The dark side of cosmology

March 6, 2015 by Catherine Zandonella
The components of our universe. Dark energy comprises 69% of the mass energy density of the universe, dark matter comprises 25%, and “ordinary” atomic matter makes up 5%. Three types of neutrinos make up at least 0.1%, the cosmic background radiation makes up 0.01%, and black holes comprise at least 0.005%. Credit: Science/AAAS

It's a beautiful theory: the standard model of cosmology describes the universe using just six parameters. But it is also strange. The model predicts that dark matter and dark energy – two mysterious entities that have never been detected—make up 95% of the universe, leaving only 5% composed of the ordinary matter so essential to our existence.

In an article in this week's Science, Princeton astrophysicist David Spergel reviews how cosmologists came to be certain that we are surrounded by matter and energy that we cannot see. Observations of galaxies, supernovae, and the 's temperature, among other things, have led researchers to conclude that the universe is mostly uniform and flat, but is expanding due to a puzzling phenomenon called . The rate of expansion is increasing over time, counteracting the attractive force of gravity. This last observation, says Spergel, implies that if you throw a ball upward you will see it start to accelerate away from you.

A number of experiments to detect and dark energy are underway, and some researchers have already claimed to have found particles of dark matter, although the results are controversial. New findings expected in the coming years from the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful particle accelerator, could provide evidence for a proposed theory, supersymmetry, that could explain the dark particles.

But explaining dark energy, and why the universe is accelerating, is a tougher problem. Over the next decade, powerful telescopes will come online to map the structure of the universe and trace the distribution of matter over the past 10 billion years, providing new insights into the source of cosmic acceleration.

Yet observations alone are probably not enough, according to Spergel. A full understanding will require new ideas in physics, perhaps even a new theory of gravity, possibly including extra dimensions, Spergel writes. "We will likely need a new idea as profound as general relativity to explain these mysteries."

When that happens, our understanding of the dark side of will no longer accelerate away from us.

Explore further: Image: Hubble sees spiral in Serpens

More information: Spergel, David. "The dark side of cosmology: Dark matter and dark energy." Science, 6 March 2015: Vol. 347 no. 6226 pp. 1100-1102 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa0980

Related Stories

Image: Hubble sees spiral in Serpens

September 8, 2014

(Phys.org) —This new NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows a beautiful spiral galaxy known as PGC 54493, located in the constellation of Serpens (The Serpent). This galaxy is part of a galaxy cluster that has been ...

Universe may face a darker future

October 31, 2014

New research offers a novel insight into the nature of dark matter and dark energy and what the future of our Universe might be.

Physicists suggest new way to detect dark matter

November 18, 2014

For years physicists have been looking for the universe's elusive dark matter, but so far no one has seen any trace of it. Maybe we are looking in the wrong place? Now physicists from University of Southern Denmark propose ...

Possible discovery in 2015 of a new particle in physics

February 15, 2015

The world's largest atom-smasher could help physicists understand mysterious dark matter in the universe, and later this year it may offer a discovery even more fascinating than the Higgs-Boson, researchers say.

Recommended for you

Understanding nature's patterns with plasmas

August 23, 2016

Patterns abound in nature, from zebra stripes and leopard spots to honeycombs and bands of clouds. Somehow, these patterns form and organize all by themselves. To better understand how, researchers have now created a new ...

NIST's compact gyroscope may turn heads

August 23, 2016

Shrink rays may exist only in science fiction, but similar effects are at work in the real world at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Stretchy supercapacitors power wearable electronics

August 23, 2016

A future of soft robots that wash your dishes or smart T-shirts that power your cell phone may depend on the development of stretchy power sources. But traditional batteries are thick and rigid—not ideal properties for ...

97 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TopCat22
1.6 / 5 (15) Mar 06, 2015
Another way to look at this is that 5% we can see and detect is within our normal experienced dimensions that we can detect and that the 95% is within other dimensions we cannot yet understand or detect.

We call them dark because they are invisible to us because we cannot experience those other dimensions.
TopCat22
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 06, 2015
A simple answer to the dark energy portion that is causing the ever accelerating expansion of the universe is that a dimension exists within our universe whose functional properties are to spontaneously expand and accelerate when so doing the fabric of space-time in the measured quantities of the accelerated expansion that we can detect.

It could then be a property of that dimension to manifest what we are calling dark matter or the dark mater dimension can be another dimension in and of itself.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (28) Mar 06, 2015
It's actually the "Dark Age" of cosmology, an era that will be viewed with contempt and mockery by generations that follow. It's a strange dichotomy this era we live, the incredible technological advances engineers are able to create while the fanciful theorists are playing mind games and inventing unicorns (DM) and leprechauns (DE) to explain away the failed aspects of their asinine belief systems.
jeffensley
1.9 / 5 (20) Mar 06, 2015
Does anyone else feel like dark energy and dark matter are cop outs... human creations to force the universe to fit our still infantile understanding of it? I think someone needs to be studying the space between all these particles we are searching for. I think that's where the answer lies. Perhaps all we are witnessing is the birth of space, the growth of the 3rd dimension as we understand it. Perhaps from some "center" point, a tear in the fabric? Or perhaps space is forming everywhere, at all times? On our scale, it's unnoticeable, however when you start looking across the universe, the effect is multiplied.
rossim22
2.1 / 5 (21) Mar 06, 2015
Dark matter and dark energy just exemplify the lack of falsifiability. Standard Cosmology is just another creation story which requires faith in unobservable matter and forces with empty space bending somehow to cause a gravitational force. It's a pretty story but that's all it is, scientists should be able to recognize failures in a theory, not patch the theory with endless ad hoc hypotheses.
Doug_Huffman
1.5 / 5 (13) Mar 06, 2015
@Jeff, read Lee Smolin's proposals for a background-independent physics. In particular, he suggests that space is emergent, caused by the presence of particles and expands to accommodate the relations among the various particles. Only time is fundamental. In infinite time all possibilities will occur repeatedly and in all variations repeated.

