Is dark energy static or dynamic?

Nov 12, 2012 by Lisa Zyga feature

(Phys.org)—While hypothesized dark energy can explain observations of the universe expanding at an accelerating rate, the specific properties of dark energy are still an enigma. Scientists think that dark energy could take one of two forms: a static cosmological constant that is homogenous over time and space, or a dynamical entity whose energy density changes in time and space. By examining data from a variety of experiments, scientists in a new study have developed a model that provides tantalizing hints that dark energy may be dynamic.

The scientists, Gong-Bo Zhao of the University of Portsmouth in the UK and the Chinese Academy of Science in Beijing; Robert G. Crittenden of the University of Portsmouth; Levon Pogosian of Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia, and the University of Portsmouth; and Xinmin Zhang of the Chinese Academy of Science, have published their paper on the evidence for dynamical in a recent issue of .

In their paper, the scientists focused on constraining dark energy's equation of state, which has historically been a very difficult task. The equation of state characterizes the way that the universe is expanding, and scientists use to constrain this parameter in an attempt to find its precise value in the real world.

Knowing the true value of the equation of state would not only lead to a better understanding of dark energy, but gravity as well. The key question is whether the value of the equation of state ever equals -1, since that might point to the breakdown of Einstein's on cosmological scales. Some models have estimated an equation of state very near -1, which has prompted the search for a quantum .

In the new study, the scientists' main finding is that the latest observations give a slight preference to a dynamical dark energy model whose equation of state evolves from less than -1 at low redshifts to greater than -1 at higher redshifts – at some point equaling -1.

"If this result were confirmed, it would imply an additional intrinsic degree of freedom of dark energy and could be a smoking gun of the breakdown of Einstein's theory of general relativity on cosmological scales," Zhao told Phys.org.

To attain this result, the scientists combined cosmological data from the latest supernova, cosmic microwave background, redshift space distortion, and baryonic acoustic oscillation measurements. Then they applied a new reconstruction method to the data, which has the advantage of minimizing the biases that occur in some other reconstruction methods.

"Perhaps the greatest significance of the work is the demonstration of the method as a means of determining whether dark energy is dynamical without relying on an arbitrary model for how dark energy could evolve," Zhao said. "It is quite interesting that when it's applied to the present data, these dynamical models do well, even when accounting for their larger flexibility."

The scientists' model allowed them to compare a range of dark energy models and determine which models best fit the combined data. Although the dynamical dark energy model was slightly preferred, the researchers noted that models with the still fit the data, though not quite as closely as the dynamical model.

The results are still far from conclusive, but the scientists hope that future data might narrow down the models with greater accuracy. They hope that observations by the Planck spacecraft (launched in 2009; first data available in April 2013) and the Euclid spacecraft (launch date is 2019) could help pinpoint the dark energy models that most closely describe our expanding universe.

The researchers explained that there are two general reasons why reconstructing the evolution of dark energy's equation of state is so challenging.

"There are two issues here; the first relates to the difficulty of observing changes to the rate of the Universe's expansion," Crittenden said. "It took us 70 or 80 years to realize that the expansion rate was even accelerating, and this is largely because it's hard to find the reliable standard rulers and standard candles which we use to measure it. We are now attempting to distinguish between models which predict very small differences, and to do this convincingly we need future data such as will come from the Euclid satellite.

"The second issue relates to our lack of clear alternatives to explain the acceleration; without knowing what it should look like, it's harder to recognize it. Previous work has tended to assume particular forms for the dynamics, but if these assumptions were wrong, they give us biased information and could miss out on seeing the dynamics entirely. We have tried to make fewer assumptions, which allows us to reconstruct a much larger class of possible models and capture the dynamics if it is there. By improving the quality and quantity of the data, we should be able to verify or falsify a very broad class of dynamical models, which will be crucial to understand the nature of dark energy."

Explore further: Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

More information: Gong-Bo Zhao, et al. "Examining the Evidence for Dynamical Dark Energy." PRL 109, 171301 (2012). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.171301

Journal reference: Physical Review Letters search and more info website

4.5 /5 (19 votes)

Related Stories

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

Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

Apr 18, 2014

Putting is arguably the most important skill in golf; in fact, it's been described as a game within a game. Now a team of Rice engineering students has devised a training putter that offers golfers audio, ...

