WhenScience is popularly displaced by falsity

I suppose 'Starlite paint guy' could be a sobriquet.

Dear Spidergoat:
I am complimented by your interest in perusing my list of posts and threads'; you chose 'What ever happened to Starlite Paint'. Indeed...

I suppose 'You're that 'starlite paint' guy is viable currency.

Should your reconnaissance carry you any further you may overview
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie and/or http://forums.delphiforums.com/kaiduorkhon
(I'm that guy, also)

Best regards to you & yours, K. B. Robertson,
aka, KaiduOrkhon, and, RascalPuff


P.S. Dear moderator (Are you 'Just that guy'?): I accept and agree with your advisory. I was placing book titles in caps; you have reminded me that's unnecessary and inappropriate. Please excuse me, and sincere thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do I have to disprove your theory FOR you. First, this google search took me less than a minute. I found this:

Ok. Next.

Eddington died in 1944, so presumably he wrote this book before he knew about any of the other forces. Chekcing at amazon.com (another minute) shows me that this book was published in 1933 and never had a second edition.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/052...02-2020544-4480066?ie=UTF8&p=S005#reader-link

Stop using quotes that are 70+ years old---they are outdated. How would you like it if your doctor was using a medical chart that was 300 years old?

Next.

Eddington died in 1944, WELL before the conception of superstrings in 1960something. This quote could not have been made by Eddingtopn because at least some of these ideas didn't exist in his lifetime. Did you deliberately doctor this quote?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reality is tentatively dismissed, for lack of evidence?

Reality Is Tentatively Dismissed, for Lack of Evidence?

SuperStrings has been and continues as an hypothesis since its public emergence in the early '60's. This status is frequently qualified by its tentative practitioners - SuperStrings are hypothetical and employed where and when there is otherwise little or no explanation.

Responding to your last question (about Eddington). The newer ideas and phenomena are in parentheses with an asterisk ( * ) to mark it as being additional information. No. I did not 'Dr' the issued quote.

Dear BenTheMan: If you're out to 'disprove my theory FOR me', you may start with the one at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is quickly approaching the level of absurdity. Not only are you using outdated material - which has been partly superceded in the years since it was presented - you also make claims like the "big bang is dismissed." For you, perhaps, but it still represents the best available model - and there is NO second-runner.

Also, I don't mean to be personal, but your writings tend to wander all over the place and completely lack clarity of purpose. They are actually more like ramblings than any kind of genuine presentation.

And in view of that last point, is it possible for you to clearly and concisely state your purpose here without all the unnecessary baggage???

 

"There is NO alternative to the Big Bang Theory"

Speaking at the 2005 Solvay conference David Gross (Nobel laureate) said:

"We are in a period of utter confusion...These equations tell us nothing about where space and time come from and describe nothing we would recognise. At best, string theory depicts the way particles might interact in a collection of hypothetical universes...we are missing something fundamental."

Exerpts from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas S. Kuhn, from paragraph 1: "Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".


********************

You proclaim 'there is NO alternative' to the Big Bang.
There is the reinstated Cosmological Constant.
YOU proclaim that my communications are not up to standard:
make your case.
Many of the older theories and concepts are coming back home to sweep out the boxes and bonfires of vanities.

Until if and when you read the URL coordinates provided to you in my last communication, you have no argument but ad hominem english and cognition lectures. You wish to prove me wrong in context of our debate, then do it.

Analyze This:
The expanding universe is increasing in speed.
Explain that unexpected, increasingly proven fact with your so called 'Big Bang Theory'.
Explain why the Cosmological Constant isn't tenable. Explain why the expanding universe isn't caused and maintained by the abandoned CC.
Einstein's 'biggest blunder' is that he abandoned the CC, not that he presented it (with a lot of help from Wilhem de Sitter).

SuperStrings are mathematically Synthesized Substitutes until further notice.

Never mind the impotently irrelevant psywar attacks.

Until further notice you and all other big bangologists have cornered yourselves, hysterically insisting there is no alternative explanation for the spatially expanding universe.

 

Yuck! I did take a look at your link and was immediately turned off by your usage of HUGE text. You are my senior by only three year and I sure hope my vision doesen't deterioate that much in such a short time.