The Standard Models of particles, universes and theology are not falsifiable.
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (13) Mar 06, 2015
LOL Endless ad hoc hypotheses is called AD-HOCKERY by such as Edwin T. Jaynes.
rossim22
1.8 / 5 (17) Mar 06, 2015
What's with all of this science-fiction "extra dimension" talk? Seriously? How about we stick to what we know is there and look for alternatives? Large-scale electric fields will produce particle acceleration, galactic rotation, filamentary structures, etc. yet those who support Plasma Cosmology are labeled pseudoscientists while we praise inventions of undetectable matter to fix an already broken theory and desperately look towards extra dimensions... whatever that means.

A simple answer to the dark energy portion that is causing the ever accelerating expansion of the universe is that a dimension exists within our universe whose functional properties are to spontaneously expand and accelerate when so doing the fabric of space-time in the measured quantities of the accelerated expansion that we can detect.

It could then be a property of that dimension to manifest what we are calling dark matter or the dark mater dimension can be another dimension in and of itself.
fowlowl1955
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2015
jeffensley you make an interesting observation. I wonder also about how reality functions on the tiniest of levels in the quantum world. Specifically how sub-atomic particles and space at that minuscule place act or react. For the most part it is a crazy reality without certainty. Something seems to guide the fundamentals of that chaotic behavior into our level of reality. As an agnostic, I think atheist have exceeded their disbelief in "God" to discount our thought/spiritual reality and that consciousness does not survive somehow in the universe. Why would the universe not hold and accommodate the most wondrous result of its existence and eons of evolution. Cognition. I think, therefore I am- forever, bound in the fabric of the universe in some dimension or at the quantum level where awareness connects random reality into our seemingly "solid", dependable reality. The answers may be, as you say, "In the space between the particles".
Doug_Huffman
1.5 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2015
Read Karl Popper's *The Logic of Scientific Discovery* for his solution to the Problem of Demarcation of science from nonsense. If it ain't falsifiable, like extra dimensions, then it ain't science. Technology can be validated as turtles-all-the-way-down becomes quarks&gluons-all-the-way-down.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2015
Read Karl Popper's *The Logic of Scientific Discovery* for his solution to the Problem of Demarcation of science from nonsense. If it ain't falsifiable, like extra dimensions, then it ain't science. Technology can be validated as turtles-all-the-way-down becomes quarks&gluons-all-the-way-down.
M theory depends on the existence of additional dimensions. They're not unscientific.
jeffensley
2 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2015
@ Doug So you include dark matter and dark energy in that list of things that can't be falsified, correct? Not sure I understand your last sentence though I'm familiar with the story.
Doug_Huffman
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2015
M theory depends on the existence of additional dimensions. They're not unscientific.
Really? The Father of M-Theory told you that? He has not proposed a falsifiable test of String or M-Theory, though he is aware of the desperate need of such. On information and belief, the most recent falsifiable test in the *general field* of Standard Models was of the minimum neutron star mass ~1.6 Solar (2 Solar masses observed 1992).
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2015
@ Doug So you include dark matter and dark energy in that list of things that can't be falsified, correct? Not sure I understand your last sentence though I'm familiar with the story.
Yes, they (DM, DE) can't even be directly observed (hence 'dark'). The most direct inference of DM is of anomalous rotation of distant galaxies.

Attend Stanford U's Leonard Susskind's streamed lecture series, 165 sessions. Late in Cosmology he addresses such.
Doug_Huffman
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2015
@ Doug So you include dark matter and dark energy in that list of things that can't be falsified, correct? Not sure I understand your last sentence though I'm familiar with the story.


There is no hypothesized end to the Standard Model of Particle Physics. As energies increase, so does the stack of quarks increase. The ability to construct ever larger accelerators will be the end, with theorists hypothesizing an accelerator the size of the observable universe be required.
jeffensley
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2015
There is no hypothesized end to the Standard Model of Particle Physics. As energies increase, so does the stack of quarks increase. The ability to construct ever larger accelerators will be the end, with theorists hypothesizing an accelerator the size of the observable universe be required.


Ahh yes. I agree with you completely. I think our pursuit of the "smallest" building block is pointless because, as you stated "it's turtles all the way down". The universe is likely as infinitely small as it is infinitely large. Our finite brains simply can't process something like that. And thus, spirituality comes into the picture again. :) An interesting question would be, does life exist on those micro levels?
Doug_Huffman
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2015
I do not believe sufficient complexity is possible at Planck scales. Nor do I believe the causally connected universe infinite by any measures.

I like the idea that time is the only infinity, extending into the past infinity of cosmological bounces and up to the infinitesimal now. Again, in an infinity of time all that is possible has reoccurred and in all possible variations. You and I are unique only in the now.

I also like the idea that THIS universe, at least of the infinite previous ones, evolved a God Creator of matter (Earth, Prophet Incarnate) and energy (Heaven, Spirit inspiration). Imagine how our distant ancestors will regard our fumbling and incoherent attempts at cosmology a thousand years from now.

