Lab-based dark energy experiment narrows search options for elusive force

Lab-based dark energy experiment narrows search options for elusive force
The atom interferometer. Credit: Imperial College London

An experiment to test a popular theory of dark energy has found no evidence of new forces, placing strong constraints on related theories.

Dark is the name given to an unknown force that is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate.

Some physicists propose dark energy is a 'fifth' force that acts on matter, beyond the four already known—gravitational, electromagnetic, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

However, researchers think this fifth force may be 'screened' or 'hidden' for large objects like planets or weights on Earth, making it difficult to detect.

Now, researchers at Imperial College London and the University of Nottingham have tested the possibility that this fifth force is acting on single atoms, and found no evidence for it in their most recent experiment.

This could rule out popular theories of dark energy that modify the theory of gravity, and leaves fewer places to search for the elusive fifth force.

The experiment, performed at Imperial College London and analyzed by theorists at the University of Nottingham, is reported today in Physical Review Letters.

Professor Ed Copeland, from the Centre for Astronomy & Particle Physics at the University of Nottingham, said: "This experiment, connecting and cosmology, has allowed us to rule out a wide class of models that have been proposed to explain the nature of dark energy, and will enable us to constrain many more dark energy models."'

The experiment tested theories of that propose the fifth force is comparatively weaker when there is more matter around—the opposite of how gravity behaves.

This would mean it is strong in a vacuum like space, but is weak when there is lots of matter around. Therefore, experiments using two large weights would mean the force becomes too weak to measure.

The researchers instead tested a larger weight with an incredibly small weight—a —where the force should have been observed if it exists.

The team used an atom interferometer to test whether there were any extra forces that could be the fifth force acting on an atom. A marble-sized sphere of metal was placed in a vacuum chamber and were allowed to free-fall inside the chamber.

The is, if there is a fifth force acting between the sphere and atom, the atom's path will deviate slightly as it passes by the sphere, causing a change in the path of the falling atom. However, no such was found.

Professor Ed Hinds, from the Department of Physics at Imperial, said: "It is very exciting to be able to discover something about the evolution of the universe using a table-top experiment in a London basement."


Explore further

NA64 hunts the mysterious dark photon

More information: D. O. Sabulsky et al. Experiment to Detect Dark Energy Forces Using Atom Interferometry, Physical Review Letters (2019). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.061102
Journal information: Physical Review Letters

Citation: Lab-based dark energy experiment narrows search options for elusive force (2019, August 19) retrieved 19 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-08-lab-based-dark-energy-narrows-options.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1484 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 19, 2019
Dark energy is actually very simple. The universe is spinning and the relativistic energy of this spinning is the dark energy. Please see Spinning Sphere Theory May Describe Dark Energy

Aug 19, 2019
Dark energy is actually very simple. The universe is spinning and the relativistic energy of this spinning is the dark energy. Spinning Sphere Theory May Describe Dark Energy
The isotropic appearance of the universe says otherwise. It doesn't appear to be spinning on any axis, else we'd observe the rotational anisotropy ...

Aug 19, 2019
It has been proposed that in areas of extremely low space curvature, the space time itself is created and expands into the universe. It is as if the same process that caused the initial hyper expansion of the first few seconds after the big bang, is still operating. Thus no energy is used to creators space. This expansion is causing the material objects of pre-existing space time to move further apart in addition to their original momentum.

Aug 19, 2019
It has been proposed that in areas of extremely low space curvature, the space time itself is created and expands into the universe.
It doesn't get much lower than flat (zero curvature) as we observe with WMAP. Why should more spacetime be created without anything (massive) there to force or cause the expansion?

Aug 19, 2019
Dark energy is actually very simple. The universe is spinning and the relativistic energy of this spinning is the dark energy. Spinning Sphere Theory May Describe Dark Energy
The isotropic appearance of the universe says otherwise. It doesn't appear to be spinning on any axis, else we'd observe the rotational anisotropy ...
I know about this, but if the universe is spinning, and the distant galaxies are moving perpendicular to us in stead of away from us, the red shift equation changes, and the universe no longer appears uniform in density, but actually decreases in density as one moves from the center of the universe. The great deception is the faith based assumption of believing in the cosmological principle.

Aug 19, 2019
It has been proposed that in areas of extremely low space curvature, the space time itself is created and expands into the universe. It is as if the same process that caused the initial hyper expansion of the first few seconds after the big bang, is still operating.
If the universe is rotating, the edges of the universe would be moving near the speed of light and would be a continual monster super collider.

Aug 19, 2019
Free access copy of paper;

Experiment to Detect Dark Energy Forces Using Atom Interferometry
Sabulsky, D. O. et al.
https://journals....3.061102

Aug 19, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 19, 2019
What if there's dark energy beyond universe horizon, pulling or reacting to the universe entropy, allowing the time-space to expand?

Since entropy is the result of energy dispersal, dark energy will also release a sort of 'dark entropy'.

