FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > The Mystery of Dark Energy
The Mystery of Dark Energy
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
On horizon tonight on bbc2 8pm, it is about the dark energy in space, the mysterious force that is unexpectedly causing the universe's expansion to speed up.
The effects of dark energy were discovered in 1998, but physicists still know very little about it. Its very existence seems to call into question Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Will you also watch it and whats your view on it?
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Sounds neat. I shall watch it then undoubtedly tut at people sweating the mundane crap in life.
Though I thought it was Haribo causing everything to expand. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I have a long-standing argument with a friend over dark matter/dark energy.
The basic premise is that by observing the movements of galaxies we can surmise that there isn't enough normal/visible matter to explain their rates of rotation without them flying apart.
It was therefore conjectured that there must be something we couldn't see, ie dark matter, accounting for the additional gravity.
Once this was factored in to cosmological equations, it was discovered that this was still not enough to explain the observations, so physicists came up with dark energy to balance it out.
The next effect is that something ridiculous like 95% of all the matter in the universe is non-reflective, leaves no trace and is (so far) undetectable.
I've probably butchered it but that's a basic rundown of the status quo.
There are a few experiments working to detect it, so for unsuccessfully.
My point, my argument with my mate, is that we're almost back to Ptolemaic Epicycles - ie our observations don;t fit with what we think we know, so we keep bolting things on to what we think we know until it's completely bent out of shape.
My contention is that we have fundamentally misunderstood something very basic about the nature of the universe.
It's the difference between thinking the universe revolves around the earth and understanding that the earth goes around the Sun, which is only one of hundreds of billions of other stars...
Maybe.
I'm probably wrong.
But it's interesting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have a long-standing argument with a friend over dark matter/dark energy.
The basic premise is that by observing the movements of galaxies we can surmise that there isn't enough normal/visible matter to explain their rates of rotation without them flying apart.
It was therefore conjectured that there must be something we couldn't see, ie dark matter, accounting for the additional gravity.
Once this was factored in to cosmological equations, it was discovered that this was still not enough to explain the observations, so physicists came up with dark energy to balance it out.
The next effect is that something ridiculous like 95% of all the matter in the universe is non-reflective, leaves no trace and is (so far) undetectable.
I've probably butchered it but that's a basic rundown of the status quo.
There are a few experiments working to detect it, so for unsuccessfully.
My point, my argument with my mate, is that we're almost back to Ptolemaic Epicycles - ie our observations don;t fit with what we think we know, so we keep bolting things on to what we think we know until it's completely bent out of shape.
My contention is that we have fundamentally misunderstood something very basic about the nature of the universe.
It's the difference between thinking the universe revolves around the earth and understanding that the earth goes around the Sun, which is only one of hundreds of billions of other stars...
Maybe.
I'm probably wrong.
But it's interesting. "
It is science. Science conjectures a theory to explain an observation. When it no longer fits, science proposes another theory. Until that no longer fits. Ad infinitum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Well your far more academically versed in these matters than I am, but I guess a lot of this is speculation based on our limited comprehension of space?
It's exciting and far more interesting than simply existing on planet earth for the sake of it ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Well your far more academically versed in these matters than I am, but I guess a lot of this is speculation based on our limited comprehension of space?
It's exciting and far more interesting than simply existing on planet earth for the sake of it !"
Yeah, Brian Cox made the point that, from our limited perspective, forming a Grand Theory of the Universe is about as difficult as observing a single slug and attempting to formulate a Theory of Evolution |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If it's any consolation I can;t explain the offside rule in football  "
Don't bother I evolved onto rugby 
Brian cox's book being human is an enthralling read even for a numbskull like me! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Though I thought it was Haribo causing everything to expand."
It could be that too lol.
"If it's any consolation I can;t explain the offside rule in football "
Yeah space is an interesting subject to learn more about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a long-standing argument with a friend over dark matter/dark energy.
The basic premise is that by observing the movements of galaxies we can surmise that there isn't enough normal/visible matter to explain their rates of rotation without them flying apart.
It was therefore conjectured that there must be something we couldn't see, ie dark matter, accounting for the additional gravity.
Once this was factored in to cosmological equations, it was discovered that this was still not enough to explain the observations, so physicists came up with dark energy to balance it out.
