|
On September 18 2012 02:58 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 02:49 ghost_403 wrote:On September 18 2012 02:41 Sovern wrote:On September 18 2012 02:35 ghost_403 wrote:On September 18 2012 02:26 Sovern wrote:On September 17 2012 11:37 sorrowptoss wrote:
What irritates me is that science is, I find, like a giant castle of cards. It's like a superposition of theories. It's like a theory of a theory of a theory of a theory, with inner circles of logic... and that castle of theories is called reality. I find that kind of thinking slightly precarious, especially since most theories are, yes, based on measurements, but those measurements are never, NEVER, 100% free of uncertainty... so we're piling up uncertainty in each theory. So in the end, I think (?) that there will be a point where all theories are so full of inherent uncertainty (because they're on top of a huge chain of theories with uncertainty) that those theories will be just as unrealistic as giant brain-washing alien invadors. And that point, I think, is being reached with 21st century science. I think we, humans, are headed towards a "knowledge ceiling", where we can no longer seek answers by looking out at the sky, through instruments and such, but rather can only find answers by looking inside, within ourselves.
I have no bloody idea how I went from science to philosophy, but yeah. You get my point. I agree with you, one theory leads to another theory which leads to another theory and so on. Science has always bored me because these phenomenon already exist all around us and it's not like scientists are creating anything new when these new theory's or technology's pop up because everything is ALREADY around us haha and in actuality the universe is the reason why they found the theory in the first place if they understand interdependence at all which means nobody should be getting a noble peace prize, the universe should be the one that gets it as it created the person that found the theory that it created which the universe created through the human mind. They're just proving what the universe already knows and they keep going deeper and deeper into the theory's and at a molecular level only to realize that through the human mind you will only be capable of understanding so much through the senses and that the human mind creates all of these things. Without the mind nothing exists. It's sort of like having a bunch of pc games and videos out there waiting to be put together through code and analyzed, they wont and don't exist unless there is a computer to do those things, it's the same way with reality itself too. Humans will continue to follow the illusions of dark matter and whatever else the mind finds and clings to and continue to suffer until we realize that in the end none of this stuff even matters in the long run. I actually dislike science because it's creating more technology's through our own ignorance of reality which causes more greed, delusion, and more people to suffer having to find these theory's (look at foxcon and all of the suicides for an example, wars that have been fought, and meat factory's), come up with the technology's, and work hard to find them to only find that the reason why they are searching for the theory's and are greedy is because they are a a slave to their own mind and cant fight against the stream to see through the illusions and get rid of the liking & disliking of the 5 senses and see that all of these discoveries in the end do not manner at all, they're pointless. All of these technology's are creating a more materialistic world which will only cause more problems, this is the reason why I laugh when people make a big deal when they think that discovering such a theory is such an amazing thing, when in reality it's just plain silly and in the end just caused suffering and is pointless and in fact no one person discovered anything due to interdependence. wat. The beauty of science is that everything that happens in the entire universe happens for a reason, according to some finite and knowable set of arbitrary rules. It's a beautiful piece of equipment that runs infinitely and silently. Saying that science is pointless since it's simply based on something incredibly old is missing the point of why we struggle to understand it. Creation is beautiful, and it's a pleasure and a joy to fight every day to understand what it is, and what it says about the God who made it. Besides, pretty much every technological breakthrough of the last century, maybe even ever, is due to pure science. Just imagine where this planet would be without the semiconductor. A scientist discovered that, and it has infinitely improved our existence. Personally I could less about if we had semi conductors or medical equipment or not. Everything is subject to impermanence and in the end does not manner. Even if we had all of the medical equipment in the world that's just showing an aversion to disease or death when in reality we will all face death someday no matter what so why try to create technology to fight it instead of embracing it and not taking the subject to positive or negative but what it truly is at face value. I don't think I can wrap my head around your point of view. That perspective just sounds so disheartening. I lost my Mom to breast cancer a year ago. Modern medicine kept her alive for close to four years longer than she would have been otherwise. I'm was fine with having her here. I'm fine now that's she's not. I'm so grateful for having the extra four years in-between the two of those. That's what modern science has done for me. I can't imagine saying that that's not worth it. Well shes gone now isn't she? You cling to the 5 or 6 senses and show this by wanting her around longer. When she passed away I bet you were very sad which is why you wanted to keep her around for an extra 4 years instead of accepting the fact that everyone will die someone and learning to let everything go which by the way, is the only way to true peace & happiness. Your mother is gone now, those past experiences don't exist and you should understand through that, that everything is impermanent and nothing is worth clinging to including clinging to your mother.