Read John Polkinghorne.
Nashingun
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2015
This is where reality strikes back on wannabe scientists playing geniuses when actual realization of the existing universe does not even come close to our usual natural physics that science suddenly collapses into nothing! Higgs Particle for instance does not even get things right after according to CERN Higgs Physics fails to sustain the now existing universe after the BB missing the key source of how the universe is today! But sure, why not, make another speculative bluff and claim you understand the universe more than anybody can and spew another round of deceit and lies. Ow, and there is no God-like creature that can manipulate the entire universe but acknowledge the existence of Dark Matter and Dark energy holding the universe collectively while fooling yourselves over with your cheap theories.
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (20) Mar 06, 2015
I also like the idea that THIS universe, at least of the infinite previous ones, evolved a God Creator of matter (Earth, Prophet Incarnate) and energy (Heaven, Spirit inspiration)
@doug
where is your empirical evidence of this?
From all available evidence here on Earth, there is no such thing, especially given the wide range of deities as well as the fact that all historical texts have been invalidated by science and investigation, especially the xtian bible
Imagine how our distant ancestors will regard our fumbling and incoherent attempts at cosmology a thousand years from now
they are far more likely to question why so many people ignored science for their faith in delusional deities
One thing will stand out: how the delusional choose to ignore evidence against them out of fear or because it's unknown
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
jerry_bushman_7
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2015
Big bang? Not so much. Expansion? Fading away. It is time to rethink it all. If the big bang didn't happen and expansion is false and it is true the universe has always been here, then what are we seeing? Lets take a look at the possibility that the universe is indeed fairly flat and that galaxies are mostly moving away from each other. How could that be if expansion is false. Perhaps the visible universe of galaxies are in fact orbiting around a central mass much like a very large galaxy. Why would there be a need for dark energy when it is actually orbital movements giving the feel of expansion. Dark matter could be explained away as well when the velocities and movement of stars and galaxies are controlled by a central mass rather than individual attraction. The stars in our galaxy are not held together by dark matter, they are held in orbit by SgrA*. On the larger scale of this universe the velocities of the member galaxies are held in orbit by a large mass or masses
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (18) Mar 06, 2015
@reset
i didn't figure you for a creationist or godder type...
guess that explains a lot, though
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 06, 2015
Really? The Father of M-Theory told you that? He has not proposed a falsifiable test of String or M-Theory, though he is aware of the desperate need of such.


"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises."

-If its good enough for hawking its good enough for me. In-progress does not mean un-scientific.
ppnlppnl
5 / 5 (14) Mar 06, 2015
What crap. The article is almost as bad as the comments following it. The standard model does not predict either dark matter or dark energy. Dark matter and dark energy come from empirical observations that the standard model does not know what to do with.

Bob one
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2015
They are searching for so called dark matter because what we know about the amount of matter and it's velocity in galaxies indicates the universe is very young. This has been the case for a long time while evolutionists claimed an old age for the universe. They are imagining that 5/6 of the matter in the universe is invisible. Will it hurt if they bump into it?
jeffensley
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2015
One thing will stand out: how the delusional choose to ignore evidence against them out of fear or because it's unknown
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF


The unknown is fantastic... and I'm grounded enough to realize that our perception and ability to interpret what human-created machines tell us is amazingly limited when it comes to attempting to quantify something like the universe. Do we even consider the possibility that the rules are always changing?
Doug_Huffman
2 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2015
Yes, it is an essential axiom that the causally connected universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
adimchio
2 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2015
"The universe is mostly uniform and flat"
??
jim_zhao_cc
2.1 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2015
Universe is infinite and has no boundary, so mathematically it can not expand or contract. Some so called scientists need go back to elementary schools to refresh their math.
Dethe
1 / 5 (11) Mar 06, 2015
The universe looks like the water surface, when its being observed with its own ripples - it looks flat at the first look, but once we use sufficiently long wavelength waves (which can spread across large distance in it), we will see, that it's actually quite turbulent (or even fully random at the largest scales). Now we are starting to observe its first small-scale turbulences - the dark matter.
jim_zhao_cc
1.7 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2015
"The universe is mostly uniform and flat"
??

people study statistics know that in a infinite space such as universe, matters tend to be uniform and flat, with 100% certainty. If you flip coins infinite times, you are 100% certain that you get 50% chance of getting "face"..
vic1248
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2015
I appreciate Physics to the fullest and Theoretical Physics to a certain extent; meanwhile, what if the universe is here and expanding because there is a force outside of it and not subject to its realm, time and Laws of Nature/Physics acting upon it? I believe the key lies in the "Origin" of matter and life.

I believe it's time to reinstate Metaphysics. I believe in the nexus of Physics and Metaphysics.
adimchio
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2015
Another way to look at this is that 5% we can see and detect is within our normal experienced dimensions that we can detect and that the 95% is within other dimensions we cannot yet understand or detect.

We call them dark because they are invisible to us because we cannot experience those other dimensions.


Most scientists reject faith as unscientific for exactly the same reasons: "95% (of the Christian belief) is WITHIN OTHER DIMENSIONS we cannot yet understand or detect....(They) call them (faith) because they are invisible to us because we cannot experience those other dimensions".
I am not trying to say that the Christian faith is science, but if it must be rejected for the above reasons, shouldn't we then reject dark matter/energy cosmology for the same reasons? Just wondering.
eric96
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2015
Another way to look at this is that 5% we can see and detect is within our normal experienced dimensions that we can detect and that the 95% is within other dimensions we cannot yet understand or detect.

We call them dark because they are invisible to us because we cannot experience those other dimensions.


It's the mass of dark matter that holds the galaxies together.
That means dark matter is in the same dimension as the other matter.
eric96
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2015
@jeffensley

Dark matter at least, is not a copout.
It holds the galaxy together.
The stars in the milky way do not obide kepler velocities.
They don't orbit the black hole at the center of the galaxy.
We know this because the velocity of the stars on the outskirts and those on the inner region are almost identical; so they are not orbiting a center.
The only explanation is that they are orbiting within a cloud of something we cannot see.
Something else, without this stuff that we cannot see, our galaxy nor any other could hold itself together; there would be no galaxies just stars here and there.
eric96
5 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2015
Dark matter and dark energy just exemplify the lack of falsifiability. Standard Cosmology is just another creation story which requires faith in unobservable matter and forces with empty space bending somehow to cause a gravitational force. It's a pretty story but that's all it is, scientists should be able to recognize failures in a theory, not patch the theory with endless ad hoc hypotheses.