The next effect is that something ridiculous like 95% of all the matter in the universe is non-reflective, leaves no trace and is (so far) undetectable.
I've probably butchered it but that's a basic rundown of the status quo.
There are a few experiments working to detect it, so for unsuccessfully.
My point, my argument with my mate, is that we're almost back to Ptolemaic Epicycles - ie our observations don;t fit with what we think we know, so we keep bolting things on to what we think we know until it's completely bent out of shape.
My contention is that we have fundamentally misunderstood something very basic about the nature of the universe.
It's the difference between thinking the universe revolves around the earth and understanding that the earth goes around the Sun, which is only one of hundreds of billions of other stars...
Maybe.
I'm probably wrong.
But it's interesting. "
sounds like a very stoned conversation |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a long-standing argument with a friend over dark matter/dark energy.
The basic premise is that by observing the movements of galaxies we can surmise that there isn't enough normal/visible matter to explain their rates of rotation without them flying apart.
It was therefore conjectured that there must be something we couldn't see, ie dark matter, accounting for the additional gravity.
Once this was factored in to cosmological equations, it was discovered that this was still not enough to explain the observations, so physicists came up with dark energy to balance it out.
The next effect is that something ridiculous like 95% of all the matter in the universe is non-reflective, leaves no trace and is (so far) undetectable.
I've probably butchered it but that's a basic rundown of the status quo.
There are a few experiments working to detect it, so for unsuccessfully.
My point, my argument with my mate, is that we're almost back to Ptolemaic Epicycles - ie our observations don;t fit with what we think we know, so we keep bolting things on to what we think we know until it's completely bent out of shape.
My contention is that we have fundamentally misunderstood something very basic about the nature of the universe.
It's the difference between thinking the universe revolves around the earth and understanding that the earth goes around the Sun, which is only one of hundreds of billions of other stars...
Maybe.
I'm probably wrong.
But it's interesting.
sounds like a very stoned conversation"
No. He's an alcoholic and much more intelligent than me. These conversations happen at the pub. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think you have a point, to a point Diamond.
I don't think we're yet at the stage of Ptolemeic epicyclicism though. When the observations no longer fit with the theory, then the theory has to be changed.
At this stage it is conjecture, but interesting conjecture. If evidence can be found to support it, then it will be adopted until it no longer fits the observations. If a better theory can be devised, it no doubt will be, in time (and space).
I do agree that whilst our understanding of the Universe is advanced compared to the ancient Greeks, we are still at a very early stage in our development in this regard.
I like to keep an open mind and look at the evidence.
I shall be watching, or I'll view it on catchup. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a long-standing argument with a friend over dark matter/dark energy.
The basic premise is that by observing the movements of galaxies we can surmise that there isn't enough normal/visible matter to explain their rates of rotation without them flying apart.
It was therefore conjectured that there must be something we couldn't see, ie dark matter, accounting for the additional gravity.
Once this was factored in to cosmological equations, it was discovered that this was still not enough to explain the observations, so physicists came up with dark energy to balance it out.
The next effect is that something ridiculous like 95% of all the matter in the universe is non-reflective, leaves no trace and is (so far) undetectable.
I've probably butchered it but that's a basic rundown of the status quo.
There are a few experiments working to detect it, so for unsuccessfully.
My point, my argument with my mate, is that we're almost back to Ptolemaic Epicycles - ie our observations don;t fit with what we think we know, so we keep bolting things on to what we think we know until it's completely bent out of shape.
My contention is that we have fundamentally misunderstood something very basic about the nature of the universe.
It's the difference between thinking the universe revolves around the earth and understanding that the earth goes around the Sun, which is only one of hundreds of billions of other stars...
Maybe.
I'm probably wrong.
But it's interesting.
sounds like a very stoned conversation
No. He's an alcoholic and much more intelligent than me. These conversations happen at the pub. "
stoned covers all bases dude .... doesn't really matter which taxi got you to the stoned destination |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"I have a long-standing argument with a friend over dark matter/dark energy.
The basic premise is that by observing the movements of galaxies we can surmise that there isn't enough normal/visible matter to explain their rates of rotation without them flying apart.
It was therefore conjectured that there must be something we couldn't see, ie dark matter, accounting for the additional gravity.
