When dark energy turned on (Update)

Mar 30, 2012
The record of baryon acoustic oscillations (white circles) in galaxy maps helps astronomers retrace the history of the expanding universe. These schematic images show the universe at three different times. The representative-color image on the right shows the "cosmic microwave background," a record of what the very young universe looked like 13.7 billion years ago. The small density variations present then have grown into the clusters, walls, and filaments of galaxies that we see today. These variations included the signal of the original baryon acoustic oscillations (white circle, right). As the universe has expanded (middle and left), evidence of the baryon oscillations has remained, visible in a "peak separation" between galaxies (the larger white circles). The SDSS-III results announced today (middle) are for galaxies 5.5 billion light-years distant, at the time when dark energy turned on. Comparing them with previous results from galaxies 3.8 billion light-years away (left) measures how the universe has expanded with time. Credit: E.M. Huff, the SDSS-III team, and the South Pole Telescope team. Graphic by Zosia Rostomian

(PhysOrg.com) -- Some six billion light years distant, almost halfway from now back to the big bang, the universe was undergoing an elemental change. Held back until then by the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter it contained, the universe had been expanding ever more slowly. Then, as matter spread out and its density decreased, dark energy took over and expansion began to accelerate.

Today BOSS, the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey, the largest component of the third Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS-III), announced the most yet of the distance scale of the during the era when turned on.

"We've made precision measurements of the large-scale structure of the universe five to seven billion years ago – the best measure yet of the size of anything outside the Milky Way," says David Schlegel of the Physics Division at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), BOSS's principal investigator. "We're pushing out to the distances when dark energy turned on, where we can start to do experiments to find out what's causing accelerating expansion."

How to measure expansion in an accelerating universe

Accelerating expansion was announced less than 14 years ago by both the Supernova Cosmology Project (SCP) based at Berkeley Lab and the competing High-z Supernova Search Team, a discovery that resulted in 2011 Nobel Prizes for the SCP's Saul Perlmutter and High-z Team members Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess. Acceleration may result from an unknown something dubbed "dark energy" – or, dark energy may be just a way of saying we don't understand how gravity really works.

The first step in finding out is to establish a detailed history of expansion. Unlike supernova searches, which depend on the brightness of exploding stars, BOSS uses a technique called baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) to determine the distances to faraway .

Baryon acoustic oscillation measures the angle across the sky of structures of known size, the peaks where galaxies cluster most densely in the network of filaments and voids that fill the universe. Since these density peaks recur regularly, the angle between appropriate pairs of galaxies as precisely measured from Earth reveals their distance – the narrower the apparent angle, the farther away they are.

Knowing the distance to an object tells its age as well, since its light travels from there to here at known speed. And the redshift of the light reveals how the universe has expanded since that time, as expansion stretches space itself; the wavelength of light traveling through space toward Earth stretches proportionally, becoming redder and revealing the since the light left its source.

"BOSS's first major cosmological results establish the accurate three-dimensional positions of 327,349 massive galaxies across 3,275 square degrees of the sky, reaching as far back as redshift 0.7 – the largest sample of the universe ever surveyed at this high density," says Martin White of Berkeley Lab's Physics Division, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at Berkeley and chair of the BOSS science survey teams. "BOSS's average redshift is 0.57, equivalent to some six billion light-years away. BOSS gives that distance to within 1.7 percent – 2,094 megaparsecs plus or minus 34 megaparsecs – the most precise distance constraint ever obtained from a galaxy survey."

The origin of BAO, the regular clustering of ordinary matter (called "baryons" by astronomical convention), was the pressure of ("acoustic") moving through the universe when it was still so hot that light and matter were mixed together in a kind of soup, in which the sound waves created areas of regularly varying density ("oscillation"). By 380,000 years after the big bang, expansion had cooled the soup enough for ordinary matter to condense into hydrogen atoms (invisible dark matter was also part of the soup) and for light to go its separate way.

At that moment variations in density were preserved as variations in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a phenomenon first measured by Berkeley Lab astrophysicist George Smoot, for which he shared the 2006 Nobel Prize. The warmer regions of the CMB signal areas where the density of matter was greater; these regions seeded the galaxies and clusters of galaxies that form the large-scale structure of the universe today. Thus the cosmic microwave background establishes the basic scale of baryon acoustic oscillation used to measure the expansion history of the universe.

BOSS's data on galaxy clustering and redshifts can be applied not only to BAO but also to a separate technique called "redshift space distortions" – a direct test of gravity that measures how fast neighboring galaxies are moving together to form galaxy clusters.

For each 15-minute exposure of the deep sky, astronomers plug a thousand optical fibers into a plate that fits at the focal plane of the Sloan Telescope. Each fiber feeds the light of an individual galaxy to BOSS’s advanced spectrograph. Credit: Photo by Dan Long, Senior Operations Engineer, Apache Point Observatory

What if dark energy isn't an unknown force or substance, but instead a shortcoming of Albert Einstein's , our best-yet theory of gravity? General Relativity predicts how fast galaxies should be moving toward one another in galaxy clusters, and, in the aggregate, how fast the structure of the universe should be growing. Any departure from its predictions would mean the theory is flawed.