Nope everything in cosmology is dictated by observation.
Anything unobserved is instantly rejected.
eric96
5 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2015
What's with all of this science-fiction "extra dimension" talk? Seriously? How about we stick to what we know is there and look for alternatives? Large-scale electric fields will produce particle acceleration, galactic rotation, filamentary structures, etc. yet those who support Plasma Cosmology are labeled pseudoscientists while we praise inventions of undetectable matter to fix an already broken theory and desperately look towards extra dimensions... whatever that means.

What you are referring to is impossible at larger scales that is why it is so easily and punitively rejected.
eric96
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2015
Read Karl Popper's *The Logic of Scientific Discovery* for his solution to the Problem of Demarcation of science from nonsense. If it ain't falsifiable, like extra dimensions, then it ain't science. Technology can be validated as turtles-all-the-way-down becomes quarks&gluons-all-the-way-down.
M theory depends on the existence of additional dimensions. They're not unscientific.


Oops upvoted you by accident, what a shame.
eric96
1 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2015
Ahh yes. I agree with you completely. I think our pursuit of the "smallest" building block is pointless because, as you stated "it's turtles all the way down". The universe is likely as infinitely small as it is infinitely large. Our finite brains simply can't process something like that. And thus, spirituality comes into the picture again. :) An interesting question would be, does life exist on those micro levels?

It depends what you mean about life.
For example I could posit that the universe is alive in the sense that it always balances itself out. At fundamental level alive is capable of memory, capable of perceiving information around us, and capable of thinking. All living things share these characteristics.
eric96
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2015
Big bang? Not so much. Expansion? Fading away. It is time to rethink it all. If the big bang didn't happen and expansion is false and it is true the universe has always been here, then what are we seeing? Lets take a look at the possibility that the universe is indeed fairly flat and that galaxies are mostly moving away from each other. How could that be if expansion is false. Perhaps the visible universe of galaxies are in fact orbiting around a central mass much like a very large galaxy. Why would there be a need for dark energy when it is actually orbital movements giving the feel of expansion. Dark matter could be explained away as well when the velocities and movement of stars and galaxies are controlled by a central mass rather than individual attraction. The stars in our galaxy are not held together by dark matter, they are held in orbit by SgrA*. On the larger scale of this universe the velocities of the member galaxies are held in orbit by a large mass or masses


No.
Dethe
1.4 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2015
The concept of extradimensions may help with understanding of future physics in its beginning, but it will become misleading fast. Simply because the dimensionality can be defined from extrinsic perspective of material forces or intrinsic perspective of light spreading in space - and these two dual definitions don't overlap. If you don't understand what I mean, try to answer the following question: is the force violating the inverse square law for gravity better evidence of extradimensions than the violation of inverse square law for light intensity with distance? From real life we know, we are surrounded with many hyperdimensional forces, which aren't proportional to square root of distance - but the spreading of light still behaves normally. Therefore the concept of extradimensions can work only for really subtle artifacts, like the dark matter - with increasing density of these effects their dimensionality will tend to violate itself.
StillWind
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2015
Here's a thought folks...when the only way you can make a theory work is by adding a 95% fudge factor, ie invisible forces...you're really just talking magic. That's not science.
Dethe
1 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2015
At the beginning of the last century the science used to explain the effects with another unknown effects often, and this approach was proven fruitful in some cases. For example the neutrino has been predicted in this way. But currently the evolution of physics is in dual epoch and we should focus to explanation of new physics with analogies, i.e. with well known established physics, classical physics if possible. For example the attempts to explain the dark matter with particles failed, because the strict separation of space-fluctuations to stable pin-point particles, which are acting with forces at distance across otherwise flat space-time doesn't work well here. The dark matter particles are merely turbulences of space-time, which are rather large and they come in many varieties - in similar way like the ripples at the water surface. They're representing temporal hybrids of space and matter, so-called unparticles and/or chameleon anyons and anapoles.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2015
@eric96

I'm wondering if you know that there is a vast difference in rotational speeds of Elliptical vs. Spiral galaxies? Typical E is about 2 km/sec at the outer edge but increases with decreasing distance to the center, typical S is about 200 km/sec. Most of the stars in the universe are found inside E not S galaxies. E gravity conditions completely account for the slower rotation of the typical E compared to S without the need for DM to hold an E together.

Something else that is little known is that E galaxies create stronger gravitational lensing than S. Why? It can only be that there is more gravity associated with E than with S or such a condition cannot be observed, this is a readily observed condition.

With all this DM associated with S, why is gravitational lensing so much weaker than with E? You'd think just the opposite would be the case wouldn't you? But that is not what observations show us. Conjecture on these things for a while with a search engine.
Remigiusz
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2015
It is surrealism far from reality. It is big difference between a time-space and what fill up each quantum time-space. Time-space is perfect computed and does not expanding any quantum time-space. There are all the same. Universe is proliferating, it is building and filling up new quantum time-spaces where it is possible, on a periphery. Democritus idea of a particle being the elementary building block of Nature was essentially a simple concept. He was convinced that such simplicity was necessary in order to understand Nature. Each quantum time-space add a particle at each 1x10^ (-16) second. The particles are responsible for the expanding. Rene Descartes said;" If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things". Galileo said; "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them".
Nanowill
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2015

eric96: Nope everything in cosmology is dictated by observation. Anything unobserved is instantly rejected.