Aug 19, 2019
Recently two papers have been published. The first one deals with the measurement of the speed of rotation of galaxies and, in our view, closes the issue of the existence of dark matter. The second one argues that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating. However, this fact does not answer the question as to what in general is the cause of the universe's expansion and does not address the widespread opinion that 70% of the universe consists of dark energy.
https://www.acade...k_Energy
The universe is not really expanding. It is spinning and the light shift is perpendicular to our movement. Also the gravity of adjacent universes is causing the Hubble constant to have different values at different distances please see Sphere Theory Explains the Prevalence of the Golden Ratio in Nature

Aug 19, 2019
What if there's dark energy beyond universe horizon, pulling or reacting to the universe entropy, allowing the time-space to expand?
I think this is really key.

Aug 20, 2019
How do you measure consciousness?

Aug 20, 2019
Two major strikes for MOND. It's starting to look pretty iffy.

Aug 20, 2019
How do you measure consciousness?

It's difficult but possibly. Here's an article: https://www.wired...ousness/

Aug 20, 2019
"... How do you measure consciousness? ..."
it's all or nothing
on or off = binary process

if you are unsure as to whether ot not you are conscious?
smell the roses, you are conscious if it has scent

grasp the stem of the rose
if you feel pain?
ditto = conscious
if you bleed?
lick your fingers
& it tastes like blood?
ditto = conscious

consciousness is an action
use it or lose it!

this is one of the major problems of the technology based on GR/SR/QM/GM principles
providing access to public communication
for every disruptive looneytick fantasist

Aug 20, 2019
Once again general relativity and standard cosmology, where dark energy is simply the vacuum energy of particle fields, survives testing against possible (but ever more unlikely) alternatives. From the abstract: "Our measurement shows no evidence of new forces, a result that places stringent bounds on chameleon and symmetron theories of modified gravity."

Spinning Sphere Theory the center of the universe.

Give it up. There is no such science theory published in peer review; there is no "center" in a relativistic universe due to the absence of an absolute reference; it is not even fringe but pseudoscience mumblings of a troll.

It has been proposed that in areas of extremely low space curvature, the space time itself is created and expands into the universe.

No such proposals have been made. What is proposed is based on general relativity, where space however curved expands as such - there is nothing it can expand "into".

Aug 20, 2019
beyond universe horizon, pulling

The horizon is the limit of causal events reaching us, so that would not explain local cosmology. Remember that our universe is observably isotropic and homogeneous, aside from our expectations that it should be so since physics should be the same everywhere.

... and it looks just desperate when the trolls can't even make up ad hoc pseudoscience on the universe, but start to ask about religiously motivated irrelevancies ("consciousness").

At least one troll is blocked by me for inane trolling instead of discussing the science article.

Aug 20, 2019


Spinning Sphere Theory the center of the universe.

Give it up. There is no such science theory published in peer review; there is no "center" in a relativistic universe due to the absence of an absolute reference; it is not even fringe but pseudoscience mumblings of a troll

.
Not published does not mean not right. Published doesn't mean right.

Aug 20, 2019

Spinning Sphere Theory the center of the universe.

Give it up. There is no such science theory published in peer review; there is no "center" in a relativistic universe due to the absence of an absolute reference; it is not even fringe but pseudoscience mumblings of a troll.

.
There really is no center in spinning sphere theory, as it is spheres, made of spheres, made of spheres, and then it starts all over again. There is no smallest or biggest. Only gravity can travel through the different levels of the spheres since each sphere is its own black hole. Light can neither enter, nor be emitted from the lower level or higher level spheres.

Aug 20, 2019
?... Not published does not mean not right. Published doesn't mean right. ..."

not published?
just means you are too cheap to fork over the price demanded for a pay-to-publish bunk
fraudulent publishers who could not care less whatever crankerous crap you are shoveling

hell, they'll even rent you "peer reviews" from their stable of professional five-gold-star sycophantia with obscure & suspect credentials

cope, you are whining that no one with good judgement takes your claims seriously

Real (accredited) Scientists, doing real (funded) research
understand that "published" means other scientists have reviewed the published work

& ruthlessly pointed out whatever the reviewers disagreed with

some publications have to be retracted for correction or follow-op evidence to support the researcher's conclusions

this is part of the scientific method based on empirical evidence that is confirmed & supported by other research efforts based on professional collective ethical standards

Aug 20, 2019
?... Not published does not mean not right. Published doesn't mean right. ..."

not published?
just means you are too cheap to fork over the price demanded for a pay-to-publish bunk
fraudulent publishers who could not care less whatever crankerous crap you are shoveling

hell, they'll even rent you "peer reviews" from their stable of professional five-gold-star sycophantia with obscure & suspect credentials

cope, you are whining that no one with good judgement takes your claims seriously

Real (accredited) Scientists, doing real (funded) research
understand that "published" means other scientists have reviewed the published work