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Apr 17, 2014

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

User comments : 48

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (21) Nov 12, 2012
In AWT the dark energy is analogy of quantum effects at the microscopic scale. At the water surface the ripples are moving most slowly, when they're of wavelength about 1,75 cm, i.e. comparable with wavelength of CMBR. These ripples of this wavelength are as transverse as possible, all other waves of longer and smaller wavelength are just more longitudinal and they do spread faster. It means, at both smaller, both larger scales these transverse ripples are scattered into longitudinal waves in a way, which is geometrically similar: the appearance of Universe at the cosmological scales is similar to the appearance of Universe at the microscopic quantum scales. The phenomena like the polarization of light or turbulence of space-time therefore should manifest itself even at the cosmological scales.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.5 / 5 (16) Nov 12, 2012
Short Zhao et al: By ignoring the standard cosmology predictions, the isolated data does slightly better in some other models. This is how the "ftl neutrinos" of OPERA came to be (ignoring relativity).

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Piecemeal picking at, or replacing, the standard cosmology is not that.

It isn't even interesting, because the odds for parameter fishing is akin to data fishing: not too bad, or people wouldn't be lured into it. Now, if they had found a large deviance. But they didn't (and understandably so, since it would have surfaced when standard cosmology was vetted).
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (18) Nov 12, 2012
IMO the dynamic character of dark energy has been demonstrated already as so-called the dark flow and therefore it has no meaning to theorize about it.

IMO this geometrical similarity goes even further and the appearance of space-time at the quantum scale should replicate the appearance of space-time at the cosmic scale. It applies to the nested dodecahedron symmetry of vacuum fluctuations, as observed in density/temperature fluctuations of dark matter in Higgs field. If we could magnify the vacuum with space-time loupe, we would see the dark matter foam of the same structure like at the cosmic scale. It indeed has its implications for interpretation of Higgs boson, for example.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.8 / 5 (25) Nov 12, 2012
For the non-crackpots out there: AWT is "Aether (something, something) Theory".

But "aether" has been rejected by observations over a century ago. You can't build theories on what is not seen. So don't mind the stains on the carpet in science blogs, not all hosts take the trash out.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (20) Nov 12, 2012
You can't build theories on what is not seen.
Every successful scientific theory did so - or it would change into interpolation without effective predictable value or even falsifiability. For example the Copernicus model of solar system considered geometry, which was unobservable with existing technology. It was therefore based on wild speculations. The conservative physicists and astronomers therefore based their model of solar system on the epicyclic motion of planets, which was the only model, which was reliably observable.

The introduction of new insightful model of reality requires the ability to see it from "outside", i.e. from extrinsic perspective, which is a-priory unaccessible to experimental verification at the first moment. Just after when the technological progress enables us to expand our perspective of Universe, then this extrinsic perspective changes into intrinsic one and we can extrapolate it further. This process repeats cyclically.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (22) Nov 12, 2012
For example, at the very beginning the people believed, the Earth is flat desk - because this is simply how the Earth appears at the small scale. Later the Earth was recognized as a sphere, but this perspective was considered speculative, until first astronauts did see it as a real sphere. If we should remain completely scientifically honest, we should wait for the final confirmation of spherical Earth model to Gagarin - but as we can see, the existence of spherical Earth was considered firmly a many years before.

Later the whole Milky Way was considered as the whole Universe, until Hubble recognized stars in another galaxies on the sky. From this moment the intrinsic view of Universe expanded into extrinsic ones and now we are just expanding this view again. But we should wait for travel outside of Milky Way galaxy for being perfectly sure, that the Universe is not formed with single galaxy only. Until we do it, then the expanded model of Universe remains just a speculation.
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 12, 2012
The idea, that the appearance of Universe at cosmic scale somehow resembles the appearance of Universe at the quantum scale has even a wide support in mainstream physics, namelly in so-called AdS/CFT correspondence (which is called Maldacena duality by its founder). This duality essentially says, that the space-time at the quantum scale appears like spherically inverted geometry of space-time at the relativistic scale. The FLRW metric used for description of Universe in cosmology therefore appears like black hole geometry inverted inside-out. But we have a numerous evidence, that even objects smaller than the Universe appear similarly to the objects at the microscopic scale. The scope of AdS/CFT duality is therefore quite widespread in the Universe and it's not limited to space-time geometry only.
SpiffyKavu
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 12, 2012
ValeriaT, I have one correction to make. People knew the Earth was spherical in the days of the ancient Greeks by looking at lunar eclipses.