This doesn't really have anything to do with dark energy. I'm more than happy to discuss this with you, or anyone else via PMs. Back on track!
|
On September 18 2012 02:54 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 02:45 Focuspants wrote:On September 18 2012 02:41 Sovern wrote:On September 18 2012 02:35 ghost_403 wrote:On September 18 2012 02:26 Sovern wrote:On September 17 2012 11:37 sorrowptoss wrote:
What irritates me is that science is, I find, like a giant castle of cards. It's like a superposition of theories. It's like a theory of a theory of a theory of a theory, with inner circles of logic... and that castle of theories is called reality. I find that kind of thinking slightly precarious, especially since most theories are, yes, based on measurements, but those measurements are never, NEVER, 100% free of uncertainty... so we're piling up uncertainty in each theory. So in the end, I think (?) that there will be a point where all theories are so full of inherent uncertainty (because they're on top of a huge chain of theories with uncertainty) that those theories will be just as unrealistic as giant brain-washing alien invadors. And that point, I think, is being reached with 21st century science. I think we, humans, are headed towards a "knowledge ceiling", where we can no longer seek answers by looking out at the sky, through instruments and such, but rather can only find answers by looking inside, within ourselves.
I have no bloody idea how I went from science to philosophy, but yeah. You get my point. I agree with you, one theory leads to another theory which leads to another theory and so on. Science has always bored me because these phenomenon already exist all around us and it's not like scientists are creating anything new when these new theory's or technology's pop up because everything is ALREADY around us haha and in actuality the universe is the reason why they found the theory in the first place if they understand interdependence at all which means nobody should be getting a noble peace prize, the universe should be the one that gets it as it created the person that found the theory that it created which the universe created through the human mind. They're just proving what the universe already knows and they keep going deeper and deeper into the theory's and at a molecular level only to realize that through the human mind you will only be capable of understanding so much through the senses and that the human mind creates all of these things. Without the mind nothing exists. It's sort of like having a bunch of pc games and videos out there waiting to be put together through code and analyzed, they wont and don't exist unless there is a computer to do those things, it's the same way with reality itself too. Humans will continue to follow the illusions of dark matter and whatever else the mind finds and clings to and continue to suffer until we realize that in the end none of this stuff even matters in the long run. I actually dislike science because it's creating more technology's through our own ignorance of reality which causes more greed, delusion, and more people to suffer having to find these theory's (look at foxcon and all of the suicides for an example, wars that have been fought, and meat factory's), come up with the technology's, and work hard to find them to only find that the reason why they are searching for the theory's and are greedy is because they are a a slave to their own mind and cant fight against the stream to see through the illusions and get rid of the liking & disliking of the 5 senses and see that all of these discoveries in the end do not manner at all, they're pointless. All of these technology's are creating a more materialistic world which will only cause more problems, this is the reason why I laugh when people make a big deal when they think that discovering such a theory is such an amazing thing, when in reality it's just plain silly and in the end just caused suffering and is pointless and in fact no one person discovered anything due to interdependence. wat. The beauty of science is that everything that happens in the entire universe happens for a reason, according to some finite and knowable set of arbitrary rules. It's a beautiful piece of equipment that runs infinitely and silently. Saying that science is pointless since it's simply based on something incredibly old is missing the point of why we struggle to understand it. Creation is beautiful, and it's a pleasure and a joy to fight every day to understand what it is, and what it says about the God who made it. Besides, pretty much every technological breakthrough of the last century, maybe even ever, is due to pure science. Just imagine where this planet would be without the semiconductor. A scientist discovered that, and it has infinitely improved our existence. Personally