is a violation of


the Copernican principle that Earth does not have a unique place in the universe.


But it always occurred to me that if the universe has a center, all we can say is the probability of any given mass being near the center is relatively low, but a given cluster of galaxies could be at or near the center, and it could be our local group. the most you could say is that it's not probable, you can't say it's not possible. So I don't think the Copernican principle is a very solid argument against the mathematicians' theory.

Regarding the other arguments against this theory:


But cosmologists say that the new expansion theory has problems. First, observations of the Big Bang's afterglow also indicate the existence of dark energy. Simulations also fit rather well with the observed universe expansion when dark energy becomes a factor.


I'll have to research those further.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I'm just now thinking there is an invisible force.
The same the rattles capacitor can covers or perhaps
causes a hum around high voltage lines.

The ether force of the bar magnets that extend to one
another extended into a physical force by virtue ether
pressure waves.

The witnessed landing and takeoff in New Mexico of a
UFO showed the forces are going into the craft.
Invisible forces in the universe just takes the same type
of mechanism.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
I've always had trouble with the concept of dark energy. It seems like they invented it to explain something that sounded a bit vague to begin with. Of course, I'm not a physicist, don't know the first thing about all this, so my opinion means nothing.


While this theory sounds like complete bologna.... this part of your post means little in the field of theoretical physics... It really wasn't too long ago when black holes were nothing but a 'theory'.... and for the most part still are. They have been observed (partly) by gravitational lensing, but much of what happens past an event horizon is still very much nothing but concept, as it is 'imagined' that nothing past the so-called event horizon can be envisioned... thus came the existence of superstring theory etc... a lot of these things are nothing but theoretical works based mostly off previous physicists works... it is in many ways exactly like religion in that there is absolutely no way to test these theories, short of being sucked into a black hole itself (which is, according to current laws of physics inescapable) and even that would prove quite futile as you'd most likely be condensed into nothingness or something very close to it. Or maybe you'd get sucked into another universe or... or... who knows. Nobody knows, but to regard any of these new 'breakthroughs' in physics is much like taking something out of the bible and analyzing it until you came up with some mind-shattering conclusion about something that (probably) wasn't real in the first place.

All these simply accept the General Theory of Relativity at face value. It is just that, a theory, but so much of modern physics is directly related to Einsteins work that if it ever is disproved, a good 20 years of astrophysics has been ruined or must be re-worked to fit in with whatever new theory takes its place.

Sorry for the long rant.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Perhaps this theory could lend credence to the the idea that the universe is contained within a dimensional membrane.
Mush like gravity waves can be detected on Earth, then perhaps the same is true for fluctuations in the universal membranes.
This wave they suggest that encompass our galaxy, sounds a lot like membranes and string theory.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by reticledc
Perhaps this theory could lend credence to the the idea that the universe is contained within a dimensional membrane.
Mush like gravity waves can be detected on Earth, then perhaps the same is true for fluctuations in the universal membranes.
This wave they suggest that encompass our galaxy, sounds a lot like membranes and string theory.



string theory is either a) too complicated for me to grasp or b)science melded in with fiction to make factual science fiction.

there is no testable evidence which supports string theory (as we are simply 3 or 4 dimensional beings...) this would be like 2 dimensional flatlanders living on a sphere, they would have no way get outside of the sphere but they COULD test for a 3rd dimension by drawing straight lines from north pole to south pole and they would notice the increase in distance at mid latitudes...

but this is clearly not observable to us as the universe is simply far too large to test for superstrings and so i am going to hold my beliefs on such a ridiculous theory until some crazier scientist comes along and tries to make me believe some other non-sense that is purely non-sensical without all the mathematical equations which are also non-sense as far as I know.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Sacrosanct
 

Einstein had no proof for his theory of relativity either when it was first published, and it took years for observations to be made during eclipses that would prove his theory true or false. We can't really say Einstein's theory was accepted until it was confirmed by those real world observations (and many since).