Eric? Nope, Dark matter has not been observed only a gravitational effect current theories can't explain. I bet Dark Matter does not exist but the observed effects are real, so the logical conclusion is the gravitational theory invoked is wrong. I'd bet people are using Newton's equation, which assumes gravity is an observer space force, but we know that's wrong as gravity derives from curved space-time and our space is very flat.
What we need is a particle based theory of gravity that derives from electrons as localized EM energy. I'd also bet gluons and quarks do not exist as particles, but are observed effects arising from other causes.
And to round things out, the Planck scale is based on G, the centerpiece of Newton's equation, so those are both wrong notions as well.
It's time to stop chasing nonsense and get back to logic and the fundamental axioms of physics.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 06, 2015
What's with all of this science-fiction "extra dimension" talk? Seriously? How about we stick to what we know is there and look for alternatives? Large-scale electric fields will produce particle acceleration, galactic rotation, filamentary structures, etc. yet those who support Plasma Cosmology are labeled pseudoscientists while we praise inventions of undetectable matter to fix an already broken theory and desperately look towards extra dimensions... whatever that means.


What you are referring to is impossible at larger scales that is why it is so easily and punitively rejected.

You can choose to wave your hands and claim you know something is impossible and blindly accept magic fairy dust as the explanation of reality. Or you can apply a real phenomenon such as electric fields which simply explains that which cannot otherwise be explained without the fairy dust. I prefer real science to fairy dust.
http://arxiv.org/...3096.pdf
RobertKarlStonjek
3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2015
There are two alternatives:
a) Steady State
1) an alternative explanation for cosmic redshift;
2) an alternative source of CDM must be found;
b) big bang
1) no GUT, TOE or SUSY model anticipated by by the BB model has ever been developed;
2) no reason or mechanism for the beginning and continuation of cosmic expansion has even been give;
3) no reason for a sudden and unexplained expansion has ever been adequately demonstrated;
4) no reason for the apparent increase in the rate of expansion has been demonstrated;
5) current theories require the addition of dark matter which has not been detected and for which no viable account has ever been given;
6) current theories require the addition of dark energy which has only one known property: it makes current cosmological theories work.
7) most distant objects ever observed are mature rather than young;
8) objects consistent with the early era of the universe found locally.

Even tribal genesis myths have fewer unknowns
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2015


Whatever may be its ultimate nature, one thing we know about it for certain is that the entire visible universe is gravitationally bound to DM.

Think about that for a bit...

AmritSorli
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2015
quantum vacuum itself is dark enegy.......www.fopi.info
TopCat22
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2015

It's the mass of dark matter that holds the galaxies together.
That means dark matter is in the same dimension as the other matter.


The effect (or force) of the dark mater is in our dimension. The particles or whatever it is exists in another dimension. We can feel it doing something but we cannot detect it.

Likewise the Dark Energy which is accelerating the expansion of the universe is also in another dimension of our universe (like a balloon inside of a balloon that is being inflated ever faster than the balloon we are on thus forcing our balloon to accelerate its expansion without detectable explanation while our balloon should be contracting and slowing down by visible gravity measured in our balloon).
Dethe
1.2 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2015
an alternative explanation for cosmic redshift; an alternative source of CDM must be found
The explanation of CDM comes with explanation of the cosmic redshift in Steady State model. At the water surface the wavelength of ripples also changes with distance, which is analogy of the red shift. And this change is also nonlinear function of distance, which is an analogy of the CDM. This is a general property of scattering of all waves in all inhomogeneous environments.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2015
Another thought experiment to consider is that everything is a balloon inside another balloon. Our regular familiar dimensions are on our balloon and it has limits upwards and downward... speed of light in one direction and absolute zero in the other.... outside of these barriers there are other balloons of dimensions where other things can be going on that effect ours (like a balloon pushing from the inside of our balloon or another balloon that our balloon is in holding us back ,,, this of course deals with our own universe and our own multi-dimensions.... then there are the multiverses each with their own balloons inside balloon dimensions... like unending nestled Russian dolls.
VCRAGAIN
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2015
You know, the 'Redshift' concept of demonstrated distance has been completely thrown out, and so really discredits the whole idea of expanding anything. If you consider the plasma cosmology concept, there is no need to look for ANYTHING in all that space - electrical phenomena are present, long 'stringy things' are seen via one type of view or another(xrays etc) and without any problem at all, there is -voila- a good way to view all that 'stuff' out there - which can be visible or invisible - but - since the 'experts' are so firmly ensconced in their little bucket of a world-view, they will not give credit to an alternative concept since their own financial interests are basically at stake ! Now that we have so many 'experts' who seem to be totally unable to educate themselves in anything 'alternate' we are 'up a gum tree'. The answer is for all teachers of any subject to MAKE SURE they -at least- teach their field as 'this is what we think we know' NOT 'this is what the facts are'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2015


Whatever may be its ultimate nature, one thing we know about it for certain is that the entire visible universe is gravitationally bound to DM.

Think about that for a bit...

I did now what do I do?
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2015
Dark Energy is the gravitational pull of matter in other dimensions.

The reported tiny sizes of these allegedly-other dimensions are not their sizes, but the contact area between us. Squeeze through that, and you are somewhere else.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2015
Dark matter has not been observed only a gravitational effect current theories can't explain
Absolutely correct, but only for Spiral type galaxies, not Ellipticals.

I bet Dark Matter does not exist but the observed effects are real,so the logical conclusion is the gravitational theory invoked is wrong
Depends on whether you are talking about Spiral galaxies or Elliptical galaxies. E galaxies conform 100% to gravitational theory with Rotation speeds of about 2 km/s, the problem is with Spirals at 200 km/s. Follow me here.