I've no argument with the Cosmological Constant nor am I in any way engaging in "psywar attacks" as you so boldly proclaim.

I'd simply like to see you drop all the needless garbage and present the point of your claims - if you can possibly do so in less than 10,000 words!!

 

Gravity Is The 4-D SpaceTime Dimension. (Eight words)

So you don't like my format. Ever notice all the big letters on the cover and opening pages of a magazine or book or the beginning of a movie? Too much for you, huh? Gonna fall back on ageism now. You're beginning to appear to be 'topic challenged'. 'Copernicus: I don't like your format or your attitude.'

 

Apologies, but you'll have to take a number.

 

"Gross was unusually candid, Feynman couldn’t have said it better...

Gross’s comment about a period of “utter confusion” can be extended to all Standard Model theories which, ultimately, are irreconcilable with one another and observation . . . a sad state..."
- Epsilon=One 4/5/07

Incidentally Mr. Read Only, sir, Richard Feynman skipped two classes debating with me in his office in the fall of '66. He leaned only slightly on mathematics. His resolution was: "I am unable to disqualify it". Vern and Miriam Reed, and Pete and Donna Tyner of Los Angeles, and Feynman's staff were and are witnesses to this.

 

Silly man - I wasn't talking about a cover or opening pages, I was talking about the entire thing I saw (and immediately left). Exactly the same stunt you pulled here and was chastised for - remember?? Not falling back on ageism, you old coot. As I plainly said, you and I are practically the same age and I have no mental afflictions at all. How about you?

Nope, not topic-challenged, either. Simply waiting around to see if you are capable of pulling your act together without appearing like a muttering old man. You are clearly doing everything else BUT stating your case concisely.

 

If and when you post a book on the net, I'll read it.
(Have you ever written a book, sir? How many times?)
Mine is in hard copy all over the world, in three languages, ten sold out small press editions since 1959. It matters not to me whether you read it or not, or what names you call or epithets you hurl.
This 65 yr old coot weighs 160 and benches 200#, and that's only the tip of the iceberg on my relationship with gravity and mass value.
"I saw and immediately left".
Now that's an undeniably swift and thoughtful evaluation.
The book you left immediately is a condensation of a 1979 copyrighted 627 page edition that sold out in 41 California state bookstores, including four state universities.
No need for you to read it, Mr. Read-Only. Tens of thousands of people have done - and are still doing - that. I know what its worth for sure, because I'm reassured in - literally - hundreds of letters.
For a small press production it has done and continues to do, famously.
The eight word condensation of my book that you just received was on the subway walls of NYC , and in the streets of San Francisco, as early as '71.
And: like the Cosmological Constant (that you've already learned to fear):
it's gaining on you.
You'll get around to reading it when the Hollywood guild, or Time magazine, compels you to.
Go ahead and take the last word in this skunk fight (whip it good), you're getting to be a real ad hominem waste of my portion of the incumbent four dimensional space time continuum. Yes. You can do and say everything and anything, except disqualify my work (it will come to you). Excuse me please, my microwave popcorn is bigly banging. Regards. Ciao.

 

When Science is Popularly Displaced by Falsity, cont.

In post #5 of this thread, I stated that I would return to the issue of background radiation at a later time in this thread. The following is a reply to another person at a different location - germane to and paralleling all of the issues of this thread, including microwave background radiation.
_____________________________________________

The big bang commenced as an hypothesis based on 'red shift'. In 1949 Gamow predicted that background radiation should exist as a residual hangover from the big bang. Background radiation was detected in 1963 - hastily promoting the big bang to a theory status. Whereas, any expanding universe will inevitably be more dense in its past, as compared to the present, the presently abandoned steady state theory yields the same conclusion while the accelerating expansion of physical matter (in four dimensions) reinstates the steady state theory.

