New method 'confirms dark energy'

Science now finds 'confirmation' of dark energy and how this could be a factor in the accelerated expansion of the Universe

www.bbc.co.uk...

First results from a major astronomical survey have confirmed the existence of mysterious dark energy using a cutting-edge technique. Dark energy makes up some 74% of the Universe and its existence explains why the Universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate.

The finding was based on studies of more than 200,000 galaxies. Scientists used two separate kinds of observation to provide an independent check on previous dark energy results. Two papers by an international team of researchers have been accepted for publication in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society journal. One type of observation used by the astronomers involves measuring a pattern in how galaxies are distributed in space. This pattern is known by the term "baryon acoustic oscillations". The second type of observation involves measuring how quickly clusters of galaxies have formed over time. Both of these techniques confirmed the existence of dark energy and the acceleration in the expansion of the Universe. The concept of dark energy was first invoked in the late 1990s by studying the brightness of distant supernovas - exploding stars. Einstein was right To explain why the expansion of the Universe was speeding up, astronomers had to either rewrite Albert Einstein's theory of gravity or accept that the cosmos was filled with a novel type of energy. "The action of dark energy is as if you threw a ball up in the air, and it kept speeding upward into the sky faster and faster," said co-author Dr Chris Blake of the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia. "The results tell us that dark energy is a cosmological constant, as Einstein proposed. If gravity were the culprit, then we wouldn't be seeing these constant effects of dark energy throughout time."

Cosmologist Bob Nicholl, who was not involved with the research, told BBC News: "This is a major step forward. These guys are serious, major scientists and we've been waiting for this result for some time. The professor of astrophysics at Portsmouth University, UK, added: "It's re-confirmation of dark energy, it gives us another data point to fit our theories around and it shows us the way to the future. More astronomers are going to be doing this in years to come."

Here are a couple more subject sources:

"Dark Energy Is Real, New Evidence Indicates"
www.space.com...

"NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer Helps Confirm Nature of Dark Energy"
www.nasa.gov...

Now that Dark Energy 'and' Dark Matter have both been confirmed by secondary test methods... I would think that someone in the science community would finally begin testing "Extended Heim Theory". I think that theory predicted the existence of both of those phenomena, before anyone even detected their presence.

reply to post by Larryman


it has been predicted and hypothesized since the 60's at least, at least now there is more credible research as proof, which is good.

Some scientists have considered Heim theories since the 70's, and recently in 2007 though certain aspects weren't conclusive to use as a given, various areas of particle physics etc, which until these aspects are resolved, renders the extended theory difficult to prove.

Someday.. someday the world will come to understand how much electricity and electromagnetism impact our universe. Until then, we continue to study that which does not exist and might as well think the world was still flat.

99.9% of the REAL matter in the universe exists in a plasma tic state. plasmas are highly electrically conductive. When there is electrical current there is always an electromagnetic field created with it. magnetism is much more powerful a force than gravity, if gravity isn't just a 'side effect' of large scale EMFields. They only came to theorize dark matter and energy to account for increased spin in galaxies. Electrical currents and EMFields are not accounted for on galactic scales. They need to be.

Plasma Cosmology is where it's at. Look it up.

reply to post by BornParadox


I know plenty about plasma cosmology, and if you care to look at my previous posts on ATS you would know this.

However this thread is about confirmation of dark energy, which however unseen, presents as almost 3 quarters of the universe and is a factor in the accelerated expansion of the universe, which does matter.

Most people with any real knowledge on such things will know plasma is important, this isn't being argued on this thread.

Some on ATS denied the existence of dark matter and even the expansion of the universe and these studies show these facts are not to be denied.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


I don't think it's so difficult to prove. Just build the 30-Tesla field strength super-conductor magnet disk, and spin it. Or do it with a spinning super-conductor plasma, like AlienScientist.com describes. The Dark Energy should be produced (according to Heim theory) from the magnetic field breaking open the (normally closed) extra dimensions of space-time, that Dr. Michio Kaku also speaks of.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


Comments i found are from this site my favourite space site
www.space.com...