Once this was factored in to cosmological equations, it was discovered that this was still not enough to explain the observations, so physicists came up with dark energy to balance it out.
The next effect is that something ridiculous like 95% of all the matter in the universe is non-reflective, leaves no trace and is (so far) undetectable.
I've probably butchered it but that's a basic rundown of the status quo.
There are a few experiments working to detect it, so for unsuccessfully.
My point, my argument with my mate, is that we're almost back to Ptolemaic Epicycles - ie our observations don;t fit with what we think we know, so we keep bolting things on to what we think we know until it's completely bent out of shape.
My contention is that we have fundamentally misunderstood something very basic about the nature of the universe.
It's the difference between thinking the universe revolves around the earth and understanding that the earth goes around the Sun, which is only one of hundreds of billions of other stars...
Maybe.
I'm probably wrong.
But it's interesting.
sounds like a very stoned conversation
No. He's an alcoholic and much more intelligent than me. These conversations happen at the pub.
stoned covers all bases dude .... doesn't really matter which taxi got you to the stoned destination "
Squiffy may be a better description than stoned then. It covers many aspects. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
How do you get something from nothing is the question, I think there hoping that sometimes nothing contains something!.
I'll watch it as I like puzzling questions with no answers! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a long-standing argument with a friend over dark matter/dark energy.
The basic premise is that by observing the movements of galaxies we can surmise that there isn't enough normal/visible matter to explain their rates of rotation without them flying apart.
It was therefore conjectured that there must be something we couldn't see, ie dark matter, accounting for the additional gravity.
Once this was factored in to cosmological equations, it was discovered that this was still not enough to explain the observations, so physicists came up with dark energy to balance it out.
The next effect is that something ridiculous like 95% of all the matter in the universe is non-reflective, leaves no trace and is (so far) undetectable.
I've probably butchered it but that's a basic rundown of the status quo.
There are a few experiments working to detect it, so for unsuccessfully.
My point, my argument with my mate, is that we're almost back to Ptolemaic Epicycles - ie our observations don;t fit with what we think we know, so we keep bolting things on to what we think we know until it's completely bent out of shape.
My contention is that we have fundamentally misunderstood something very basic about the nature of the universe.
It's the difference between thinking the universe revolves around the earth and understanding that the earth goes around the Sun, which is only one of hundreds of billions of other stars...
Maybe.
I'm probably wrong.
But it's interesting.
sounds like a very stoned conversation
No. He's an alcoholic and much more intelligent than me. These conversations happen at the pub.
stoned covers all bases dude .... doesn't really matter which taxi got you to the stoned destination
Squiffy may be a better description than stoned then. It covers many aspects."
One of us will be proved wrong at some point |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm no academic, but I think that science and the speed of evolution for Homo erectus (stop giggling at the back) has held back by a certain amount if dick measuring, in the scientific community.
Everyone is trying to disprove everyone else's theories, with theories, Einstein, was is the poster boy for smart, everybody has called someone Einstein at some point, meaning your clever.
So when a scientist trying to make his mark gets a chance to be smarter than the smart, he goes for it.
Now, if we take a theory like dark matter, I could say its not matter at all (as in not a solid) but something similar to a fart, my theory would be dismissed because the only science I was any good at was biology behind the pe block, but if instead of disproveing theories, we used them instead as sign postswe would get a lot more done |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm no academic, but I think that science and the speed of evolution for Homo erectus (stop giggling at the back) has held back by a certain amount if dick measuring, in the scientific community.
Everyone is trying to disprove everyone else's theories, with theories, Einstein, was is the poster boy for smart, everybody has called someone Einstein at some point, meaning your clever.
So when a scientist trying to make his mark gets a chance to be smarter than the smart, he goes for it.
Now, if we take a theory like dark matter, I could say its not matter at all (as in not a solid) but something similar to a fart, my theory would be dismissed because the only science I was any good at was biology behind the pe block, but if instead of disproveing theories, we used them instead as sign postswe would get a lot more done "
That is the whole point of it. You create a theory and others try to disprove it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndykinkyMan
over a year ago
STOKE-ON-TRENT |
Nobody fully understands it yet but they have made the Large Hadron Collider more powerful in the hope of learning more. Only recently they found particles doing something different to what they expected but they will keep trying.