"We depend on redshift to know expansion rates and how structure was growing at different times in the past," says Beth Reid, a Hubble Fellow at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who directed the BOSS study of redshift space distortions. "But redshifts aren't uniform. Galaxies are carried along in the Hubble flow as the universe expands, but they also have their own velocities. They tend to fall toward denser regions, for example. Because the ones on the far side of a dense region are coming toward us, their redshift makes them look closer than they really are; the opposite is true for the galaxies on the near side, which are falling away from us – they look farther away."

Statistical analysis of the redshifts of the hundreds of thousands of galaxies in the BOSS dataset can take into account the peculiarities of local variation and still produce a dependable measure of distance, the Hubble expansion rate, and the growth rate of structure in the universe. With these techniques, Reid and her colleagues have measured gravity on a scale of 100 million light years, far larger than the most accurate gravity measure yet, which is based on the distance from Earth to the moon.

The right tools to do the job

BOSS obtained these best-yet measures with the wide-field Sloan Telescope at the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico, designed especially for galaxy surveys but mounting a spectrograph far more sophisticated than was available to earlier SDSS surveys.

"The 2.5-meter Sloan Telescope remains the world's premier facility for wide-field spectroscopy because it uses fiber-fed spectrographs, which offer a huge numerical advantage," says Natalie Roe, director of Berkeley Lab's Physics Division and instrument scientist for BOSS, who directed construction of the new spectrographs.

For each 15-minute exposure, covering three degrees of the sky, a thousand optical fibers are inserted by hand into aluminum "plug plates" and positioned at the telescope's focal plane; each fiber is targeted on a specific distant bright galaxy, selected from earlier SDSS imaging. The BOSS instrument uses 50 percent more fibers than earlier SDSS runs, each with finer diameter; for more coverage and finer resolution the new spectrograph incorporates two red cameras using the thick, red-sensitive astronomical CCDs invented and fabricated at Berkeley Lab, as well as two new blue cameras.

"All the data collected by BOSS flows through a data-processing pipeline at Berkeley Lab," says Stephen Bailey of the Physics Division, who describes himself as the "baby sitter of the pipeline." Working with Schlegel at Berkeley Lab and Adam Bolton at the University of Utah, Bailey "turns the data into something we can use – catalogues of the hundreds of thousands galaxies, eventually well over a million, each identified by their two-dimensional positions in the sky and their redshifts." The data are processed and stored on the Riemann computer cluster, operated by Berkeley Lab's High-Performance Computing Services group.

The current crop of BOSS papers is based on less than a quarter of the data BOSS will continue to collect until the survey ends in 2014. So far, all lines of inquiry point toward the so-called "concordance model" of the universe: a "flat" (Euclidean) universe that bloomed from the 13.7 billion years ago, a quarter of which is cold dark matter – plus a few percent visible, ordinary, baryonic matter (the stuff we're made of). All the rest is thought to be dark energy in the form of Einstein's cosmological constant: a small but irreducible energy of puzzling origin that's continually stretching space itself.

But it's way too soon to think that's the end of the story, says Schlegel. "Based on the limited observations of dark energy we've made so far, the cosmological constant may be the simplest explanation, but in truth, the cosmological constant has not been tested at all. It's consistent with the data, but we really have only a little bit of data. We're just beginning to explore the times when dark energy turned on. If there are surprises lurking there, we expect to find them."

Explore further: 'Blockbuster' science images

More information: "The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Data Release 9 spectroscopic galaxy sample," by Anderson et al, has been submitted to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

"The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Measurements of the growth of structure and expansion rate at z=0.57 from anisotropic clustering," by Reid et al, has been submitted to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Related Stories

BOSS: The Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey

Sep 18, 2008

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) uses a 2.5-meter telescope with a wider field of view than any other large telescope, located on a mountaintop in New Mexico called Apache Point and devoted solely to mapping ...

Light from galaxy clusters confirms theory of relativity

Sep 28, 2011

All observations in astronomy are based on light emitted from stars and galaxies and, according to the general theory of relativity, the light will be affected by gravity. At the same time all interpretations ...

Recommended for you

'Blockbuster' science images

5 hours ago

At this point, the blockbuster movie Interstellar has created such a stir that one would almost have to be inside a black hole not to know about it. And while the science fiction thriller may have taken some ...

Estimating the magnetic field of an exoplanet

Nov 20, 2014

Scientists developed a new method which allows to estimate the magnetic field of a distant exoplanet, i.e., a planet, which is located outside the Solar system and orbits a different star. Moreover, they ...

It's filamentary: How galaxies evolve in the cosmic web

Nov 20, 2014

How do galaxies like our Milky Way form, and just how do they evolve? Are galaxies affected by their surrounding environment? An international team of researchers, led by astronomers at the University of ...