And while I think the possibility of a dark flow is interesting, there are other possible causes besides a dynamical dark energy field, so discussion like this is fine. So long as it remains civil and doesn't get out of hand (i.e. not too many people working on it).
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 12, 2012
Despite I don't believe in black hole geometry of Universe, it can still bring some testable predictions. For example, many astronomers believe, that the Universe exhibits a chirality like the interior of rotating black hole: a half of galaxies rotates clock-wise, the half one counter-clock-wise in it. Because many black holes have a jets, the astronomers like Laura Mersini are speculating, that even our Universe is formed with interior of black hole and the famous WMAP cold spot is the "hole", in which we can see through event horizon of our Universe into outside of it. IMO our Universe is very large, so it appears rather like the very large black hole: such a hole wouldn't exhibit a single jet, rather many spikes which do resemble the spikes in the solar corona. And the convective cells between these spikes will correspond the dark flow, as observed from inside. The Universe therefore appears rather like the interior of large and fuzzy star, which we are observing from inside.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (19) Nov 12, 2012
People knew the Earth was spherical in the days of the ancient Greeks by looking at lunar eclipses.
Unfortunately, from completely strict and honest scientific perspective, such an insight is still just a speculation/deduction - albeit quite smart, relevant and insightful one. You can always ask for direct observational evidence of spherical Earth - and such an evidence cannot be done in different way, than just with physical observation of rotating Earth from outside. For example many people still do believe in Hollow Earth theory, which has some holes in it. Such a model cannot be disproved with observation of Earth shadow at Moon so easily.

If you admit an indirect evidence as a ultimate proof of theory, then we can just ask, why the cold fusion or AWT aren't accepted already? Apparently we should define, what the "direct observational evidence" already is, and what it still isn't.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (20) Nov 12, 2012
You can't build theories on what is not seen.
This is a question of definition of "what is not seen". For example the AWT considers random model of Universe just in an effort to exclude all unnecessary assumptions from our models of reality. It therefore doesn't assume any particular geometry for it. What we know is, the Universe is formed with space-time curvatures and AWT just assumes, these curvatures are random like the density fluctuations inside of gas. From the same reason I don't consider beginning or end of Universe, not to say about some particular geometry of it.

So from my perspective the mainstream cosmology considers way more things about Universe, than the AWT (you know - the things like the Big Bang origin, inflation and all these things which cannot be seen...).

So there is always a question, who is speculating more: me - or mainstream cosmologists? If we all accepting the Occam's razor criterion as a dogma - why not to consider it quite consequentially?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2012
Hi Torbjorn_Larsson_OM. I haven't time to discuss this at length at the moment, so I will just ask for comments on this:
...But "aether" has been rejected by observations over a century ago. You can't build theories on what is not seen....


Has anyone in the science literature done any comparison/evaluation regarding the properties of the various 'aethers' of the past and the 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' and other fields etc which are thought by many as the 'aethers' of today? It seems that fields and energies and matter of all sorts are now postulated to permeate all of space to produce/sustain all the various phenomena at various energy/particle-wave regimes. Just curious if anyone knows of such comparisons/evaluations in the literature. I'll be back to read responses in a couple days or so. Thanks in advance. Cheers!
baudrunner
1 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2012
Gravity doesn't work in waves. It is more like every object is caught in some kind of colossal elastic web.
Dark Energy could be explained by planetary bodies whose orbits are shared by two stars, if this is a general state of conditions in the galaxies of this Universe. These interstellar bodies would not be easily detectable.
ValeriaT
3 / 5 (10) Nov 12, 2012
Dark Energy could be explained by planetary bodies whose orbits are shared by two stars, if this is a general state of conditions in the galaxies of this Universe.
Dark energy applies to extragalactic scales, not to interplanetary scale. And I don't see any connection of planetary motion to the dark energy here. How did you come into it?
rubberman
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 12, 2012
Has anyone in the science literature done any comparison/evaluation regarding the properties of the various 'aethers' of the past and the 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' and other fields etc which are thought by many as the 'aethers' of today?