The big bang hypothesis evolved into a theory by way of a conceptually polarized, prejudiced interpretation of the cause of the measured background radiation. Since then the big bang premise has disconnected itself from the requirement of a center source from which it originates. Now furthermore proclaiming that the recently and unexpectedly discovered acceleration of the (spatially) expanding universe is caused by the emphatically hypothetical impetus of 'dark energy', 'quintessence' or just (pilfers and tailors the) 'cosmological constant' (culminating in what you offer as a 'combination of three different things'); which you proclaim as 'already a part of the big bang theory'. You go on to proclaim (of the newly and unexpectedly observed accelerating expansion of the universe) that "the state of the affair is unclear, but basically the big bang and the cosmological constant belongs to the same paradigm".

'Paradigm' in this usage is 'Standard Theory' (ST). The big bang has already arbitrarily 'acquired' measured background radiation as alleged proof of itself - a more dense universe at an earlier time. On the other hand there is alternative explanation for predictably dense microwave background radiation and that is the steady state theory; including the repelling force of the cosmological constant that accompanies it.

Whereas, reiterating your own words, "...well, the state of the affair is unclear, but basically the big bang and the cosmological constant (steady state theory) belongs (sic) to the same paradigm."

("Ck a doodle doo?"- Refer, the alleged Einstein quote included in your signature.)

By this ungrounded proclamation do you mean that the (formerly abandoned) cosmological constant is interchangeable with the the hypothetical 'dark energy', 'quintessence' you speak of? The cosmological constant accompanies the steady state theory, and the steady state theory - including the accelerating expansion of (4-D) matter itself - is the rigidly ignored alternative to the big bang, which has embraced and displaced many of the characteristics of the steady state theory, while simultaneously rejecting it (consistently stating that there is 'no alternative' to the big bang).

Is it your point to say that, if the expanding universe is accelerating, the (repeatedly reconstructed) big bang has it accounted for; by way of hypothesis and/or your unexplained reactivation of the cosmological constant or steady state theory?

In the words directed at me in your reply:
'Basically not sure what your point is.'

__________________________

Signature (w' illustration of 'Puzzled Cow' accompanying it) follows:

*"The physical world is real'... [that] statement appears to me, however to be, in itself, meaningless, as if one said 'Ck a doodle doo'. It appears to me that the 'real', is an intrinsically empty, meaningless category (pigeon hole)."
- Albert Einstein

Post script: Does your allegation that Einstein made the (*above) statement included in your ('Ck a doodle doo') signature, intend that reality is dismissed for lack of evidence? You are also called upon to authenticate that 'quote'.

 

Kaiduorkhon: Perhaps you forgot, are too young to have been present, and/or never read about the demise of Steady State cosmologies.

The CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) radiation was only one small nail in the coffin of Steady State cosmology.

Hoyle (the main proponent) and others arguing for Steady State gave up when Quasars and perhaps other phenomena were discovered. Quasars are either over 6-8 billion years old or at least 6-8 billion light years distant. None are closer or younger, indicating that the universe was measurably different in the past (or with respect to distance from Earth). This is contrary to the notion of a universe both unchanging in time and isotropic along all three spatial axes.

We now know that Quasars are very distant from Earth and are no longer coming into existent, refuting both notions of a Steady State universe (Our universe has important properties which vary with both time and distance from Earth).

BTW: An alternative name for Steady State cosmology was Continuos Creation cosmology. When Fred Hoyle was asked for the source of all the matter being continuously created, he replied:

It is interesting that an unmeasurable amount of creation was required for the Steady State universe. It required perhaps a neutron per second magically appearing in every 1000 cubic meters of space (this is a wild guess on my part: I only remember that was a damn small amount of matter being created per second). The solitary neutron would immediately decay into an electron & a proton., forming a hydrogen atom. This small of creation is all that is required to balance the matter disappearing beyond the horizon of the visible universe due to recession velocities beyond the speed of light. Supposedly the continuous creation was the motive force driving the expansion.

I was sad when the Steady State cosmology became untenable. For me (and apparently for Hoyle & others) it had an emotional appeal lacking in the Big Bang. When Continuos Creation lost out, I rooted for a cosmology which postulated expansions alternating with contractions (the Bang & Crunch cosmologies). I do not remember why the Bang & Crunch cosmologies lost out a long time ago. With our current state of knowledge, there are some obvious objections to Bang & Crunch, but they lost about the same time that Steady State was abandoned.