User comments : 67

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Chmegr
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2012
"Some six billion light years ago,"

I wish the writer took the time to learn that light-year is a unit of distance...sigh...
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2012
"Some six billion light years ago," I wish the writer took the time to learn that light-year is a unit of distance...sigh...
I wish the writer had said "Some six billion atomic years ago." Now that would have been some forward thinking.

As for the article, spacetime fabric and dark energy are the same thing.
Shane_Steinman
1 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2012
alt.physics.cosmology.steadystate: Accelerated expansion will always appear to have begun just this side of the halfway point between the observer's time and the projected moment of the "big bang", regardless when that observation takes place. Those who come to understand this seem to no longer find "dark energy" very appealing, comprehensible or necessary.
MandoZink
1 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2012
I thought the energy density per cubic-centimeter of space remained constant. I know the expansion is predicted to increase logarithmically. Was this early non-expansion period just the "flat" bottom of the log curve? I am not sure what I am missing here. Why would the expansion have a "turn on" point. I know the cooling due to the expansion allowed cosmological "eras" to begin as various particles cooled enough to combine. Those events could be called "turn on" points, I guess. I don't see that with dark energy.
Callippo
Mar 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Callippo
1 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2012
In this regard this article is particularly insightful. It just demonstrates, some individuals of scientific community can see the horizons of their own paradigms - but these opinions are ignored in general. Everything what we can do is to explain patiently the layman publics, where the problem with mainstream physics is. These things can be understood without knowledge of high level math, the knowledge of maths just makes their realization of more difficult. Just try to solve this puzzle without premature googling of the answer. If you want to understand the Universe, you should learn to look at it like the small kid.
michaelgor
3 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2012
"Some six billion light years ago,"

I wish the writer took the time to learn that light-year is a unit of distance...sigh...


well, since the light took 6 billion years to get here, it may also be referenced as a unit of time since you are now seeing what transpired 6 billion years ago.....sigh.....
Pyle
5 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2012
Lame puzzle Zephyr. 10 seconds. Are you really saying that understanding the universe is just like counting circles? Naive approaches can be useful, but don't oversell them.

Explaining the problem with mainstream physics is not the "everything what we can do".

What we can do is let people know what we are working on and explain the potential ramifications of it.

What we can do is relate the information we have learned by applying the scientific method to the universe around us.

What we can do is ignore buffoons who spin nonsense lameman theories out of whole cloth that can't be empirically tested and provide no testable predictions.

Dark energy is an unknown at present. We are constantly gathering more data and using new observational equipment to discover more about it. The hope is that understanding what makes the universe tick will help us advance. Enough with the water ripples until you switch from postdiction to prediction.
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2012
Enough with the water ripples until you switch from postdiction to prediction
At the water surface the ripples are collapsing with distance. This is the analogy of the red shift in dense aether model.
http://people.rit...4565.jpg
These ripples collapse with distance in increasing speed - this is the analogy of the dark energy.
These ripples disperse in different way, depending on their initial wavelength - this is the prediction of this model.
http://www.aether...ples.jpg
Is it so difficult to imagine it? Maybe... Is it more difficult, than the understanding of math of general relativity? Definitely not: it's a real life physics.

Allex
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2012
I'll like to think that some 6 billion years ago an advanced civilisation predicted the Big Crunch and underwent an immense engineering effort of cosmic scale to create Dark Energy - to save the Universe (or give it a longer lifespan). ;)
Tausch
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2012
Remove the pseudotensor from GR...

Acceleration may result from an unknown something dubbed "dark energy" or, dark energy may be just a way of saying we don't understand how gravity really works.


http://en.wikiped...dotensor

Under 'Definition' (forth paragraph)GR's pseudotensor doesn't hold up...ah... I mean...ripples...no...wait...I mean...water!
Alexander_Herrmann
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
Maybe some weird Quantum effect did make it to the makro level and around 6 billion years ago the universe expanded so far that the gravitational forces pulling now the edges of our universe together. Unfortunately that would mean the universe is already collapsing at increasing speed.
Kind of mind bending to imagine a balloon which implodes by having the outside becoming the inside.
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2012
Remove the pseudotensor from GR.
Without pseudotensor you could derive anything in GR at the college level and the teachers would lost their appreciated jobs. Relativists use a simplified form of Einstein field equations to calculate various properties of his gravitational field, including Einstein gravitational waves, which are based on the Einstein's pseudo-tensor. This simplified form is called the linearized field equations. They do this because Einstein's field equations are highly non-linear (implicit actually) and impossible to solve analytically. So they use the linearised form, simply assuming that they can do so. However Hermann Weyl proved in 1944 already, that linearizion of the field equations implies the existence of a Einstein's pseudo-tensor that - except for the trivial case of being precisely zero - does not otherwise exist:

http://www.jstor..../2371768
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2012
The pseudotensor is really related to the problem of recycling of matter inside of galaxies, because the zero pseudotensor would enable the evaporation of matter from black hole with superluminal speed. In linearized, EinsteinMaxwell theory on flat spacetime, an oscillating electric dipole is the source of a spin-2 field, i.e. gravitational waves, which are superluminal in dense aether model, yet they transport the nonzero energy and mass density. http://www.aether...ate1.gif But I'm not sure, if it's possible to explain these subtleties to people at public forum, who know the physics only from TV shows at Discovery channels.
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2012
Fortunately there are many ways of how to understand, what the gravity field of black hole does with the massive particles at the elementary level. Before some time I explained here, that every massive particle can be understood like the solitons, in which the transverse and longitudinal waves of vacuum do resonate at place. The strong gravity field separates the transverse and longitudinal waves and enables to escape from them in mutually perpendicular directions. In this sense the black hole spews the stream of photons and neutrinos in axial direction (the photons are solitons of transverse waves and neutrinos are solitons of longitudinal waves of vacuum). When these particles manage to escape from gravity field, they start to recombine both bellow, both above black hole again with CMBR background into sparse rain of material particles, which are falling like some giant fountain back into galactic plane. This circulation tosses the galaxy like the pizza and gives it its flat shape.
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2012
Another way, how to understand the evaporation of matter in the vicinity of black hole is so-called complementarity of black holes: the object falling beneath the event horizon appears differently from bellow the event horizon and from above of it. The object bellow even horizon would appear widespread across whole volume of black hole. Now the another concept of mainstream physics comes into scene: the insight, that the event horizon is not sharp boundary, the black holes are "fuzzballs". You can be never sure, whether you're still above event horizon - or whether you're trapped inside of it already. It means, for particles of different rest mass this perspective may appear differently: the photons and neutrinos will still move freely, but the heavier particles will be trapped inside of it already. It leads to the separation of streams of matter.
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2012
The main difference between accretion and this novel mechanism of evaporation of matter is, the accretion considers only mutual collisions of particles during their fall into black hole: these particle are getting hot with their mutual impacts and they do evaporate into radiation. It would mean, the isolated particles would have no reason to evaporate during their fall into black hole. This makes a problem for large galaxies, where their central part is cold and quiet already, there's no apparent accretion - yet the circulation of matter inside of such galaxies remains prominent. So we should accept the assumption, during fall into black hole every particle faces its evaporation, no matter if it collides with something during this or not. The main source of this evaporation aren't the tidal forces though - but the change in force constants in which the particles are glued together in the inner and outer regions of black hole.
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2012
This concept is bit revolutionary and it brings the notion of multiverse on mind immediately: the electrons and atom nuclei inside of Milky way galaxy aren't exactly those, which we can observe at the outer areas of it. I mean, they do behave in the exactly same way from the outer perspective, but if we would lift these electrons from the center of Milky Way into outside, they would blow out in similar way, like the deep-sea fish explode, when they are brought to the surface. And vice-versa: the light-weight neutrinos from the lightweight vacuum around galaxy would condense into heavier particles with no mercy, whenever they get into center.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2012
I thought the energy density per cubic-centimeter of space remained constant. ... I am not sure what I am missing here. Why would the expansion have a "turn on" point.


You are probably being misled by a poor choice of writing style. The energy density of the CC is constant as you say but the density of matter falls as the cube of the scale factor, if distances double, volumes increase by a factor of 8. The era they are describing is when the two densities were equal. Dark energy didn't "switch on" in any way at that time, matter just became thinner than it.

I know the expansion is predicted to increase logarithmically.


That is true for a universe in which there is only dark energy and the real universe will become asymptotically close to that as expansion proceeds.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2012
At the water surface the ripples are collapsing with distance. This is the analogy of the red shift in dense aether model.
http://people.rit...4565.jpg
Is it so difficult to imagine it?


It appears to be too difficult for you at least. Since the illusion is that the ripples grow smaller as they move away from the source, it would be an analogy for "blue shift" because the frequency increases with distance. This is exactly the opposite of "red shift".

Maybe... Is it more difficult, than the understanding of math of general relativity? Definitely not: it's a real life physics.


It's a pointless question, since you can't tell the difference between "increases" and "decreases", you shouldn't attempt any form of maths.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2012
... But I'm not sure, if it's possible to explain these subtleties to people at public forum, who know the physics only from TV shows at Discovery channels.


.. says the guy who can't tell the difference between red shift and blue shift.

ROFLMAO !
MandoZink
not rated yet Mar 31, 2012
The energy density of the CC is constant as you say but the density of matter falls as the cube of the scale factor, if distances double, volumes increase by a factor of 8.


I wasn't questioning the matter density. I know it is decreasing.

The era they are describing is when the two densities were equal. Dark energy didn't "switch on" in any way at that time, matter just became thinner than it.