Tor is a steadfast standard theorist. Gravity is his Aether, Val likely knows more than anyone else here on AWT, I never engage Val because I have never studied AWT so i would not be able to converse intelligently as to it's validity. My money is on gravity as the primary on Solar system scales and a hybrid of effects of gravity and electromagnetism on the interstellar/extra galactic scale. IMO, there isn't "dark" anything, just attraction and repulsion of Electro magnetism and gravitational binding. Aether could describe the medium in which these effects take place, but it would be composed of plasma and dust.
vacuum-mechanics
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 12, 2012

But "aether" has been rejected by observations over a century ago. You can't build theories on what is not seen. So don't mind the stains on the carpet in science blogs, not all hosts take the trash out.

This is the old result got from Michelson – Morley experiment. Nowadays (below) it is easy to make an simple scientific indirect prove for the existence of something like the aether (in the same way like neutrino proving)!
http://www.vacuum...14〈=en

Ben D
2 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2012
Could it be that the ubiquitous reality represented by the following terms is the one and the same for all,..that the respective proponents of each that claim the other is wrong are the blind men describing the elephant?

Aether/Ether
Higgs Field
Dark Energy
Zero Point energy Field

..any others folks?

Tachyon8491
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 12, 2012
If Einstein had studied Maxwell's original quaternion notation electric-magnetic unification equations, that is, before Heaviside threw out the scalar term and Lorentz applied symmetrical re-gauging to them, he would have understood that the zero-electromagnetic vector sum has a gravitational implication. Not believing in *locally* curved spacetime, but that this only occurred around massive cosmological bodies, he spent the rest of his life fruitlessly pursuing the unification of electromagnetism and gravity. If he had studied Maxwell properly we could have had electrogravitic spacecraft flying all over the solar system by around 1904. More recently Dr. Henry Monteith, Ph.D. Nuclear field engineer and Physicist proved Maxwell's electrogravitic theory to be a true unified field theory. Kaluza-Klein theory explains how 5-D electrogravity and 3-D spacetime interact. There is a wealth of info on this for those who bother doing serious research and willing to stretch beyond paradigm.
Parsec
4.9 / 5 (10) Nov 12, 2012
Build one. Make a trillion bucks or two on it. More power to you. Note that while KK theory did attempt at a unification of gravity and EM, it also failed spectacularly because of nonsensical results. For example, anytime you get a mass = something divided by 0, you can pretty reasonably assume something is wrong with the theory.
Silverhill
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
If he had studied Maxwell properly we could have had electrogravitic spacecraft flying all over the solar system by around 1904. More recently Dr. Henry Monteith, Ph.D. Nuclear field engineer and Physicist proved Maxwell's electrogravitic theory to be a true unified field theory.
So has Dr. Monteith (or anyone else) tested an electrogravitic spacecraft yet? Is there even a working model?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Nov 12, 2012
The AWT utilizes only concept of Boltzmann gas, i.e. particle environment from æther concept of pre-Einsteinian era. The existing models of scalar of vector field like the Higgs field, Dark energy, Zero point energy Field, CMBR field, Quintesence and/or Einstein's Aether are something like the Brownian noise of real luminiferous æther: i.e. very sparse fields, which cannot serve for mediation of light waves anyway. It's similar situation like if we would replace the water surface with empty 2D space, filled only with tiny Brownian noise: such a sparse environment can describe some drag and scattering effects, but it cannot describe the spreading of water ripples by itself
before Heaviside threw out the scalar term and Lorentz applied symmetrical re-gauging to them
An oscillating electric dipole is the source of a spin-2 field even in linearized, Einstein–Maxwell theory on flat spacetime.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Nov 12, 2012
Therefore CMBR noise isn't formed just with photons - it contains gravitational waves and neutrinos (solitons of gravitational waves) too. In the gravitational field between massive objects or acceleration of matter the spin-1 field (i.e. virtual photons) is prevailing and this field generates matter, in the gravitational shadow of this field or during deceleration the spin-2 component (neutrinos) becomes dominant and such a field generates antimatter. The connection line of many massive objects arranged in line becomes particularly rich of gravitational waves and neutrinos and the dark matter is forming/concentrating there. Scalar waves and low energy neutrinos could be therefore generated even with generators of electromagnetic waves, when the transverse component of EM field remains compensated/shielded. It's an analogy of generation of sound waves at the water surface: you need to splash it, but filter-out the surface ripples formed with it, so that only underwater waves remain.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
Has Dr. Monteith (or anyone else) tested an electrogravitic spacecraft yet? Is there even a working model?
As far I know only EM drive and Woodward drivewere tested successfully. Boeing tests are claimed unsuccessful.
Argiod
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
Theoretically, since all is composed of energy in one form or another; everything is moving in relation to something else; and nothing can be said to be truly 'static'.
Tausch
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
Aren't you glade everyone uses motion?
Don't you wish everyone did?