I'd bet people are using Newton's equation, which assumes gravity is an observer space force
Which works pretty well for Elliptical galaxies but not for Spirals.

It is so very important readers understand that the majority of galaxies are not Spirals, but Ellipticals in which the majority of the stars of the universe are located. The DM hypotheses is not needed to explain the Rotation speeds of Ellipticals, only for Spirals
atshtwoo
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2015
This is where reality strikes back on wannabe scientists playing geniuses when actual realization of the existing universe does not even come close to our usual natural physics that science suddenly collapses into nothing! Higgs Particle for instance does not even get things right after according to CERN Higgs Physics fails to sustain the now existing universe after the BB missing the key source of how the universe is today! But sure, why not, make another speculative bluff and claim you understand the universe more than anybody can and spew another round of deceit and lies. Ow, and there is no God-like creature that can manipulate the entire universe but acknowledge the existence of Dark Matter and Dark energy holding the universe collectively while fooling yourselves over with your cheap theories.

-I would be very interested in reading your version in more details, since I am not quite sure I understood your point.
Dethe
1 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2015
The dark matter is very weak and subtle effect. The attempts for its explanation in the moment, when the scientists dismiss and ignore explanations of much more apparent and common phenomena (gravity, magnetism) are rather ridiculous. If you adopt the philosophy, which would allow you to understand the common life effects, then even the dark matter explanation will not pose the problem for you - but not before.
Rustybolts
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2015
God stop using bad theories like "why the universe is accelerating" and maybe you can concentrate on good ones. It's not possible anyone on earth can tell this. Don't care what stupid light measuring equipment you use. The understanding of what is out there and what is rotating is not understood.
Dethe
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2015
The good theories are these, which follow the Occam razor criterions - i.e. these ones, which don't use more assumptions, than absolutely necessary. Especially these ones, which don't use the assumptions based on theories, which are getting violated with dark matter existence. You cannot explain the phenomena with theory, which this phenomena violates. Don't invent your own theory before you make yourself familiar with previous ideas dealing with the same topic.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2015
The good theories are these, which follow the Occam razor criterions - i.e. these ones, which don't use more assumptions, than absolutely necessary. Especially these ones, which don't use the assumptions based on theories, which are getting violated with dark matter existence. You cannot explain the phenomena with theory, which this phenomena violates. Don't invent your own theory before you make yourself familiar with previous ideas dealing with the same topic.


OK, I'll bite on this. What do you have to say about the above posts I made comparing Spiral galaxies to Ellipticals? Do you see the portent of that disparity? The disparity of which I'm speaking being that of how magically DM sort of knows how to show up inside of Spirals to keep those galaxies together due to their higher rotation speeds, but in the case of Ellipticals DM seems strangely absent? Neat trick for DM to figure out all on its own how to segregate itself by galaxy type?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2015
Crap article followed by a crap thread, where pompous persons proclaim (non-) profundities. Worse, they claim obvious errors re cosmology, redshift, dimensions and how to make and test theories that no one who has studied science would make, and must be terribly confusing for those who want to try to study it here. I have to assume the proclamation behavior tickles pompous person's fannie (but I don't know and frankly I don't give a damn).

From the article: "two mysterious entities that have never been detected".

That would be odd, seeing how their existence is claimed and even robustly detected, say by Planck.

When people say this, or slightly better "not directly detected" and it _has_ been detected, they mean either "detected by more complex constraints than I like" or "detected by more complex constraints than I accept". Neither of those case would move either detection or its consensus of course. But it would be fair to the reader and less confusing for the n00b.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2015
Neat trick for DM to figure out all on its own how to segregate itself by galaxy type?
@benniTROLL
logical fallacy

it is entirely possible that galaxy formation, shape and more are dependent upon DM

your comment can be best illuminated by the application of casts circa mid 1980

The cast (whether fiberglass resin or plaster) is formed by the WATER used to make it

therefore to see a fiberglass resin cast and say that:
because the fiberglass resin is harder than plaster and shaped differently
and it is water-resistant
it cannot be made using water is WRONG

because the application process uses warm water to treat as well as harden the cast onto the body after wrapping and shaping

this is analogous to your claims above
you cannot assume "DM segregates itself by Galaxy type" if the type of galaxy is dependent upon DM, gravity, factors involved in how they are created and more

it is simply really BAD science
and not something a real engineer would do
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 07, 2015
I am particularly incensed by the phony appeal to philosophical "Occam's razor", or in empirical terms here parsimony, since cosmology ever since WMAP ***has used parsimony*** in the form of bayesian likelihood comparisons and consistently found the 6 parameter LCDM model, with DE and DM, better than not ***on the grounds of parsimony***.

_Anyone_ who has read their papers, easily reachable on the web, _would know this_ and would know how stupid it is to claim parsimony isn't considered.

Yikes!
Dethe
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2015
DM sort of knows how to show up inside of Spirals to keep those galaxies together due to their higher rotation speeds, but in the case of Ellipticals DM seems strangely absent?
On the contrary, the elliptical galaxies are full of dark matter. Trained astrophysics would recognize it at the first look.
casualjoe
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2015
Follow the work of Maxwell, Lorrentz, Einstein and Dirac, this is the same physics used by engineers all over the world today, creating all the great things for you to consume/throw away, do any deniers ever stop to appreciate how precisely we need to understand physics to build a phone, something which seems so trivial now but it really is amazing.