I know that, too. I have seen the graphs of energy density vs matter density over time, hence my question. I thought the dark energy was already "on", and consistently dense. I do know that the energy density is constant, which results in an exponential increase as space expands. Was the article implying that when the energy density overtook the matter density it turned ON?
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2012
Since the illusion is that the ripples grow smaller as they move away from the source, it would be an analogy for "blue shift" because the frequency increases with distance. This is exactly the opposite of "red shift".
You're probably confused, because what you're looking at is the single pulse ripple, not continuous wave. The original wavelength of the pulse is at the outer side of the circle - not inside of it. These ripples are dispersing and their wavelength increases, because they're losing energy during it. This is a red shift, not blue shift.
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2012
says the guy who can't tell the difference between red shift and blue shift
Your comment rather indicates, it's just you who has a problem to recognize it at the photo of common real life phenomena.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2012
Fleetfoot, credibility > 5
Callippo, credibility = 0
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2012
Credibility, education, upvotes are indeed nice - but what it has something to do with logical matter of facts arguments? From when is it part of scientific method?
TabulaMentis
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2012
Callippo, credibility = 0
Callippo, Zephyr and whatever other usernames he or she uses at least has new ideas, right or wrong. That is more than I can say for most of the people who blog on Physorg.com.

At least Callippo is not blinded by supersting theory like most of the other bloggers on this website. Keep up the good work Callippo.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
I was puzzled by Beth's comment concerning the Hubble Flow:

"...the ones on the far side...are coming toward us...galaxies on the near side which are falling away from us"

If the Universe is in a state of continual expansion at CC how is it galaxies are "coming toward us"? Then at the same time other galaxies are moving away from us. Is this a randomn pattern of movement or a dynamic pattern of motion as we observe the patterns of orbits of planets around stars within the same solar system?
Shane_Steinman
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
I wasn't questioning the matter density. I know it is decreasing.


But is it, really?
Iourii Gribov
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
Schlegel says. "the cosmological constant may be the simplest explanation, but it has not been tested at all So, please,
look in the Gribov periodical Multiverse the periodical (matter/antimatter) Hyperbook. This 3D-waveguided modularity unites basic physical laws (SR&QM&GR, the superfluid & weightless nature of our vacuum, etc). This consept simultaneously explains basic miracles in modern physics and has some lab. predictions (see, please the e-Journal published paper in Berlin (Humboldt Univ. http://www2.hu-be...ibov.pdf ):
(1) the interconnected nature of Dark Energy (DE) and Dark Matter (DM) & the flatness of our Universe/Multiverse & the accelerating expansion & the bubble large-scale structure, with the estimated theoretical ratio DE/(DM + Ordinary Matter) ~74%/26%, that is very near to the recently done measurements. The DE&DM, etc data work as evidences for it).
Sonhouse
5 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
It's amazing how much you guys think you know about the universe, always ready with THE answer. If you guys are so smart, give us some predictions, or falsify Einstein in a real journal not some sunday night quarterbacking like you actually know what you are talking about. Why don't you all respond in the journals instead of this general science online rag?
Shane_Steinman
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Hi Sonhouse,

You want a prediction about darkEnergy?

How about this: It's an illusion for which we will soon have no need.
Shane_Steinman
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
I haven't read Iourii's paper, but he does bring up an interesting point, which is that there may be a special relationship between darkEnergy and darkMatter. This is an under-explored possibility and does concur with the findings of our group.

My associates and I have been evaluating the proportional figures for darkEnergy, darkMatter and matter since 2002 when we realised that there was something suspicious about their relative distributions. Since then, we have seen no data that contradicts our assessment that darkEnergy and darkMatter are illusional. WMAP numbers continue to dance around the ratios we pointed out nearly a decade ago. 
Anda
5 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Water ripples is back.
No one Wants u writing here rawa1/Aether-brain-callippo
Tausch
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2012
Re:Calli
An IMpulse of energy is the complete spectrum of energy.
If I assert the above statement I don't have to wave the wand to obtain a continuous wave.

(I am a 'Nature is a continuum' fan-boy -
not a 'Nature is discrete' fan-boy.)
Even if I idolize QM - Both views coexist within me peacefully.

So is your use of word 'pulse' synonymous with word 'impulse' - which I regard as a continuous spectrum?
Tausch
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
Re:Calli

http://en.wikiped...entarity

First sentence...
"Black hole complementarity is a conjectured solution to the black hole information paradox, proposed by Leonard Susskind[1] and Gerard 't Hooft."