 

Maybe Einstein's 'biggest blunder' was his abandonment of the Cosmo Constant

Dear Dinosaur:
I am familiar with the Steady State's failed requirement to make up for what would otherwise be the dissipating density of matter in a spatially expanding universe. When I speak of 4-D matter and the physically expanding universe, I mean that physical, corporeal matter itself is moving at right angles from itself, expanding - no infringement on the law of conservation of massenergy because it is the same amount of four dimensionally expanding matter, increasingly distributed - via inverse square law - over a greater amount of space; maintaining the relative density w'out the requirement for the spontaneous creation of hydrogen.

Moreover, please tell me what you think of this:

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - New Clues About the Nature of Dark ...... Energy: Einstein May Have Been Right After All View this image. The good news from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is that Einstein was right — maybe. ...
hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/12/text/ - 17k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - New Clues About the Nature of Dark ...February 20, 2004 12:00 PM (EST). News Release Number: STScI-2004-12. New Clues About the Nature of Dark Energy: Einstein May Have Been Right After All ...
hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/12/ - 16k - Apr 16, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
[ More results from hubblesite.org ]

Einstein Was Right After All at Misstuned2 Responses to “Einstein Was Right After All”. Gravatar Jonathan replied: 16 April 2007 at 02:32. Maybe times bend, does inside a dark hole, ...
misstuned.com/2007/04/15/einstein-was-right-after-all/ - 18k - Apr 16, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Einstein May Have Been Right After AllSearch All Of Our Sites In One Search ... Was Einstein Right After All ... good news from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is that Einstein was right--maybe. ...
www.spacedaily.com/news/darkmatter-04a.html - 16k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

New Clues About the Nature of Dark Energy: Einstein May Have Been ...... Nature of Dark Energy: Einstein May Have Been Right After All - SpaceRef. ... stronger than Einstein's prediction, the universe may be torn apart by a ...
www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13698 - 27k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | Einstein may have been right ...Einstein may have been right about dark energy after all ... The good news from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is that Einstein was right -- maybe. ...
spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/21darkenergy/ - 30k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

NASA - New Clues About The Nature Of Dark Energy: <br /> Einstein ...Einstein May Have Been Right After All The good news from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is Einstein was right -- maybe. A strange form of energy called ...
www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/feb/HQ_04067_dark_energy.html - 25k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

ScienceDaily: New Clues About The Nature Of Dark Energy: Einstein ...... Of Dark Energy: Einstein May Have Been Right After All. Science Daily — The good news from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is Einstein was right -- maybe. ...
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040223074521.htm - 57k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

99 years of proof: Albert Einstein is still right after decades of ...Jewish World Review March 12, 2004 / 20 Adar, 5764. 99 years of proof: Albert Einstein is still right after decades of verification. By Bill Tammeus ...
www.jewishworldreview.com/0304/einstein_tammeus.php3 - 26k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

NEW CLUES ABOUT THE NATURE OF DARK ENERGY: EINSTEIN MAY HAVE BEEN ...Regulatory Intelligence Data - NEW CLUES ABOUT THE NATURE OF DARK ENERGY: EINSTEIN MAY HAVE BEEN RIGHT AFTER ALL - From the HighBeam Research Archive.
www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-91388945.html?refid=ency_botnm - Similar pages - Note this

 

ThePlundering of the CosmoCon & Steady State, cont.

Dear Dinosaur:
Please tell me what you think of this, also.

From: RascalPuff


Date: 2007-04-12T19:53:27


BigBangAdoptionOfCosmoConstant

4/11/07 "Physics"

Message #21 from Puzzled Cow

First, I'm NOT a proponent of the big poof theory. However, that theory is permanently evolving, much like Ptolemy's earth-centric theory was evolving into variants by adding epicycles and deferents. One of these epicycles is the cosmological constant, an old hat that Einstein had postulated in his original theory in order to keep the universe both finite and static, later was discarded by Einstein, and was put in the circuit again by 2000 or so when cosmologists deduced an acceleration of expansion from observation of the redshifts - the redshifts are no more seen as the result of a Doppler effect but as the expansion of space itself, whatever that means. My previous comments are from the information available in various publications, see for exemple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy


(the warning at the head of this page confirms that the whole story is unclear).