But string theorists don't yet have their theories backed up by real world observations, like Einstein did. And until they do have some real world proof, the string theories (or membrane theories) are certainly unproven at best and complete fantasy at worst.

However this new explanation of the observations pointing to a need for "dark energy" show that dark energy is not needed to explain the observations. At least here we are dealing with real world observations (unlike string theory). Now more evidence and research is needed to assess the viability of this interpretation. It's an interesting explanation if only because it makes the universe seem less wacky like the dark energy does.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
11-d space-time consists of two 10-d space-time sheets separated by a small distance whose size determines the strength of the Newtonian gravitational constant G. Ordinary matter governed by the first factor E8 in the unified gauge symmetry group E8xE8' of heterotic superstrings is confined to one sheet and shadow matter governed by the second factor E8' is confined to the other sheet. Dark energy is the bosonic and fermionic fields of E8'. It is invisible and interacts only gravitationally with ordinary matter. Originally, the two sheets were just one sheet in which the gauge symmetry group O(32) governed superstring forces. When they split apart, creating two universes, each invisible to the other, the repulsive gravitational force of dark energy on ordinary matter caused the rate of expansion of the universe to increase - that's why galaxies are moving slightly faster apart than what Hubble's law predicts.

Because of the Uncertainty Principle, the dimensional gap between the two space-time sheets is not sharply defined but fuzzy, allowing matter in the shadow universe sometimes to exist temporarily in the ordinary universe. Its dark energy then becomes detectable physically and can be exploited, providing a huge source of energy in principle. The problem has been to increase the induced leakage in a controllable way.

Another universe of matter (and - yes - beings) interpenetrates ours. As we are partly composed of dark energy, we live in that universe as well, though we rarely experience it. When we do, we say we have seen a ghost or a UFO.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I can't take any article seriously that supports the big bang theory, I know enough to realize that not only is there no proof in favor of the BBT but most proof used is actually against it. Dark matter does not exist neither does dark energy (that's why it can't be found), If anyone wishes to understand these so called "vexing problems" just simply go back about 120 years and look up theories on the Luminiferous Aether (wonderful theory btw).

Empty space "Does Not Expand", this is a contradiction in itself (the expansion of nothing). Cosmology that deals with dark matter/energy, the BBT and or empty space that expands faster then the speed of light is complete nonsense and a waste of time.

I say if cosmologists want to "Believe" in this stuff then so be it, but we need to separate religion from science. Religion is not science and it is also true that science is not religion, they are separate because they are two different things and this has nothing to do with politics.

This is just my opinion but personally I give the known laws of physics and relativity more credence then any other theory; string, quantum, wave, M or even the big bang. I think logic would go much further if cosmologists were to do the same.

Overall I guess that this could be a small step in the right direction though.

[edit on 10/11/2009 by Devino]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
As for the statement that somehow we'd be at the center of the Observable Universe - we *are* at the center of the Observable Universe. Every observer is.


You are spot on here,
this is the basic understanding of relativity that most people, including cosmologists, do not get.
I don't see a problem with most people missing this but astronomers and cosmologists should know this stuff.

[edit on 10/11/2009 by Devino]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Can someone clue me in on how there can be a center to an infinite?

Going along with the theory and how others on here stated that if this theory was the case it would put us at the center of the universe.

To say that there is a center to the universe would imply that space has a beginning and an end. This is just not the case there is space beyond space beyond space.

This would also imply that the universe sits inside something, Even if this were the scenario, beyond the borders of the cradle would be more space or at least something occupying space and in which case if it was infinite would occupy and infinite amount of space.


Originally posted by Devino

Originally posted by chiron613
As for the statement that somehow we'd be at the center of the Observable Universe - we *are* at the center of the Observable Universe. Every observer is.


You are spot on here,
this is the basic understanding of relativity that most people, including cosmologists, do not get.
I don't see a problem with most people missing this but astronomers and cosmologists should know this stuff.