Please warn hapless readers the black hole information paradox addressed by the black hole complementarity deals only with physical information. (Classical information theory)

I am still on the same page as mathematician Stephen J. Crothers - liberated from Oppenhimers' effort to create acceptance for misinterpreting mathematical expressions for physical objects labeled black holes that many long to see as a part of our tangible, observable, measurable, inescapable, non-simultaneous reality.
Au-Pu
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
The most important part of this article was covered in the paragraph following the photograph of the BOSS advanced spectrograph, where they posited the prospect that if the observations did not support the General Theory of Relativity that it could indicate that the theory was flawed. They offered no results or conclusions on this, not even the vaguest speculation.
It was mentioned then ignored.
Why?
Shane_Steinman
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
Pursuant to my previous post on the possibility of a relationship between darkEnergy (dE) and darkMatter (dM) here's the breakout we identified in 2002 which is still well within the margin of error for both the 5-year and 7-year WMAP surveys...

where U = dE + dM + m, proportions resolve to:
dE = 72.7131%; dM = 23.1453%; m = 4.1416%;
such that dE : dM = : 1 and m = [+1]% U

We're confident that continued refinement of the data will ultimately resolve as above.
Shane_Steinman
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
Pursuant to my previous post on the possibility of a relationship between darkEnergy (dE) and darkMatter (dM) here's the breakout we identified in 2002 which is still well within the margin of error for both the 5-year and 7-year WMAP surveys...

where U = dE dM m, proportions resolve to:
dE = 72.7131%; dM = 23.1453%; m = 4.1416%;
such that dE : dM = Pi : 1 and m = [Pi 1]% U

We're confident that continued refinement of the data will ultimately resolve as above.

(moderator, please remove the preceding post - the system dropped the character for Pi - thx)
Shane_Steinman
not rated yet Apr 01, 2012
Moderator: Now the system is dropping the plus character, please kill this post when you kill the two preceding ones. Aaarrrgghh...
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
It's amazing how much you guys think you know about the universe, always ready with THE answer. If you guys are so smart, give us some predictions, or falsify Einstein in a real journal not some sunday night quarterbacking like you actually know what you are talking about. Why don't you all respond in the journals instead of this general science online rag?

Because rag sheets do not talk back to you almost instantanously. I just cannot wait until metatronics becomes available so we can start insulting each other at the speed of light.
Shane_Steinman
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
Hopefully this post will come through intact.

Pursuant to my previous post on the possibility of a relationship between darkEnergy (dE) and darkMatter (dM) here's the breakout we identified in 2002 which is still well within the margin of error for both the 5-year and 7-year WMAP surveys...

where U = dE dM m, proportions resolve to:
dE = 72.7131%; dM = 23.1453%; m = 4.1416%;
such that dE : dM = Pi : 1 and m = [Pi 1]% U

We're confident that continued refinement of the data will ultimately resolve as above.
Shane_Steinman
not rated yet Apr 01, 2012
Please delete my last one, too. Calculations just can't be posted on this system reliably. I'm done. Out.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
My associates and I have been evaluating the proportional figures for darkEnergy, darkMatter and matter since 2002 when we realised that there was something suspicious about their relative distributions. Since then, we have seen no data that contradicts our assessment that darkEnergy and darkMatter are illusional. WMAP numbers continue to dance around the ratios we pointed out nearly a decade ago.
Shane, I think you and your associates are delusional. Dark Energy and Spacetime Fabric are the same thing. Dark Matter is a product of Dark Energy. Dark Matter is the same thing as Preatomic Particles. Preatomic Particles exist prior to the formation of atoms. Atoms are made of Preatomic Particles. The word Preatomic in the way I use it cannot be found anywhere. To the best of my knowledge the word Preatomic could not be found anywhere when I began using it over twenty years ago. Go figure. Big deal right? Actually, it is a big deal!
Shane_Steinman
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
Shane, I think you and your associates are delusional. Dark Energy and Spacetime Fabric are the same thing. Dark Matter is a product of Dark Energy. Dark Matter is the same thing as Preatomic Particles. Preatomic Particles exist prior to the formation of atoms. Atoms are made of Preatomic Particles. The word Preatomic in the way I use it cannot be found anywhere.


So, you're telling me that I'm wrong and you're right, based upon an idea that cannot be elsewhere found, and of which you are the sole original inventor? Okay... Fair enough.

But before we go any further, let me state that I'm a proponent of steady-state cosmology. (How quaint, I know.) As such, the rules by which my universe operates are almost identical to your own in that the fundamental forces are exactly the same, but the interpretation of cosmological redshift at intergalactic distances is one of the primary distinguishing variations. Under the model I use, the age of the universe is actually incalculable.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2012
Ha, look at all the physics denialists that crawls out of the woodwork when you mention "dark energy"! Maybe they are called crackpots because they crack you up? Aether, steady state, redshift = blueshift, "spacetime fabric" woo, ... no end of oldies but goldies.

Unfortunately it makes it hard to see the commenters that are actually interested in the physics. :-/

@ Au-Pu:

I beg to differ, the most important part is the description of how BOSS can measure distances to high precision and further out than classical distance ladders, and don't pivot on a few critical measurements.

Anyway, the part about the observations falsify relativity doesn't hide anything. Of course observations can always falsify even well tested theories, for example because they aren't complete and have a certain range of validity. (It is in fact known that GR isn't complete since quantum GR breaks down at high energies.)
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2012
[cont.]