This thread should be moved to the Space Forums IMO. Thats essentially what category it is.

On the contrary i have a few things to say about this study most people make some good comments that make more sense than the actual article on space.com and i agree and can expound on what was stated.
I'll quote them

All this study does is prove "dark energy" is pervasive. It doesn't prove it's uniform throughout the universe. I suspect that more study will show that it's not a "cosmological constant", but a function of volume and density. The "emptier" space is, the faster it expands. Galaxies and clusters shrink while voids balloon. That would explain the structure of the universe without having to invoke "dark matter" or "inflation", or any of that nonsense.

Exactly just as i have proposed and thought the Universe was filled with a bit more mass of normal matter than anti-matter at its beginning and anti-matter and normal matter collisions annihilated mostly all of the anti-matter that existed.

Wikipedia: Big Bang Timeline

Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe.

The Expansion of the Universe was so great and fast in the beginning because of the absence of matter at the beginning. The Universe was mostly energy fluctuations at the beginning explaining the incredibly fast expansion.

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially.[36] After inflation stopped, the Universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles

Than we take a look at the left over matter from the slight imbalance of 1 part per 30 million difference of quantity between anti-matter and matter which left the Universe with 4% mass of Matter. Which may be much greater with new Evidence of the Swath of rogue planets and probably soon to be disclosed countless number of brown dwarfs; That need further scientific confirmation to disclose their quantity.

The Universe is probably more close to between 6-10% normal matter mass based on these new numbers.

Then there is this comment. Which is superb and makes sense when you can imagine the idea of it in your head to explain the expansion

The universe is everywhere expanding at a constant rate. It only appears to be accelerating to the OBSERVER because everything in between expands. Think of it like this. Take 10 balloons stacked end to end, inflate each one the same amount during x seconds. Each balloon will move the same distance relative to an adjacent one, but the last balloon will move 10 times further (and faster) away relative to the first (observer balloon).

When we look at the universe now yes the expansion of the Universe; yes the Universe is purportedly expanding but it doesn't need an explanation of a mysterious dark matter/ and/or energy perhaps.... The Universe expansion rate is caused by the expansion between the objects in the universe itself

THE EXPANSION OF SPACE is CAUSING EVERYTHING TO MOVE APART

we can throw this Dark Energy/Dark Matter Rubbish out the window.

Especially with the new Evidence supporting much more matter actually exists with the vast swath of Gas Giants and soon to be announced Brown Dwarfs being discovered perhaps there is much much more matter in the Universe that actually thought. We'll wait and see.

But i highly doubt the study of this article CONFIRMING Dark energy thats just hog wash.

So many times have evidence gone against the existence for and against this notion. No one can know for sure yet on the matter thats just my take on the theory.

Peace Namatse.

and please we need a Mod to move this to the Space Forums where it belongs.

reply to post by TheUniverse


I would say that the accelerated expansion of the Universe does require an explanation. This expansion defies gravity, and is caused from a form of energy, various methods and respected scientific studies covering vast areas and times, have confirmed this.

This energy is confirmed as a constant and is now called dark energy. There are some properties to dark energy which makes up 74% of the Universe, and dark matter, which makes up 22%, that are yet to be ascertained.

New wandering planets are another matter and could influence these percentages, though probably not greatly, given the vast nature of the Universe and the fact the Universe is expanding.

reply to post by Larryman


If it was so easy, it would be done already. The issues with proving Heim theories have consisted with various studies and unless the basic components of the theory are corrected then it wouldn't be provable.

No test exists for non bayronic matter.

No test exists to prove the existence of dark energy as a physically quantifiable force.

More bull to get more grants.

Originally posted by Version100

No test exists for non bayronic matter.

No test exists to prove the existence of dark energy as a physically quantifiable force.

More bull to get more grants.

on the contrary, there are plenty. These studies on non baryonic dark matter have been taken into consideration and are not contrary to dark energy confirmation.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

type 'non baryonic' into search bar on Science Direct and you will find there are plenty.
www.sciencedirect.com...