It was advertised as "the first active, really effective energy in all history because it removed static energy that cause perspiration odor. Although researchers had never established a link between motion and static protection, early advertisements graphically depicted static energy and motionlessness before and after use of dark energy. Dark energy became the leading motion brand in the U.S. From 1953 until the mid-1990s, Dark energy was advertised under the slogan Aren't you glad you use motion? (Don't you wish everybody did?) which became a popular catchphrase.

Maybe I'm confused though.
Zed123
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 12, 2012
Wow, its like a convention of the nut jobs in here. We've got AWT which from everything I've seen appears to be a theory involving jamming as many big words with no relation to each other into a sentence as possible. Then there is some sort of early 1900's 5-Dimensional Electrogravitic spaceship scenario. (Unfortunately the reference to 3-Dimensional spacetime does detract from what I'm sure is an otherwise rock-solid theory).

I'm gonna buy shares in a tin foil company, cause there must be a hell of a lot of hats being made out of that stuff right now....
Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2012
So don't mind the stains on the carpet in science blogs, not all hosts take the trash out.


Ha! Well said.
Maggnus
1 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2012
So don't mind the stains on the carpet in science blogs, not all hosts take the trash out.


Ha! Well said.

You also Zed123.
JIMBO
1.6 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2012
13 yrs now, the CosmoConstant has continually Nailed the data, while f(R), CC(t), quintessence, etc. models have fell by the wayside. Occam rules the universe, & probably the mulitverse as well: w =-1.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
If dark energy is dynamic, then maybe it can be used for space propulsion...as in a kind of warp drive.
vlaaing peerd
1 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2012
anytime you get a mass = something divided by 0, you can pretty reasonably assume something is wrong with the theory.


Sounds like a pretty flawless theory to me.
Egleton
1.4 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2012
are the blind men describing the elephant?

Aether/Ether
Higgs Field
Dark Energy
Zero Point energy Field

..any others folks?


Dark Flow.
The Standard model has more patches than my bicycle tube. I smell a crisis. "Those whom the Gods would destroy OR Create, they first make mad."
A lot of people are going to loose the plot over this. We must have empathy. They are so committed to their Left Brain models that their view of reality will dissolve with the model.
This is the advantage of being uncommitted to any model of Reality.
Valeria keeps posting about Cold Fusion. No-one shouts that the sun will rise in the morning. It is understood. This Cold Fusion is a scab that itches.
Please drop the homilie that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A moments reflection will reveal it's hollowness.
If a flying sauce landed in your back yard, and you had a nice cup of tea with the visitor, but had absolutely no evidence of the encounter, what is the reality?
Tausch
2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
There is no end to model making.
Nanowill
1.3 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
The Cosmological Holographic Principle implies the boundary area of all particles in the Universe is equal to the boundary area of the Universe. This is a Conservation principle. The expanding Universe boundary therefore implies an increasing number of particles. So quantum fluctuations cause formation of more particles, which expands the Universe boundary, pulling the Universe outward. This is Dark Energy. The Universe mass density calculated via this notion agrees with WMAP data to within empirical uncertainty. And it also proves there in no CDM.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2012
Is dark energy static or dynamic? Do unicorn's have a horn or antler? Does Medusa have poisonous snakes on her head?

There remain many unanswered questions in the field of myth and fables.
Hat1208
3 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2012
Does anyone understand the ripples at the waters surface crap?
david_templeton
3 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2012
Could someone please explain why the universe is expanding (via dark energy) rather than evaporating?

If some intrinsic property for matter decays over time, wouldn't it create the same effect described by dark energy?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2012
Hi Hat1208.
Does anyone understand the ripples at the waters surface crap?


