PDA

View Full Version : Dark Energy Confirmed


Darkstar
05-08-2003, 19:03:28
For you physics and cosmologists geekoids...

Space.com has an article about how Dark Energy has been confirmed to exist. It's a lightweight article, with links off to related info and articles, as most. What's this mean? That the most likely ending to the Universe that we can now predict is: Bored To Death.

Source Link (found at): http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dark_energy_030805.html

MDA
05-08-2003, 21:09:26
I like the link to the "Big Rip". Even astronomers and physicists like the occasional fart joke.

No longer Trippin
05-08-2003, 22:06:49
So no other big bang again? Well then what caused the first one? Matter just appeared out of nothing and kept on collecting until it reached critical mass so to speak? Kinda doesn't make since as that would lead to a spontaneous begining not cycle of sorts. That pokes a hole in matter can niether be created nor destroyed as it had to be spontaneous created at critical mass unless the universe can collaspe on itself, thus recycle itself every so often which would keep the law intact. Though since it's just confirmed, they still need to perfect ways of measuring it better, so it could be cyclic. If going by the current logic with dark matter, the energy/matter was just created somehow instaneously. As if it was able to explode once, it would have had to have collasped to begin with. Unless the universe had more mass than needed for a collaspe, thus each impending collaspe would blow signifigant matter away and past the previous universe boundaries so to speak and we just happen to be at the end of a long chain. That would be the only way matter could be neither created nor destroyed if the universe can't collaspe again, at least going by what I know - which isn't much. I'm sure there are other scenarios that keep it intact, but I can't think of any others.

Darkstar
05-08-2003, 22:53:50
Well, there is the argument that every bang resets certain physical laws. So the previous Bang/Collapse was ok, but we just missed the "reach next cycle" due to an odd RNG result.

Then there's the theory that we are part of an earlier universe... just our matter/energy got released from a tremendously big black hole when it finally degraded past a threshold point. Seeing as black holes 'evaporate'.

Then there's the oddball one that we are actually IN a black hole. The Big Bang wouldn't have really been an explosion then, it would have been the start of the Hole as a Black Hole. This one has the advantage of explaining why we would always expand, why we can see every ray of light that has ever been emitted, and a few other niggling little bits in cosmology.

Oh, and then theirs Information Physics...

That's just to name a few off the top of my head...

Deacon
06-08-2003, 00:11:25
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.html

* When Earth explodes, the end is momentarily near.

At this point, there is still a short interval before atoms and even their nuclei break apart. "There's about 30 minutes left," Caldwell said, "But it's not quality time."

Not quality time. :)

No longer Trippin
06-08-2003, 03:49:35
DS: Your first point was essentially what I was saying, you just had it more technical from how I'm grasping it. Something didn't happen as usual - if going by that theory.

The other two are interesting - but the energy cannot disappear unless you ignore one fundamental law of physics - as for blasted beyond the confines of the current expansion as it was previously released matter/energy, well that would fit. That also is sort of what I was saying - though the black hole idea I was tinkering with in my head, but it wasn't adding up to me as it would have to be fortunate enough to eventually become the "center of gravity" so to speak for the universe around it to take in that much matter to create what is our current universe. The last one that means we are in one, that's probably the largest leap in physics from my understanding of it - though it does have it's advantages and a lot of theoretical ties which would make it possible - but black holes seem to have the most theories out of anything in the universe other than the universe itself. But for all we know, there is so much we don't know. Right now trying to determine if the galaxy is going to collaspe or not is a moot point... it's age matters more as that helps with stellar formations and timetables along with measuring the expansion. I mean we just confirmed dark matter - now we need to really find a way of measuring it as history has shown initial measurements/theories have a decent probability to be wrong until science catches up. Dark matter is an infantile science to say the very least, but at least we've confirmed the theory that it exist, that is progress in that area.

Darkstar
06-08-2003, 05:58:13
Well, we haven't REALLY...

You see, some laws of physics are changing.