I could less about if we had semi conductors or medical equipment or not. Everything is subject to impermanence and in the end does not manner. Even if we had all of the medical equipment in the world that's just showing an aversion to disease or death when in reality we will all face death someday no matter what so why try to create technology to fight it instead of embracing it and not taking the subject to positive or negative but what it truly is at face value. What the hell? You do know that species are programmed to survive right? Your attitude would have lead to the extinction of everything. We could go your route and not exist, or we could go the normal route and have record low infant mortailty, record high life expectancy, infinitely better living conditions, etc... Furthermore, following your logic, if trying to put off death is merely ignoring or delaying the certain ending that is death, and is ignorant and pointless, why dont you just kill yourself? Why do you wake up and feed yourself? Why do you drink water? Oh, its because you are biologically programmed to not even believe the bullshit you are saying. I don't kill myself because there is no point in killing ones self, I live to see more insightful and understand everything for what it truly is, embrace everything that happens and be happy with everything that occurs instead of creating aversion to it. I would like to kill my own ego and that's it. Also, the species is programmed to survive but that doesnt make it right, far from the truth actually as trying to escape death or prolong death just creates aversion of death and more suffering in the long road as everything is subject to impermanence and everything will eventually die no manner how long you try to prolong it. Also, we wouldnt be extinct with this mindset, we would just be happy where we're at instead of being so afraid of death and tryign to find cures, we woudl accept things for what they are at face value and be happy with it knowing that in the end trying to fight against these things such as illness just creates more suffering. I drink, eat, and do other things to keep this physical blob of shit body alive that we all have and try to understand things at a deeper level freeing myself from all cravings and everything to live a much more calm, peaceful, and wise life free from suffering and fear.
You sir are so out to lunch. You contradict yourself at every turn. You dont let yourself die because you want to live longer to understand and know more, then you say there is no point in trying to prolong our lives because knowing things isnt worth anything and only causes mroe suffering so we should just die.
You say you try to separate yourself from all that we have created because it is nothing more than suffering, yet you live in a structure with all the amenities I listed and more, and type your drivel on the computer you wish never existed? Why did you buy the computer? Again, because you actually dont believe the bullshit you are saying.
You remind me of the 1 student in all of my philosophy classes who had total hate for everything modernity, technology and society had done to us, while he types his notes on a macbook, dirnking starbucks, at a university in the heart of downtown Toronto, surrounded by, and indulging in everything he put down. You need to give your head a shake. Anyway, this is my last post responding to you. There is nothing to gain from my exchanges with you, enjoy your life, or dont, whatever.
|
On September 18 2012 03:02 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 02:54 Sovern wrote:On September 18 2012 02:45 Focuspants wrote:On September 18 2012 02:41 Sovern wrote:On September 18 2012 02:35 ghost_403 wrote:On September 18 2012 02:26 Sovern wrote:On September 17 2012 11:37 sorrowptoss wrote:
What irritates me is that science is, I find, like a giant castle of cards. It's like a superposition of theories. It's like a theory of a theory of a theory of a theory, with inner circles of logic... and that castle of theories is called reality. I find that kind of thinking slightly precarious, especially since most theories are, yes, based on measurements, but those measurements are never, NEVER, 100% free of uncertainty... so we're piling up uncertainty in each theory. So in the end, I think (?) that there will be a point where all theories are so full of inherent uncertainty (because they're on top of a huge chain of theories with uncertainty) that those theories will be just as unrealistic as giant brain-washing alien invadors. And that point, I think, is being reached with 21st century science. I think we, humans, are headed towards a "knowledge ceiling", where we can no longer seek answers by looking out at the sky, through instruments and such, but rather can only find answers by looking inside, within ourselves.