The problem here is that these observations as of yet do nothing of the kind, as they note the data set is just beginning to be collected and doesn't suffice for improved testing. And standard cosmology with its GR is the simplest theory, so no one expects it will break that easily.

Meanwhile all alternative theories have been pushed beyond breaking (lately MOND had to give up predicting galaxies as well as standard cosmology/dark matter now can with the first self consistent galaxy models), so there isn't even any remaining competitors at the moment.
Shane_Steinman
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
Torbjorn, regardless what you might currently believe, you may one day decide (against your firmest current convictions) that certain steady-state scenarios present distinct advantages over "big bang" theory; I believe that it's also important to stress that big bang cosmology is, in fact, still a theory; and that many of the data selected to support it may also be supportive of other paradigms. Amongst the more attractive features of newer steady-state models is the lack of any need to propose the existence of energies and masses (of admittedly immeasurable nature) to make up for 'predictive deficiencies' in the core theory.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
Ha, look at all the physics denialists that crawls out of the woodwork when you mention "dark energy"! Maybe they are called crackpots because they crack you up? Aether, steady state, redshift = blueshift, "spacetime fabric" woo, ... no end of oldies but goldies.
Knowledge will set you free. Sometimes too much of the wrong knowledge will blind you. The best way of knowing if dark matter and dark energy actually do exist is for us to be able to see smaller. Using photons to see the smallest particles has its limitations. If you want to see smaller then you will need to use photons produced by preatomic particles. Again, preatomic particles are smaller than atomic subatomic particles, but no where near the Planck length where dark energy dwells. Instead of arguing about this and that maybe we should focus on figuring out how to see smaller. Hopefully we can all agree with that assessment.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
I forgot to mention one of the benefits of being able to see smaller; we will be able to get more bang for our buck!
Shane_Steinman
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2012
I forgot to mention one of the benefits of being able to see smaller; we will be able to get more bang for our buck!


Don't get me wrong. Small is great... doesn't take up much space... easy to clean... but smaller isn't always better. ( Can I get a "That's what s/he said!" ? :)

Anyway, from a cost perspective, outside of Geneva they have constructed an incredibly expensive machine in a bid to spy something so small and so elusive that it might not even exist. Bang for the buck indeed.

If Newton and Leibniz (using apples and globes with pictures of sea monsters on them) could figure out all the things they did (what, with having their wigs powdered and getting fitted for the crazy trousers those cats wore), then surely, we, standing on the shoulders of giants such as these, should be able to see that we have thunk ourselves into a logical corner, from which we must now ourselves unthink.

Cheers
Chmegr
5 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2012
"Some six billion light years ago,"

I wish the writer took the time to learn that light-year is a unit of distance...sigh...


well, since the light took 6 billion years to get here, it may also be referenced as a unit of time since you are now seeing what transpired 6 billion years ago.....sigh.....


That is fundamentally wrong, as the definition of a light year states that it is a unit of DISTANCE in which light can travel in one year. Therefore, the speed of light [m/s] is multiplied by the number of seconds in a year, leaving only a unit of distance (10^16 meters = 1 light year).
Shane_Steinman
not rated yet Apr 02, 2012
Good job on the article, btw. An informative catch-up on the latest developments in the expanding universe of information about... well... the expanding universe. I may not agree with the worldview that underlies the theory upon which much of the described work is predicated, but I do prize capable reporting. Occasionally, I'll even mention it. \ :^)

In a similar way, I believe that the value of data gathered from carefully-considered, well-executed experiments usually exceeds the value of the conclusions initially drawn from them.
Teneca
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2012
I believe that the value of data .. usually exceeds the value of the conclusions initially drawn from them
Theoretically yes, practically the research groups aren't very willing to share their data and even if you could get it, they would be probably inconsistent with your methodology. Most of research data are becoming obsolete faster, than they can be ever used. For example, most of LEP data are already unaccessible, because of changes in storage and database format, lost of meta-data etc. In general, it's estimated, more than 60% of research is simply duplicated, because the scientists are pilling their data faster, than they can handle and 40% of research time is consumed with seeking of money. These numbers would allow to fire 80% of researchers immediately.
Chmegr
not rated yet Apr 02, 2012
"Some six billion light years ago,"

I wish the writer took the time to learn that light-year is a unit of distance...sigh...