Like, the speed of light. As the universe expands, the speed of light slows down. Now, since we are basing the hunt for dark matter/dark energy gravity lensing/affecting light, we are looking for extra downshifting. Well, what happens to that light when it's SLOWED DOWN due to light speed slowing down? Think about it... we are looking for ancient light slowing down... and we found it. Only... all light is slowing down. The bigger the universe gets, the more the speed of light DROPS. That's proven science but it would take me a while to Google up the published links for people.

Now, conservation of energy doesn't exist. It's an emergent behavior on the macro scale. But at the quantam, energy and matter pop into existance, and generally, out again after just a moment in existance. Something to remember...

chagarra
06-08-2003, 12:43:02
DS

There are so many unanswered questions in that lot that I don't know where to start.

Am I to assume that the maximum velocity constant for this universe is changing, or are we having a red shift in ALL LIGHT incoming.
Or does that fit in with the 'we're in a black hole and all shrinking proportionally', syndrome.
Which begs the question. If the universe is expanding how do we decide if everything is getting bigger, since all the measuring instruments are getting biggeras well.

And all those little wavicles of energy popping in for a visit, since they've slowed to less than the max velocity, swinging into the nearest little molecular gravity well to speed up enough to pop right back out again.

Duh.....

RedFred
06-08-2003, 15:55:46
Good article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

MDA
06-08-2003, 16:21:06
The colliding branes link is also cool.

There was a Science magazine that had a bunch of good, readable articles on the origins of the universe as well, but its been awhile.

No longer Trippin
06-08-2003, 23:29:10
The odd thing is that we are seeing that galaxies aren't moving at the same speeds, most generally are pulling themselves further and further away from each other (simple look in spectrum shift shows this). Maybe it's to account for the mass that is at te edge of the ever expanding universe, as I doubt it's dumped most of it's matter yet (but it's not like I have a degree in any field that would cover that) - that could account for galaxies becoming more distant.. those behind us have less pull on them, those towards the edge have more pull. That's the only way I can see it happening. As for the speed of light slowing down, I've known about that, just don't know why - gravity does have an effect on light, but generally going by looking at a black hole - no light is escaping - though you do get X-ray burst perpendicular to the acrecretion disk that are strong enough to escape the black holes gravity. Would lend credence to the theory that we formed from a supermassive blackhole... if it takes in too much, if some energy is able to escape, eventually there would have to be a saturation point of sorts which causes it to go boom - thus that big bang theory. Though for light slowing, yet galaxies are speeding up towards the edge makes it confusing.. I could see if they were pulled inwards, as then that would correlate in slowing light down. We know gravity can slow light, but if it's slowing light, yet the galaxies are speeding up, then their is a relation to the universe "size" and the speed of light. Still dealing with a lot of theoretics - but we can't exact go back in time to observe the universe before the big bang - we can only make assumptions by basically looking at the big bang post mortem.

Darkstar
07-08-2003, 10:38:37
Chagarra...

The maximum velocity constant for this universe is changing. The speed of light in deep space vacuum has SLOWED down. And continues to slow.

Second, the universe is not expanding at the same rate everywhere. So we can measure it. Deep space with nothing in it, that's where the universe is expanding. So our rulers, being matter in highly crowded space, are still the same as they were.

Third, inside a black hole is always EXPANDING, not shrinking. Remember, nothing moves faster then light, and the topography inside a black hole is bigger then it's event horizon. In fact, it's equal to its event horizon x c x length in existance.

I'll think about you "molecule gravity well" for a while. However, if that's true, then what slowed them down enough to pop into our universe? Where did they come from? And where are they returning to?

Trip, you don't just get X-Rays perpendicular to the accretion disk (along the axis jets), but that is the main and most common sources. However, with enough material in the disk itself, you can get X-rays off the inner side of the disk.

Darkstar
07-08-2003, 10:41:00
Oh, and Trip... you can explain why the galaxies further out from us are speeding up more then others that are closer to us... Those galaxies are being sped up even more by the "springing" expansion of the growing intergalactic empty space.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
07-08-2003, 23:59:42
My God, don't you people read Max Tegmark essays? All this "ancient" stuff about the "universe" indeed... everyone KNOWS these days we're all just the unavoidable result of computing the totality of all available sets of Level-4 multiverses.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000