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth

Originally posted by Version100

No test exists for non bayronic matter.

No test exists to prove the existence of dark energy as a physically quantifiable force.

More bull to get more grants.

on the contrary, there are plenty. These studies on non baryonic dark matter have been taken into consideration and are not contrary to dark energy confirmation.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

type 'non baryonic' into search bar on Science Direct and you will find there are plenty.
www.sciencedirect.com...

edit on 20-5-2011 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

LOL, you are trying to tell me that relatively inconclusive detections of neutrinos
confirms the existence of dark matter ?

Try taking a look at some real physics forums where this stuff is discussed, dark
matter is currently nothing more than an ad hoc construct that makes relativity work.

reply to post by Version100


try reading the research on the links provided, there are plenty.

Who mentioned neutrino's?

I am perfectly aware of the terms dark matter and energy are used to describe something which isn't physical, most of science terms things which aren't necessarily visible / tangible.

If you are denying the existence of dark energy and matter then you should try providing proper scientific research on this.

reply to post by Version100


So true. I am troubled over the rate of which science is becoming a religion. I think it has been on this track since Einstein.

Theories are essential for new discoveries, but it is vital to remember they are only theories until proven.

yea, it is really sad people actually convinced to believe relativity even if there is more proves this is wrong.
Einstein's science is an religion indeed...

Originally posted by dbove
reply to post by Version100

 

So true. I am troubled over the rate of which science is becoming a religion. I think it has been on this track since Einstein.

Theories are essential for new discoveries, but it is vital to remember they are only theories until proven.

Scientific theories are never proven by experiments and observations. They are only falsified. The "best" theory is the one that is consistent with the most data and not (yet) falsified by them.

Science is not becoming a religion. In a deep sense, it IS a kind of religion in that it represents a particular way of looking at phenomena in terms of their physical causes and their effects. Science has thrown a wall around what it arbitrarily judges as its proper domain of study and not only refuses to study anything outside that barrier that does not fit its narrow paradigm of reality but even tries to discredit the existence of such things. Science is NOT the dispassionate search for the truth. It is the search for truth defined only in terms of the scientific paradigm that prevails in a given field. If you stray beyond what is allowed to be studied within this paradigm, you are likely to be "excommunicated" (denied research grants, refused publication in journals, not invited to conferences, and ignored in many other ways, or even attacked as a crackpot in scientific magazines, blogs, etc). Science is supposed to be self-correcting, but the facts expose this myth. It tries constantly to preserve its quasi-religious presuppositions and the reputations of its high priests like Hawking by making ad hoc speculations that have no merit other than they prop up tired ways of understanding things that are increasingly contradicted by new data.

When people tell me that relativity science is just a theory I tell them The Bomb works!

Present something provable and repeatable and you have yourself a debate. Simply stating something that has been observed and repeatably tested is wrong is largely void of mass, (doesn't carry much weight).

reply to post by micpsi


Science is far from a religion, there are so many debates within scientific communities and most of science if based on provable theories and speculation which is being hypothesised and tested, like quantum mechanics.

Science seeks to answer the questions about the very nature of existence and the very fabric of the Universe.

Science gives us the medicines which keep us alive, the sanitation on which to base our ways of life, the transport we use, the food we eat, the table we sit at, ad infinity, science is the study of everything, the making sense of everything, and is ESSENTIAL.

Science shapes humanity and evolution whether people comprehend this or not.

I'd like to know how this is "independent" from the controversial redshift dopler effect? Seems they are mapping the pairs using redshift, then using this as a fixed distance to apply to every other pair in the universe from Earths perspective.

Sounds like more of the same. Not very convincing.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


You realise most scientists who aren't drooling for funding find the notion of dark matter nothing more than a fallacy right.

Its just a fruition that they created to explain the errors in the Data.

I believe when we learn more about the Universe and perhaps its Surroundings and/or if it really does have other Universes and/or is much larger we will discover much more in the next few decades.