Oh good, they changed it. = )
El_Nose
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2012
I remember when there were people on physorg that knew science and had open debates that were credible -- now its what you see in the comments here
Pyle
not rated yet Apr 02, 2012
Bah!
When was that Nose? Zephyr has been here forever. Do you just miss Ethelred? Look back at some of the old conversations. They don't get much better than Torbjorn_Larsson_OM's comments. He is spot on here and at UT. If you want real discussions about physics go over to physicsforums. This is for laymen to spout on like they know something.
Besides, the fact that DE is so unknown invites the crazies.
Teneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2012
and had open debates that were credible
Do you mean strictly consistent with mainstream physics, or they would be otherwise deleted? For many people "credible" means just familiar - they read it somewhere else and such information becomes "credible" (a lie repeated often becomes truth). From perspective of mainstream physics there's nothing much credible about dark energy (1, 2, 3). The only bare fact is, that nearly everything what we can say about it will be just a speculation.
Shane_Steinman
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2012
Teneca, good points on information overload, data erosion and inaccessibility. Now, further encumber the communicative process with disciplinary overspecialisation, a liberal dose of jargon, acronyms and catch-phrases... and it sounds like a recipe for incomprehensibility.
Shane_Steinman
1 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2012
Teneca, generally agree. The article covers an aspect of cosmological physics that is still very much under debate despite a strong communal desire to establish a consensus-based model for the creation and evolution of the universe -- a sort of 'standard model' for the macro-verse. In this regard, speculative contributions shouldn't be scorned but rather encouraged.

As the article admits early on, "Acceleration may result from an unknown something dubbed 'dark energy' or, dark energy may be just a way of saying we don't understand how gravity really works."

Anyway, in the spirit of cooperation, anyone who would like to try integrating our simple proportionality complex into their WMAP interpretation, please feel free to contact the team: pi@humblerock.com

Best,

Shane
Shane_Steinman
1 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2012
Einstein's only truly significant failure, in my opinion, was that he ever let himself be talked out of his steady-state conception of the universe, a perspective so integral to his unique understanding of physical reality. This phantom, dark energy, is a poor replacement for Einstein's cosmological constant.

I wonder what he'd think about a world that regards 96% of the universe as being made up of invisible matter and immeasurable energy. Not wishing to offend, he might say, "Ja, absolut unglaublich."

Shane_Steinman
not rated yet Apr 03, 2012
No worries. I get it. Not ready. Ciao.
Pyle
not rated yet Apr 03, 2012
Don't let two trolls down rating you discourage you. Throw up some links to work and let your peer reviewed research speak for itself.

Then again, if your work never made it out of review, or even into review, and you are just spouting nonsense, I applaud your attempt to bow out of the conversation. Don't let me stop you.
Shane_Steinman
not rated yet Apr 04, 2012
Thanks, Pyle.

So, do you indulge in your own opinion of 'dark energy'?
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2012
Einstein's only truly significant failure, in my opinion, was that he ever let himself be talked out of his steady-state conception of the universe, a perspective so integral to his unique understanding of physical reality. This phantom, dark energy, is a poor replacement for Einstein's cosmological constant.
The cosmological constant of Einstein helped him to make the steady state model from observations of red shift. The dark energy is solely different concept: it helps to make the accelerated expansion from steadily expanding universe. If someone is saying, that the dark matter is the replacement for Einstein's cosmological constant, then he simply doesn't know, what he's talking about.

IMO the dark energy is real, if nothing else, than just because it actually violates the Big Bang model, which doesn't predict accelerated speed of Universe expansion. It can serve as an evidence for Steady state model instead, in which the red shift is the effect of dispersion nature.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2012
The dispersion of light with density fluctuations of vacuum works in characteristic way: because these fluctuations have characteristic wavelength of CMBR noise, the light of the same frequency cannot be dispersed with it. The shorter wavelength of light, the more it's dispersed instead. It means, the light of distant galaxies is dispersed more by now, than at the distance, which creates an illusion of the accelerated speed of Universe expansion. The same effects we can observe with dispersion of ripples at the water surface: the very short ripples are dispersed more, than the ripples of ~2 cm wavelength, which are not dispersed at all. What's better, the ripples of longer wavelength are actually gaining their wavelength and energy from their environment, which can serve for testing of predictions of dispersive model of the red shift: in radiowaves the Universe should appear collapsing instead of expanding. And these observations were already done.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2012
Before some time, the US astronomers announced surprising results from a high-altitude balloon experiment called ARCADE-2, which had made careful measurements of the sky at radio wavelengths. The background radio emission, which is the component smoothly distributed across the whole sky, was several times brighter than anyone was expecting.

Another prediction of steady state model is, the red shift effect will disappear at the wavelengths of CMBR. It was observed too with disappearance of integrated Sachs-Wolf effect in observation of CMBR for remote galaxies. If we could observe the Universe in radiowaves, we would observe, that the more distant galaxies are larger, than these closer one, which would imply, that our Universe is shrinking with time.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2012
As another supporting evidence of Steady State model could serve the repeated findings of mature galaxies, black holes surrounded with dust, highly metallic stars and the finding of heavy elements like the tellurium at the most distant areas of Universe. Big Bang model considers the formation of galaxies from lightweight elements only, so that these objects would have no time to form. On the contrary, these lightweight elements like the lithium are systematically missing in the distant Universe. These observations are the more frequent, the better telescopes we have, which indicates, the development of technology reached the level, which would enable to falsify Big Bang model with direct observations.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.