I have no bloody idea how I went from science to philosophy, but yeah. You get my point. I agree with you, one theory leads to another theory which leads to another theory and so on. Science has always bored me because these phenomenon already exist all around us and it's not like scientists are creating anything new when these new theory's or technology's pop up because everything is ALREADY around us haha and in actuality the universe is the reason why they found the theory in the first place if they understand interdependence at all which means nobody should be getting a noble peace prize, the universe should be the one that gets it as it created the person that found the theory that it created which the universe created through the human mind. They're just proving what the universe already knows and they keep going deeper and deeper into the theory's and at a molecular level only to realize that through the human mind you will only be capable of understanding so much through the senses and that the human mind creates all of these things. Without the mind nothing exists. It's sort of like having a bunch of pc games and videos out there waiting to be put together through code and analyzed, they wont and don't exist unless there is a computer to do those things, it's the same way with reality itself too. Humans will continue to follow the illusions of dark matter and whatever else the mind finds and clings to and continue to suffer until we realize that in the end none of this stuff even matters in the long run. I actually dislike science because it's creating more technology's through our own ignorance of reality which causes more greed, delusion, and more people to suffer having to find these theory's (look at foxcon and all of the suicides for an example, wars that have been fought, and meat factory's), come up with the technology's, and work hard to find them to only find that the reason why they are searching for the theory's and are greedy is because they are a a slave to their own mind and cant fight against the stream to see through the illusions and get rid of the liking & disliking of the 5 senses and see that all of these discoveries in the end do not manner at all, they're pointless. All of these technology's are creating a more materialistic world which will only cause more problems, this is the reason why I laugh when people make a big deal when they think that discovering such a theory is such an amazing thing, when in reality it's just plain silly and in the end just caused suffering and is pointless and in fact no one person discovered anything due to interdependence. wat. The beauty of science is that everything that happens in the entire universe happens for a reason, according to some finite and knowable set of arbitrary rules. It's a beautiful piece of equipment that runs infinitely and silently. Saying that science is pointless since it's simply based on something incredibly old is missing the point of why we struggle to understand it. Creation is beautiful, and it's a pleasure and a joy to fight every day to understand what it is, and what it says about the God who made it. Besides, pretty much every technological breakthrough of the last century, maybe even ever, is due to pure science. Just imagine where this planet would be without the semiconductor. A scientist discovered that, and it has infinitely improved our existence. Personally I could less about if we had semi conductors or medical equipment or not. Everything is subject to impermanence and in the end does not manner. Even if we had all of the medical equipment in the world that's just showing an aversion to disease or death when in reality we will all face death someday no matter what so why try to create technology to fight it instead of embracing it and not taking the subject to positive or negative but what it truly is at face value. What the hell? You do know that species are programmed to survive right? Your attitude would have lead to the extinction of everything. We could go your route and not exist, or we could go the normal route and have record low infant mortailty, record high life expectancy, infinitely better living conditions, etc... Furthermore, following your logic, if trying to put off death is merely ignoring or delaying the certain ending that is death, and is ignorant and pointless, why dont you just kill yourself? Why do you wake up and feed yourself? Why do you drink water? Oh, its because you are biologically programmed to not even believe the bullshit you are saying. I don't kill myself because there is no point in killing ones self, I live to see more insightful and understand everything for what it truly is, embrace everything that happens and be happy with everything that occurs instead of creating aversion to it. I would like to kill my own ego and that's it. Also, the species is programmed to survive but that doesnt make it right, far from the truth actually as trying to escape death or prolong death just creates aversion of death and more suffering in the long road as everything is subject to impermanence and everything will eventually die no manner how long you try to prolong it. Also, we wouldnt be extinct with this mindset, we would just be happy where we're at instead of being so afraid of death and tryign to find cures, we woudl accept things for what they are at face value and be happy with it knowing that in the end trying to fight against these things such as illness just creates more suffering. I drink, eat, and do other things to keep this physical blob of shit body alive that we all have and try to understand things at a deeper level freeing myself from all cravings and everything to live a much more calm, peaceful, and wise life free from suffering and fear. You sir are so out to lunch. You contradict yourself at every turn. You dont let yourself die because you want to live longer to understand and know more, then you say there is no point in trying to prolong our lives because knowing things isnt worth anything and only causes mroe suffering so we should just die. You say you try to separate yourself from all that we have created because it is nothing more than suffering, yet you live in a structure with all the amenities I listed and more, and type your drivel on the computer you wish never existed? Why did you buy the computer? Again, because you actually dont believe the bullshit you are saying. You remind me of the 1 student in all of my philosophy classes who had total hate for everything modernity, technology and society had done to us, while he types his notes on a macbook, dirnking starbucks, at a university in the heart of downtown Toronto, surrounded by, and indulging in everything he put down. You need to give your head a shake. Anyway, this is my last post responding to you. There is nothing to gain from my exchanges with you, enjoy your life, or dont, whatever.