As for the quote in my sig, Z authenticated it perfectly.

"`The physical world is real.' ...[That] statement appears to me, however, to be, in itself, meaningless, as if one said: `The physical world is ck-a-doodle-do.' It appears to me that the `real' is an intrinsically empty, meaningless category (pigeon hole)..." - Albert Einstein

_________________________________________

Einstein’s Cosmological Constant (CC) is no longer abandoned:

. "...was put into circuit again by 2000 or so, when the (Big Bang - 'There is NO other alternative') cosmologists deduced an acceleration of expansion from observation of redshifts - the redshifts are no more seen as the result of Doppler effect but as the expansion of space itself, whatever that means." - Excerpt, Puzzled Cow, message #21 "Physics" 4/11/’07

From what I gather at this time, what the new interpretation of the expansion of space itself means, is: The Big Bang School continues in session as though it did not - was not obliged to - transfer itself to the reactivated School of the Cosmological Constant. It appears also as though the Cosmo Constant’s Steady State (SS) Theory’s ‘functional space’ has been unflinchingly brought back to its place, while the terms of the ‘Cosmological Constant’, up to and including the usage the repelling force designated ‘Lambda’ are out of the round file and back on the slate... we now call the functional space of the (reinstated) repelling force, ‘Dark Energy’, ‘Dark Matter’, and ‘Quintessence’ (‘Whatever that means.’)...

The Standard Theory is carrying on with this major transition as though it is ‘the evolution of the Big Bang theory’; as though it is not the resigned retirement of the Big Bang, displaced by the reinstatement and evolution of the Cosmological Constant and Steady State that it overtly proves to be...

________________________

Wikipedia:

In physical cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe. [1] Assuming the existence of dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for almost three-quarters of the total energy of the universe.

Two proposed forms for dark energy are the cosmological constant, a constant energy density filling space homogeneously,[2] and quintessence, a dynamic field whose energy density can vary in time and space. Distinguishing between the alternatives requires high-precision measurements of the expansion of the universe to understand how the speed of the expansion changes over time. The rate of expansion is parameterized by the cosmological equation of state. Measuring the equation of state of dark energy is one of the biggest efforts in observational cosmology today.

Adding the cosmological constant to cosmology's standard FLRW metric leads to the Lambda-CDM model, which has been referred to as the "standard model" of cosmology because of its precise agreement with observations.

___________________

Evidence for dark energy

In 1998 observations of type Ia supernovae ("one-A") by the Supernova Cosmology Project at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the High-z Supernova Search Team suggested that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.[3][4] Since then, these observations have been corroborated by several independent sources. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, and the large scale structure of the cosmos as well as improved measurements of supernovae have been consistent with the Lambda-CDM model.[5]

The type Ia supernovae provide the most direct evidence for dark energy. Measuring the scale factor at the time that light was emitted from an object is accomplished easily by measuring the redshift of the receding object. Finding the distance to an object is a more difficult problem, however. It is necessary to find standard candles: objects for which the actual brightness, what astronomers call the absolute magnitude, is known, so that it is possible to relate the observed brightness, or apparent magnitude, to the distance. Without standard candles, it is impossible to measure the redshift-distance relation of Hubble's law. Type Ia supernovae are the best known standard candles for cosmological observation because they are very bright and thus visible across billions of light years. The consistency in absolute magnitude for type Ia supernovae is explained by the favored model of an old white dwarf star which gains mass from a companion star and grows until it reaches the precisely defined Chandrasekhar limit. At this mass, the white dwarf is unstable to thermonuclear runaway and explodes as a type Ia supernova with a characteristic brightness. The observed brightness of the supernovae are plotted against their redshifts, and this is used to measure the expansion history of the universe. These observations indicate that the expansion of the universe is not decelerating, which would be expected for a matter-dominated universe, but rather is mysteriously accelerating. These observations are explained by postulating a kind of energy with negative pressure (see equation of state (cosmology) for a mathematical explanation): dark energy.