[edit on 10/11/2009 by Devino]


I see now, you are at the center no matter where you are because it is infinite. Makes total sense.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by I think Im normal]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by I think Im normal
Can someone clue me in on how there can be a center to an infinite?


Just to keep the illustration simple, first look at one dimension:



There is an infinite series of positive integers, and an infinite series of negative integers, centered around zero. Simple, right?

Now just imagine that in 3 dimensions, where the scale on each axis is distance instead of integers. (Distance from the original singularity which started the big bang).


Going along with the theory and how others on here stated that if this theory was the case it would put us at the center of the universe.

To say that there is a center to the universe would imply that space has a beginning and an end. This is just not the case there is space beyond space beyond space.


No it doesn't imply a beginning or an end, just a center. In the case of this theory, the local galaxy group could be near the location near the origin of the Big Bang.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   
I think a simpler way to explain it is, "We can only be where we are" and what we see is the Universe unfolding around us.
In order to be here contemplating the edge of the Universe and also be there at the same time to step beyond this imagined edge is ineffable. It is a God like power of omnipresence, to be in more than one place at a time.

What do we see here, where we are at now? The Universe unfolding around us.
What do we see if we were to go to the edge of the Universe? The Universe unfolding around us.
If we look back at where we came from we might imagine that to be the edge of the Universe. We could go back and fourth chasing nothing forever but this is futile.

"Be where you are" because you cannot be anywhere else!



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Devino

Originally posted by chiron613
As for the statement that somehow we'd be at the center of the Observable Universe - we *are* at the center of the Observable Universe. Every observer is.


You are spot on here,
this is the basic understanding of relativity that most people, including cosmologists, do not get.
I don't see a problem with most people missing this but astronomers and cosmologists should know this stuff.

[edit on 10/11/2009 by Devino]


I was under the impression that this is only true if the Universe is infinite. If the Universe is infinite it would logically follow that every point in the Universe is the center... however, if it is expanding then we are not at the exact centre... Now I know you're not following any Copernican logic here, so I'll excuse that, however, I think you're getting it mixed up, just because everywhere you look in the Universe looks the same, doesn't mean you're in the centre of it. You know what I mean? The Universe is such a vast place, it's really ignorant to treat anything like that as a fact because the simple truth is that we do not know! Astronomers and cosmologists are perhaps, better qualified to know but even they don't know. It's a crazy world out there, and we are some lucky creatures to be able to live with Newtonian physics... without being subject to some of the crazy *** **** that goes on out there.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Sacrosanct
 

No, I do follow your Copernican logic and I also understand the Newtonian version of the Universe but I prefer the relative perspective. Relativity is not easy to follow because it deals with test particles and other observers beside our self. Keep in mind that every observer (like you and me) have their own unique inertial frame of reference. With relativity came the understanding that everything is in motion, there is no point that is "at rest' as Newton describes. Objects that appear to be at rest are those that, from our inertial frame of reference, appear to have very similar motions (nearly the same velocities in the same directions).

Another point to make is that we can only observe the Universe through our sensory perceptions and these, along with our inertial frame of reference, are our limitations. Relativity is a way of describing the Universe outside of these limitations and this is where the idea of infinity comes from. The problem is that Einstein's description of relativity also has limitations and it is because of these limitations that we experience a finite Universe.

If infinity has no ending is it true that it also has no beginning? I would imagine that infinite has neither a beginning nor an end. My philosophical understanding of infinity is that it has no bounds from which to measure. Every measurement that we know of have a beginning and an end, they are all subject to motions and our observations. So the infinite has no bounds and is beyond measure, we could imagine that it is a place of absolute nothingness and yet contains everything all at the same time. It is the inconceivable, impossible "nothing" that is absolute.

Finite has a beginning and an end and there are bounds with which to measure from. It is the conceivable, possible "something" that have limitations. So think of yourself as a vessel and your eyes are windows, what do you see? The Universe unfolding around you. Everything that you can see, measure and ever imagine are all within limitations or bounds, this is the center of the Universe for you as an active observer.





top topics
 
1

log in

join