I don't wish to live longer, I live longer because I just do. I could care less if I died or not, I have no aversion to fear or death and therefore do not suffer, I view each moment as a blessing and am happy about everything while you probably area afraid of death and have a lot of aversion, tension, and suffer a lot. I never contradicted at all, I have no aversion to life or death. By killing myself I would be contradicting myself as I would be showing an aversion to life.
I have a computer to try to inform other people and find other people with my mindset so that together, we can become more wise, free from suffering, become more compassionate, and have more wisdom together. So far it has succeeded in what I need it for. Also, your friend can indulge in things, that's fine, as long as he doesn't cling to it, then it becomes a problem.
Medical technology in itself shows a strong aversion/fear to death which is a problem as clinging to something that is impermanent (life) will only cause more suffering as in the end we will all die and we should just learn to accept and embrace it and learn to become happy with death. Look at all of the anxiety's, fears, and problems that people have that are in actually not problems. These are all caused by the conditioning that society imposes on us when we are first born, which creates aversion to these things which leads to suffering, which is all created by a society that was founded on ignorance.
User was warned for continually derailing the thread.
|
I wonder if there is a way to utilize this dark energy. Free near infinite energy? You could potentially make so much money.
Also, I wonder if this dark energy is ever going to run out. What the hell is it and how does it function?
|
On September 18 2012 01:56 ghost_403 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 23:03 rei wrote:
anyone know why photons gain energy and hence produce a blue shift as they pass through gravitational field of a clusters of mass? Looking at the equation from the wiki page, it looks like that effect is simply due to the fact that time-space is distorted by the gravitational field. Basically, the light oscillates slower, creating a change in frequency. It's more of an observational effect, rather than the photon loosing/gaining energy. Or something about bananas. I dunno.
hm.. for this to work, they have to have some kind of reference that they know for sure didn't travel through any gravitational field. And I imagine the change in frequency would be different depend on how many gravitational field some photon pases through on its way to earth. How do they find such a reference that they can use to compare the difference? Use the closest star so that we are sure there is nothing much in between us? but what about our own sun's gravity?
|
|
|
On September 18 2012 03:28 village_idiot wrote:
I wonder if there is a way to utilize this dark energy. Free near infinite energy? You could potentially make so much money.
Seriously?
|
On September 18 2012 03:28 village_idiot wrote:
I wonder if there is a way to utilize this dark energy. Free near infinite energy? You could potentially make so much money.
Also, I wonder if this dark energy is ever going to run out. What the hell is it and how does it function?
it might be an influence from outside the universe, thus we only see the effect and not the cause.
|
On September 17 2012 22:21 Thenerf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:54 Cascade wrote:On September 17 2012 11:25 Thenerf wrote:On September 17 2012 11:08 Cascade wrote:On September 17 2012 10:42 Thenerf wrote:On September 17 2012 10:11 Cascade wrote:On September 17 2012 10:02 Thenerf wrote:
As somebody who had been working on Dark Energy research there are about 5 of these discoveries a year. And this has been going on for several years and they awarded the Nobel Prize for its discovery this year.