Science definitely works better than anything we have come up with before and if people ever bothered to study electrical engineering and physics they could clearly and easily spot the difference between a crackpot spreading pseudoscience (electric universe, primer fields, hollow earth, biocentrism etc..) and professionals talking about the real thing such as observation data, experimental results, ruling out possible theories, international collaboration, designing new experiments and proposing theories to explain new evidence etc..
casualjoe
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2015
If you haven't worked on this your whole life you will never get one up on scientists at their own game, they are light years ahead of you in thinking terms.

And heaven doesn't exist, we made it all up ages ago, THIS is it, right now, enjoy it while you can and don't jeopardise this planet for our children.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2015
DM sort of knows how to show up inside of Spirals to keep those galaxies together due to their higher rotation speeds, but in the case of Ellipticals DM seems strangely absent?
On the contrary, the elliptical galaxies are full of dark matter. Trained astrophysics http://www.aether...oat1.gif at the first look.


Oh you think so? I guess they must not all think alike:

http://physicswor...galaxies
Joe_Chang
Mar 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
casualjoe
5 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2015
If you want to know what keeps the electron from falling into the nucleus, look at the de Broglie equation λ=h/p or λ=h/mv, realise that electrons exhibit wavelike properties as shown in the Davisson-Germer Experiment and that electron orbits can only be an integer number of wavelengths then derive Bohrs quantisation formula mvr=nħ
Tri-ring
not rated yet Mar 07, 2015
If we accept that there are more than three spacial dimensions as suggested from string theory, we may be able to explain what dark energy more easily. Inflation at the start of the Big bang was result of unfolding of our three spacial dimensions and not expansion of of an already existing three dimensions and the other dimensions are still gradually unfolding with it's tensor force is what we call dark energy.
The reason why our spacial dimension unfolded first so fast is because particles we know occupy space becoming the tensor force behind inflation.
Caliban
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2015


Whatever may be its ultimate nature, one thing we know about it for certain is that the entire visible universe is gravitationally bound to DM.

Think about that for a bit...

I did now what do I do?


For starters, think about how to go about explaining something that has real, observable, physical effects in the universe, but which remains unobservable.

Too many commenters here(you not among them, Ghosty) go all weak in the knees at the mere mention of DM/DE, and giddily proclaim that it simply doesn't exist, the Big Bang is really just a Big Lie, the Standard Model is crap, and/or starty hawking their pet "Alternative" (ie, One True) "Theory", using this anomaly as a pretext to proselytize, discredit, distort, or otherwise demean the life's work of our best Scientists, while --for the most part-- completely ignoring that --in order to have real effects-- the cause of those effects must also be real, and not an attempt to shore up Cosmology.
saila
4.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2015

There is not graviton, no photon, no dark matter.


and there is no "matter", no hard, unbreakable, solid particle.
we will break quarks into smaller compounds and waves, and find smaller things that will themselves be broken again into other compound or waves.

jeffensley
1.6 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2015
The only explanation is that they are orbiting within a cloud of something we cannot see.


No there are endless possibilities that we simply haven't imagined yet. We're stuck in paradigms of popular theory. We exert a lot of effort building upon the foundations of ideas that still aren't proven. The truth may be that the foundation itself is flawed and the whole house needs to come down.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2015
For starters, think about how to go about explaining something that has real, observable, physical effects in the universe, but which remains unobservable.
It is not unobservable that Elliptical galaxies rotate at 1/100th the speed of Spirals. I wonder if you knew that? Or have you ever known that Elliptical galaxies vastly outnumber Spirals? Or did you know by observation that Spiral galaxies create little or no "gravitational lensing"?

Too many commenters here go all weak in the knees at the mere mention of DM/DE, and giddily proclaim that it simply doesn't exist

When AWT coincides with the same conclusions as the DM hypothesis "commenters" here ought go weak in the knees. DM is hypothesized as the glue holding Spiral galaxies together due to their rotatation speed of 200 km/s, this as opposed to the rotation speeds of Ellipticals rotating at 2 km/s which don't need a DM glue to hold them together, and it is Ellipticals that contain most of the stars.

Dethe
1 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2015
If we would live at the water surface like the waterstriders and if we would observe it with its own ripples, we would also observe various artifacts: the transverse waves (analogy of light waves), Russels solitons (analogy of photons), Falaco solitons (analogy of charged particles, like the neutrinos) and omipresent Brownian noise (analogy of CMBR noise). But we would also observe the underwater turbulence and chaotic ripples all around us - and frankly, at the common water surface just these artifacts are most dominant. Just these ripples (high spin photons) & turbulences (anapoles) represent the dark matter in water surface analogy of space-time. Its existence is natural and logical and if we wouldn't have it, we should find it soon or later. Best of all, these ripples are most close to gravitational waves in common sense of mainstream physics. The 4D gravitational waves cannot move in 4D space-time, so if we are observing some propagation with it, it's just the dark matter object.
Dethe
2 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2015
The contemporary science is rather formal and schematic - it does recognize only particles of matter (which are massive) and fields in otherwise empty vacuum (which are considered massless). The existence of dark matter breaks this dichotomy: it does represent a kind of "massive field" or sorta dynamic mixture of particles and radiation, which are in mutual equilibrium. We should prepare to the fact, that the boundary between matter and vacuum is actually fuzzy and many interesting and temporal species of so-called unparticles are living there. We should also prepare to the fact, these unparticles aren't so well defined and characterizable as the common material particles - they're of chameleon nature and they can exist in many dynamic forms like the ripples at the water surface - so that the peaks at the energy spectrum which we can occasionally observed (as a Higgs boson and some others) are just the tips of iceberg.
Dethe
2 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2015
For me the most interesting aspect of dark matter is, it does violate the established formal models, like the equivalence principle, fixed speed limit of light, closed character of magnetic field, thermodynamical laws and even mass/energy equivalence law at least temporarily, so it does open the way for construction and exploitation of various nifty antigravity, superluminal and overunity devices. I'm convinced, that the dark matter particles can be generated artificially in the lab in high density as so-called scalar waves and they do represent a rational basis of various observations of Nicola Tesla and many other researchers. The quantum gravity theorists, namely the stringy and SUSY theorists should be also interested about it, as some aspects of dark matter field resemble their predictions. On the other hand, they will also demonstrate the limits of their formal models, because the dark matter tends to violate just the postulates, on which these theories are based.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2015
Space is a charge. Matter is a different charge.
All the other various" particles" are simply varying charges between the 2.
And it gets messy after that...;-)
Accounts
5 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2015
Another way to look at this is that 5% we can see and detect is within our normal experienced dimensions that we can detect and that the 95% is within other dimensions we cannot yet understand or detect.

