It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Professor Sarkar, who also holds a position at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, said: 'The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe won the Nobel Prize, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by "dark energy" that behaves like a cosmological constant – this is now the "standard model" of cosmology.
'However, there now exists a much bigger database of supernovae on which to perform rigorous and detailed statistical analyses. We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae – over ten times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based – and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call "3 sigma". This is far short of the 5 sigma standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance.
'So it is quite possible that we are being misled and that the apparent manifestation of dark energy is a consequence of analysing the data in an oversimplified theoretical model – one that was in fact constructed in the 1930s, long before there was any real data. A more sophisticated theoretical framework accounting for the observation that the universe is not exactly homogeneous and that its matter content may not behave as an ideal gas – two key assumptions of standard cosmology – may well be able to account for all observations without requiring dark energy. Indeed, vacuum energy is something of which we have absolutely no understanding in fundamental theory.'
originally posted by: frenchfries
So basically :
pssttt... If you can't explain it use 'Darkmatter'.
Dark matter has nothing to do with the expanding universe, it's dark energy.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: frenchfries
The real issue is, the mathematics work. It may break down on the 1% outer fringes....but the mathematics works well enough that we have GPS, and can land rockets on Pluto.
When something works, folks arent compelled to find something else that works better.
originally posted by: muSSang
a reply to: Vector99
but I do believe the universe is energy contained in the universe itself. Once the energy ends, it retracts.
Energy does not end or retract.
The law of conservation of energy states; Energy is neither created nor destroyed.
Dark matter works for a reason and usually is constant. It's like saying 2 + something equals 4. We don't know what "something" is, but we know it is there and added to 2 it makes 4.
the standard model is way to complex.
Btw Einstein never explained WHY C was a constant
Getting rid of parameters and constants is a must
For me Darkmatter/energy/trousers is just another way to introduce hidden variables.
Actually the authors of the dark energy papers stepped away from rote when they wrote them in 1998, and other scientists reading the papers were skeptical at first but found the data convincing. They also found that dark energy fit quite nicely into existing models so it wasn't that hard to accept. So if they dismiss dark energy they will be "returning to the rote" to use your language, that existed before 1997 when dark energy hadn't yet been discovered.
originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
I am glad to see that scientists are stepping away from (or daring to challenge) rote,both in theory and mathematical application. We are truly gifted to live in these times of cosmological exploration.