What will happen first they understand they universe or blow the planet apart. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm no academic, but I think that science and the speed of evolution for Homo erectus (stop giggling at the back) has held back by a certain amount if dick measuring, in the scientific community.
Everyone is trying to disprove everyone else's theories, with theories, Einstein, was is the poster boy for smart, everybody has called someone Einstein at some point, meaning your clever.
So when a scientist trying to make his mark gets a chance to be smarter than the smart, he goes for it.
Now, if we take a theory like dark matter, I could say its not matter at all (as in not a solid) but something similar to a fart, my theory would be dismissed because the only science I was any good at was biology behind the pe block, but if instead of disproveing theories, we used them instead as sign postswe would get a lot more done
That is the whole point of it. You create a theory and others try to disprove it. "
.
The more you can't disprove it, the better chance it has of being correct!.
It's exactly how we came up with everything we know or think we know.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On horizon tonight on bbc2 8pm, it is about the dark energy in space, the mysterious force that is unexpectedly causing the universe's expansion to speed up.
The effects of dark energy were discovered in 1998, but physicists still know very little about it. Its very existence seems to call into question Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Will you also watch it and whats your view on it?
"
On the contary Einstein's theory predicts the expansion of the universe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ittie4UCouple
over a year ago
Watford |
"I have a long-standing argument with a friend over dark matter/dark energy.
The basic premise is that by observing the movements of galaxies we can surmise that there isn't enough normal/visible matter to explain their rates of rotation without them flying apart.
It was therefore conjectured that there must be something we couldn't see, ie dark matter, accounting for the additional gravity.
Once this was factored in to cosmological equations, it was discovered that this was still not enough to explain the observations, so physicists came up with dark energy to balance it out.
The next effect is that something ridiculous like 95% of all the matter in the universe is non-reflective, leaves no trace and is (so far) undetectable.
I've probably butchered it but that's a basic rundown of the status quo.
There are a few experiments working to detect it, so for unsuccessfully.
My point, my argument with my mate, is that we're almost back to Ptolemaic Epicycles - ie our observations don;t fit with what we think we know, so we keep bolting things on to what we think we know until it's completely bent out of shape.
My contention is that we have fundamentally misunderstood something very basic about the nature of the universe.
It's the difference between thinking the universe revolves around the earth and understanding that the earth goes around the Sun, which is only one of hundreds of billions of other stars...
Maybe.
I'm probably wrong.
But it's interesting.
sounds like a very stoned conversation
No. He's an alcoholic and much more intelligent than me. These conversations happen at the pub.
stoned covers all bases dude .... doesn't really matter which taxi got you to the stoned destination
Squiffy may be a better description than stoned then. It covers many aspects.
One of us will be proved wrong at some point "
Great OP, _iamondjoe, and a very good summary. As others have said, our theories are just models to help us make sense of what we can measure and to let us extrapolate or interpolate. As soon as we measure something not predicted, the the theory has to change. One of our challenges (I think anyway) is that our theories are to a degree constrained by the scope of our human experience - for example the wave-particle duality of matter just doesn't fit anything we have ever experienced in real life.
That said, can I recommend "The Universe - A Biography" by John Gribbons if you want to find out more on the subject to ensure it's your friend who is proved wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Interesting, they said that the universe is falling apart, something is forcing galaxy's to rush away from eachother at ever increasing speeds, ever since this discovery they have had problems understanding what might be causing it, so far they come up with a name, they call it dark energy. Dark energy is the name for the thing they don't understand. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It seems a good way for people to make money,If thses people are so clever why cannot help the problems of this planet.
It is interesting but of no importance to us here on this planet"
.... said someone about every field of scientific endeavour and discovery, ever.
Without it we wouldn't have the lives we do now. You think the planet is fucked? Imagine it before modern medicine, surgery, communications, transport. It was brutal and squalid.
So whilst there may seem to be no practical application or benefit at this point in time, it adds to the human knowledge base, from which, practical applications are derived. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I won't watch because I know I'll lose concentration after twenty minutes, will miss huge chunks of vital information and won't understand.  "
It does explain why buses and trains are alway late though...
What a train leaves Point A, Point B is getting further apart. Whilst the train is moving the speed slows down but when it stops, the speed of the expansion between A and B speeds up. Once it reaches Point B, the distance back to Point A has continued to increase... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