We call them dark because they are invisible to us because we cannot experience those
other dimensions.


It could also be that we live on a balloon that is being blown-up by an ever harder-blowing turtle.

Both theories are equally well supported by the evidence.
Joe_Chang
Mar 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Joe_Chang
Mar 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Joe_Chang
2 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2015
Science has never been absolute, what makes you think today's science is all correct? In fact, science is so fucked up.
Present theories of atomic structure, gravity and light are all wrong.
Discuss at http://www.thenak...sts.com/

Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?

Does Einstein's equation E=MC^2 negate the idea of no travel faster than light?

Will we ever find a theory of everything?

Would the photon lose all its energy at infinity?

Do you believe Physics leaves room for God?
Kron
5 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2015
Cosmologists came to be certain that we are surrounded by matter and energy that we cannot see

Certainty being non existent in science aside, this is absolute bull crap.

Within the theoretical setting of the standard model dark matter and energy are required. Many theories do not require the two at all.

This is not to say that dark matter and energy do not surround us, that is certainly a possibility.
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2015
Somebody comes up with the idea of Dark Matter to explain discrepancies in the laws of gravity, and is hailed as a genius. Somebody else comes up with Dark Energy to explain universal expansion (assuming it is true) and is also hailed as a genius. Others come up with gravity waves and gravitons and are hailed as genii. All have billions of dollars lavished on their projects to prove they are RIGHT, but absolutely no evidence has been forthcoming.
Me, and a few others, come up with logically-sound theories which dispense with gravity as a force, thereby removing the requirement for DM, DE, Gravitons, Gravity Waves, dozens of dimensions, etc., etc.. We are derided as crackpots. So much for "keeping an open mind...".
TogetherinParis
1 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2015
Modern physics looks to be 95% phlogiston at this point.
jposterman
not rated yet Mar 09, 2015
I like the explanation of gravity and multiple dimensions (M theory).
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2015
I like the explanation of gravity and multiple dimensions (M theory).

But they're all imaginary concepts dreamt up to explain direct observation of reality without any evidence whatsoever. They are no more valid than fairies or demons acting to produce the desired effects.
Will Physics ever regain its sanity?
rufusgwarren
2 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2015
Has anyone measured the effect of two equal very large voltage sources located closely together, upon a mass at infinity, or a close approximation. Think about how hard it would be to simulate gravity as a multi polar response! But how easy is it for nature?
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2015
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum use logic to deny any other logic. Lewis Carol. Most of us have already read this story.
rufusgwarren
2 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2015
If you want to know what keeps the electron from falling into the nucleus, look at the de Broglie equation λ=h/p or λ=h/mv, realise that electrons exhibit wavelike properties as shown in the Davisson-Germer Experiment and that electron orbits can only be an integer number of wavelengths then derive Bohrs quantisation formula mvr=nÄ�

Or do the waves produced by an electron changing orbit either absorb this energy as a jump of the field and wobble or linger before returning. The movement in either direction containing the same energy gain or loss as depicted by the emitted field. Since the fields are additive within a proper structure, there will be gain or loss. How else could a laser gaining "media" be defined? The idea that the electron is the wave would never have any gain, only loss.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2015
To produce coherent light there must be coherent events, a wave bounces, radiation; or wither an electron acts like a wave? Sounds like a child's argument, but not science. Tune your eyes to the bouncing ball. Maybe you will get it.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2015
Try

"What Is the Name of This Book?"
by Raymond M. Smullyan

for the logic used in the search for the Dark Side, vampires intended! Or if you want to prove anything beginning with a lie or truth?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2015
Me, and a few others, come up with logically-sound theories which dispense with gravity as a force
@RegTROLL
except that you do NOT have a theory, nor even a hypothesis
you have a PHILOSOPHY and it is debunked repeatedly on this site alone, like here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

you have never demonstrated any mathematical formula that describe your philosophy, nor can it make predictions
it can't explain orbits, tides nor can you describe your philosophy without invoking gravity ANYWAY

the only answer you would give when we try to get you to explain anything is to buy your fictitious book
the readers who are knowledgeable in PHYSICS (Q-Star) reviewed it here and said it is essentially a whine fest about your life and CRAP, and it has NO scientific descriptions that actually work, contrary to your claims
IOW - ya got NOTHING

you are worst than j_c and his trolling diatribe
Joe_Chang
Mar 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Mar 10, 2015
I love this conversation. Newton built his law of gravity simply from measurement without any knowledge of its source. We know the source and fail to accept the facts that if the charge centers of each "mass" like the gravitational center, that the + and - centers are not always located in the same place at the same time. QM superposition! Else do the total; summation!

We don't need any new science, just through out the garbage!
ursiny33
not rated yet Mar 23, 2015
Space and time are trillions of years old the matter in our universal construction started expanding 13.72 billion years ago in this environment, that's the only know fact that's confirmed,

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.