I also worked with a doctor out of UMD who professed MOND(Modified Newtonian Gravity) and sad to say that research was discredited years ago.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Dark Energy has been 100% solid science for a while now. There were no recent discoveries made but there are a lot of very "Eager" astronomers. Do you know which the most popular candidates for dark energy are for the moment? Vacuum fluctuations? Some supergravity/strings? Other things? Any hope to experimentally exclude/confirm any theory anytime soon? The "mainstream" theory is quantum foam which is closely associated with the same logic used to derive the Higgs Boson mechanism. However, there is no observable evidence to support this model. Essentially that there is an energy based on quantum uncertainty that will spontaneously cause nothing to turn into particles. That splitting creates and expanding force of energy. My research dealt with what's called Invariant Time dilation wherein dark energy is a form of warped space in which the relative clock is faster. As opposed to gravity which has a slower relative clock. There is evidence to support this but unfortunately it's surprising hard to convince a community of old, bitter, and generally full of themselves men that they might be wrong. In order for physics to reach actual advancements you need to plow through all of the shit which usually takes decades. And dark energy was only discovered in the 90's. I'd also like to note that String Theories don't actually predict anything. They are pretty much just an outlet for the very math minded people in physics to just keep adding dimensions. It usually goes like this: "You know what's better than 21 dimensions? 22!" I have actually been in the room with string theorists and this is how they see things. ok, with vacuum fluctuations I referred to what you call quantum foam. We did the calculation for that in a quantum field theory class back in undergrad, and from the standard model you get a contribution of the wrong sign, and more than 100 orders of magnitude too large. Do I remember that correctly? So people hope that future particle physics models (susy or whatever) will include cancelling factors back to just exactly the right contribution to explain the current acceleration? I know that strings don't predict anything, but that doesn't stop people from considering it a strong candidate for things sometimes.  I did supergravity as masters, with bouncing dimensions and everything. That could include all kinds of growing and shrinking universes, but didn't predict anything as you said. So what's up with the invariant time dilations then? So it is some kind of opposite curvature? Is it related to some negative mass, or just space curving on its own? What measurements do you agree with? Can you sum it up shortly without going into too much technicalities? I Haven't really done any gravity after my masters... "a contribution of the wrong sign" - Not sure I understand what you're saying here. But yes quantum fluctuations are the same. The uncertainty energy is 0.5(planck)(lower case sigma)..........its hard writing physics equations  and its derived from the commutation of wave-particle states. Invariant Time dilation is basically negative mass. You change the direction of the field vectors(opposite curvature) by flipping the sign of the energy(rho). Instead of a collapsing field you get an expanding field. The evidence presented was a Blue Shift and Concave Light Lensing effects which were both already observed. The logic was based on super symmetry where every field has its equivalent and gravity was the only field that didn't have one. Then we found DE and well...now it does. With wrong sign I mean that while we need a negative vacuum energy of around X (to fit measured current cosmological constant), what you get from a naive standard model calculation is about -X*10^120 or something. So to explain todays observed cosmological constant from that, you would need contributions from non-standard model particles that cancels out the -X*10^120, and gives that little extra +X for the actual signal. Or that is how I understood it from my lecturer back in QFT classes. Looking at wiki shortly, they seem to agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy although the article "is in need of en expert physicist" and the calculation includes only QED. Not sure if things would change much with QCD, weak force or higgs. Would still surprise me if they would cancel out to 120 orders of magnitude, but I don't know how the calculations would go. So you would be happy if they found susy particles then?  Is your model touching on quantum mechanics as well, or is it only large scale? My model for dark energy only touches on large scales. Personally I treat the standard model as incomplete and try not to draw conclusions from it. The missing particles are only the beginning of the problems. Given the approach to add "fundamental" particles every 5 years or so each time you make a calculation you end up doing them with only part of the physics. The Standard Model approach has always been fuzzy(pun intended) about evidence. My model in regards to small scales required the discovery of a "dark photon" which is a boson who's propagation velocity isn't c. It's the field interaction responsible for dark matter and would be the stepping stone between the fundamental forces. We looked for it possible from neutrino interactions and never found it. And I'm not sure where to look for it (or how to) which puts a giant ? on that.