Actually, yes. I understand his AWT analogy/model quite well. I agree with some parts/explanations and disagree with some other parts. While it is a good 'visualizable' and easily-relatable theory/model involving common observable phenomena like waves/ripples etc and their 'unseen connections' below the surface etc etc, it is still an incomplete theory insofar as it does not quite gel when gravity comes into the picture. Hence while I understand it as is, I do not subscribe to it as an actual FULL representation of reality, but a 'useful illustrative approximation' within its limits of applicability for intuitive explanation of SOME observed phenomena. The current Standard Model is also incomplete because of gravity etc. So no shame in AWT also being incomplete! It is also more 'intuitive' than standard model...and that's not to be sneezed at! That's it. No further comment. And no more time! Cheers!
jack_sarfatti
1 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2012
If dark energy is dynamic then it might be amplified and controlled on a small scale with low power using metamaterials. This might well allow the geometrodynamical engineering of warp drive and traversable wormholes for quick flights to the stars and beyond without time dilation delays.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
Is that you? Dark energy manifest itself at the distance scale 6 billions light years.
EverythingsJustATheory
not rated yet Nov 13, 2012
If a flying sauce landed in your back yard, and you had a nice cup of tea with the visitor, but had absolutely no evidence of the encounter, what is the reality?


Most likely the person is dreaming, or having a psychotic episode.
Hat1208
1 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2012
Thank you RealityCheck for that description as to why that analogy is used. And cheers to you!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2012
Does anyone understand the ripples at the waters surface crap?
The vacuum contains CMBR noise and the energy of the light is spreading through in transverse waves. The water surface contain Brownian noise and the energy is spreading along it in transverse waves. So you can ask, what these two spreadings have in common...

1) During spreading of waves at the water surface their wavelength increases with distance from both observer or source of waves. The spreading of light is behaving in the same way and the light is becoming reddish. This behavior therefore mimics the Hubble red shift.

2) This expansion of wavelength of water surface waves is nonlinear, because the ripples of short wavelength are scattered less, than these long wavelength ones. The red-shift of light from distant sources is behaving in the same way: its wavelength expands slow at first with distance, but its speed gradually increases. This behavior mimics the dark energy stuff.
baudrunner
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2012
ValeriaT: Determination of dark energy is made from evidence passing through gravity fields of local space as seen from here. Time frames are such that we need thousands of years of observations to include dual-star orbits of planets as possible contribution to warping of received information by way of gravitic lensing. Trust Wikipedia then - "..dark energy permeates all space."

Frankly, I think it's arrogant and naive, and not our place, to draw conclusions from observing the relative behavior of galaxies in this Universe. The distances are too enormous and the subject matter too colossal.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
Furthermore, theory will always just remain theory until a pure understanding of what gravity is and how it works is attained. Particle/wave theory does not provide the answer, for that is NOT how it works. Keep thinking.
Ben D
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2012
If a flying sauce landed in your back yard, and you had a nice cup of tea with the visitor, but had absolutely no evidence of the encounter, what is the reality?

The reality is that a flying sauce landed in my back yard, and I had a nice cup of tea with the visitor, but I have absolutely no evidence of the encounter.


SteveL
1 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2012
If dark energy is dynamic, then maybe it can be used for space propulsion...as in a kind of warp drive.
It already is. From the perspective at the edge of our Hubble volume - see how fast we are already travelling.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2012
For the non-crackpots out there: AWT is "Aether (something, something) Theory".

But "aether" has been rejected by observations over a century ago. You can't build theories on what is not seen. So don't mind the stains on the carpet in science blogs, not all hosts take the trash out.


Well-stated! Congratulations!

More news stories

NASA's space station Robonaut finally getting legs

Robonaut, the first out-of-this-world humanoid, is finally getting its space legs. For three years, Robonaut has had to manage from the waist up. This new pair of legs means the experimental robot—now stuck ...

Ex-Apple chief plans mobile phone for India

Former Apple chief executive John Sculley, whose marketing skills helped bring the personal computer to desktops worldwide, says he plans to launch a mobile phone in India to exploit its still largely untapped ...

Filipino tests negative for Middle East virus

A Filipino nurse who tested positive for the Middle East virus has been found free of infection in a subsequent examination after he returned home, Philippine health officials said Saturday.

Egypt archaeologists find ancient writer's tomb

Egypt's minister of antiquities says a team of Spanish archaeologists has discovered two tombs in the southern part of the country, one of them belonging to a writer and containing a trove of artifacts including reed pens ...