& ruthlessly pointed out whatever the reviewers disagreed with

some publications have to be retracted for correction or follow-op evidence to support the researcher's conclusions

this is part of the scientific method based on empirical evidence that is confirmed & supported by other research efforts based on professional collective ethical standards

Aug 20, 2019
?... Not published does not mean not right. Published doesn't mean right. ..."

not published?
just means you are too cheap to fork over the price demanded for a pay-to-publish bunk
fraudulent publishers who could not care less whatever crankerous crap you are shoveling

hell, they'll even rent you "peer reviews" from their stable of professional five-gold-star sycophantia with obscure & suspect credentials

You are right, I would not pay to be published on fraudulent sites, nor do I want to give up my rights to my work, nor do I want to give up my ability to edit and update my work. It would be nice to have some peer review on vixra but no one would give up their credibility to do it, so it is a catch 22. All I can say is that my work has very high rankings in a google search. proton neutron mass ratio, predicting the gravitational constant, inverse fine structure constant, bremsstrahlung cherenkov radiation, cuboctahedron universe, etc., are some that can be checked out.

Aug 20, 2019
Two major strikes for MOND. It's starting to look pretty iffy.

Not quite sure what you mean. How is this a strike against MOND?

Aug 21, 2019
"... How do you measure consciousness? ..."
it's all or nothing
on or off = binary process

if you are unsure as to whether ot not you are conscious?
smell the roses, you are conscious if it has scent


Here's the thing. All universe is a conscious being, sentient at the very least. All things in it made up of some sort of energy and pose some level of sentience. If you can't pick up one's consciousness or smell the roses because of stuffed nose does it mean it doesn't exists or that you are not conscious? Or, are you saying there is no other consciousness other than human? Where does your come from? How do you define it and measure it?
Every thing is made up of universal energy and here we are trying to measure something, something of higher frequency with lower frequency instruments, which at core, in essence made up of the same energy =)
Deep cosmos, individual identity, quantum possibilities, universal energy - at some point, at some level it is all one + consciousness

Aug 21, 2019
Two major strikes for MOND. It's starting to look pretty iffy.

Not quite sure what you mean. How is this a strike against MOND?
No extra forces. And the other strike is no difference between the arrivals of light and gravitational waves.

Aug 21, 2019
the ability to imagine the universe is conscious
is not proof that the universe is conscious

cope, your concepts are just an attempt to revive the moldering cult of theosophy & other spiritualist based mummery

people imagine all sorts of false, misleading mythologies
in the hands of a skilled writer, composer, director, artist?
these fairytales can make for epic storytelling

repetitious plagiarism of other peoples creations & hard work?
not so much

a good/bad example is to be found in ideological-fantasy

i know the altright fans would call this body of work "science-fiction" but there is damn little science to be found

instead are the same errors of scientific fact, repeated constantly
the dame childish lack of life experience
the rarity of any original ideas
but golly, at least these are politically-correct

when they attempt to "break the mold"?
they rehash Star Wars or Star Trek or Mighty Mouse

i for one, am not impressed

Aug 21, 2019
All universe is a conscious being
.

Obviously the universe is not an organism ("being"). Blocked by me for repetitive inane (religious?) trolling.

How is this a strike against MOND?


Not a discussion I can see both parties of, but Da Schneib is correct:

- MOND is effectively dead. They became unlikely a few years back when GR simulations of the standard cosmology predicts the universe better than alternatives. But more that that, those ideas died because of the recent multi-messenger observation of a neutron binary star merger. It put, as expected, both gravity and EM signals at the same speed, i.e. the relativistic universal speed limit. The experiment here killed of some of the very few remaining ideas.
- A theory like GR that survives a century of ever increasing difficult tests, survived yet another test. (Since dark energy is not explained outside of the standard cosmology which is a GR theory.)

It is not a strike against MOND as much as lethal kill.

Aug 21, 2019
Two major strikes for MOND. It's starting to look pretty iffy.

Not quite sure what you mean. How is this a strike against MOND?
No extra forces. And the other strike is no difference between the arrivals of light and gravitational waves.


Correct. These are effects of so called chameleon and symmetron gravity. These are modified gravity theories. Nowt to do with the Einsteinian stuff. Believe it or not, some flavours of MOND include,........wait for it......... DM & DE!

Aug 21, 2019
@Whydening Gyre
@Da Schneib.
Two major strikes for MOND. It's starting to look pretty iffy.

Not quite sure what you mean. How is this a strike against MOND?
No extra forces. And the other strike is no difference between the arrivals of light and gravitational waves.
Just observing your exchange re implications for MOND. I am not a MOND proponent, but nevertheless in all fairness I point out that the MOND proposal is to do with the STRENGTH/GRADIENT of Gravity effect along the radial distance from centre of a galaxy, is it not DS? So, I too am not clear as to what your SPEED of Gravitational WAVES comment has to do with the MOND scenario, DS. Can you clarify so that I can understand what is in your mind re that, DS? Thanks. :)

ps: I have to go out now. Be back later or tomorrow to see your clarification. Thanks. :)

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