Yes, it's true that things are missing in teh standard model. If not else gravity needs to get in somehow. "Adding new fundamental particles every 5 years" doesn't really feel fair though. The standard model has been the same since the seventies, only difference is that they found the last few heavy particles. How much has cosmology changed since then? Particle physics is probably one of the slowest moving fields by quite a lot, as long as you don't count mathematics ofc. How do you mean "fuzzy about evidence"?
So you have some kind of unifying force then? Is it the usual principle of spontaneous symmetry breaking (as in electro-weak)? How does your model solve the divergences you normally get when doing gravity in QFT?
Sorry if I'm asking too much.
|
|
|
Dark archons here we come!!
|
To the original poster. Real PhD in Astrophysics here. The Mond theory was never meant to explain or replace dark energy, only dark matter. Dark matter has often been invoked to explain the rotational curves of the galaxies, which seem to indicate the presence of a lot of undetected matter beyond the visible limit of the galaxies. Mond theory proposes a small modification in Newton's gravity law in the range of very small accelerations such that the force is no longer directly proportional to the acceleration. In the 1990's Mond theory was very successful in explaining the rotational curves of the galaxies without dark matter. Nowadays, new observations seem to indicate that dark matter is indeed necessary, although some relativistic versions of the Mond theory might again bring the balance to their side. At any rate, dark matter is assumed to be in the inter-galactic medium (in between galaxies). In the meantime some developments in quantum field theory (supersymmetry models) have some possible particles that could form dark matter, but none has ever been observed.
Dark energy is an entirely different thing. It's existence is based on the fact that without it, the universe should be contracting (in scales far larger than galaxies: super-galaxy clusters at the very least), while in fact it is expanding. It does not (as far as we know) involve any particles and it has no real alternative explanation (unlike the case of dark matter). The only candidate we can propose at this point is the vacuum energy and the Casimir effect, but this is unclear. We know dark energy is there, we just do not know what makes it and where it comes from. Therefore, I find your title "proven to exist" quite misleading. What is prove in this case ? To know that it's there ? Well, we knew it already. To know where it comes from ? I do not think we do. There are a few theories around but we clearly have no experimental confirmation.
|
On September 18 2012 22:29 Fistro wrote:
To the original poster. Real PhD in Astrophysics here. The Mond theory was never meant to explain or replace dark energy, only dark matter. Dark matter has often been invoked to explain the rotational curves of the galaxies, which seem to indicate the presence of a lot of undetected matter beyond the visible limit of the galaxies. Mond theory proposes a small modification in Newton's gravity law in the range of very small accelerations such that the force is no longer directly proportional to the acceleration. In the 1990's Mond theory was very successful in explaining the rotational curves of the galaxies without dark matter. Nowadays, new observations seem to indicate that dark matter is indeed necessary, although some relativistic versions of the Mond theory might again bring the balance to their side. At any rate, dark matter is assumed to be in the inter-galactic medium (in between galaxies). In the meantime some developments in quantum field theory (supersymmetry models) have some possible particles that could form dark matter, but none has ever been observed.
Dark energy is an entirely different thing. It's existence is based on the fact that without it, the universe should be contracting (in scales far larger than galaxies: super-galaxy clusters at the very least), while in fact it is expanding. It does not (as far as we know) involve any particles and it has no real alternative explanation (unlike the case of dark matter). The only candidate we can propose at this point is the vacuum energy and the Casimir effect, but this is unclear. We know dark energy is there, we just do not know what makes it and where it comes from. Therefore, I find your title "proven to exist" quite misleading. What is prove in this case ? To know that it's there ? Well, we knew it already. To know where it comes from ? I do not think we do. There are a few theories around but we clearly have no experimental confirmation.
Thank you for the clearance. I just wrote "proven" cuz i saw some physics majors considering dark energy as sensational stuff so i thought it might be like that for many people. Now that with the new discovery, no one could deny it.
|
I always get distaste towards "something new exists" news just because typically it is refuted a few years later by some other study conducted by some other university.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