The existence of dark energy, in whatever form, is needed to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), most recently by the WMAP satellite, indicate that the universe is very close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the Universe must be equal to a certain critical density. The total amount of matter in the Universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured by the CMB, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%.[5]

The theory of large scale structure, which governs the formation of structure in the universe (stars, quasars, galaxies and galaxy clusters), also suggests that the density of matter in the universe is only 30% of the critical density.

The most recent WMAP observations are consistent with a Universe made up of 74% dark energy, 22% dark matter, and 4% ordinary matter.

______________________________

The exact nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation. It is known to be very homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is not very dense—roughly 10-29 grams per cubic centimeter—it is hard to imagine experiments to detect it in the laboratory (but see the references for a claimed detection). Dark energy can only have such a profound impact on the universe, making up 70% of all energy, because it uniformly fills otherwise empty space. The two leading models are quintessence and the cosmological constant.





[edit] Cosmological constant
The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the "cost of having space": that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter /\ , the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect. It is sometimes called a vacuum energy because it is the energy density of empty vacuum. In fact, most theories of particle physics predict vacuum fluctuations that would give the vacuum exactly this sort of energy. The cosmological constant is estimated by cosmologists to be on the order of 10-29g/cm3, or about 10-120 in reduced Planck units.

The cosmological constant has negative pressure equal to its energy density and so causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate (see equation of state (cosmology)). The reason why a cosmological constant has negative pressure can be seen from classical thermodynamics; Energy must be lost from inside a container to do work on the container. A change in volume dV requires work done equal to a change of energy -p dV, where p is the pressure. But the amount of energy in a box of vacuum energy actually increases when the volume increases (dV is positive), because the energy is equal to ?V, where ? is the energy density of the cosmological constant. Therefore, p is negative and, in fact, p = -?.

A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge cosmological constant from the energy of the quantum vacuum, up to 120 orders of magnitude too large. This would need to be cancelled almost, but not exactly, by an equally large term of the opposite sign. Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which does not help. The present scientific consensus amounts to extrapolating the empirical evidence where it is relevant to predictions, and fine-tuning theories until a more elegant solution is found. Philosophically, our most elegant solution may be to say that if things were different, we would not be here to observe anything - the anthropic principle.[6] Technically, this amounts to checking theories against macroscopic observations. Unfortunately, as the known error margin in the constant predicts the fate of the universe more than its present state, many such "deeper" questions remain unknown.

Another problem arises with inclusion of the cosmic constant in the standard model which is appearance of solutions with regions of discontinuities (see classification of discontinuities for three examples) at low matter density.[7] The discontinuity also affects the past sign of the vacuum energy, changing from the current negative pressure to attractive, as one looks back towards the early Universe. This finding should be considered a shortcoming of the standard model, but only when a term for vacuum energy is included.

In spite of its problems, the cosmological constant is in many respects the most economical solution to the problem of cosmic acceleration. One number successfully explains a multitude of observations. Thus, the current standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model, includes the cosmological constant as an essential feature.


[edit] Quintessence
Dark energy may become dark matter when buffeted by baryonic particles, thus leading to particle-like excitations in some type of dynamical field, referred to as quintessence. Quintessence differs from the cosmological constant in that it can vary in space and time. In order for it not to clump and form structure like matter, it must be very light so that it has a large Compton wavelength.

No evidence of quintessence is yet available, but it has not been ruled out either. It generally predicts a slightly slower acceleration of the expansion of the universe than the cosmological constant. Some scientists think that the best evidence for quintessence would come from violations of Einstein's equivalence principle and variation of the fundamental constants in space or time. Scalar fields are predicted by the standard model and string theory, but an analogous problem to the cosmological constant problem (or the problem of constructing models of cosmic inflation) occurs: renormalization theory predicts that scalar fields should acquire large masses.

The cosmic coincidence problem asks why the cosmic acceleration began when it did. If cosmic acceleration began earlier in the universe, structures such as galaxies would never have had time to form and life, at least as we know it, would never have had a chance to exist. Proponents of the anthropic principle view this as support for their arguments. However, many models of quintessence have a so-called tracker behavior, which solves this problem. In these models, the quintessence field has a density which closely tracks (but is less than) the radiation density until matter-radiation equality, which triggers quintessence to start behaving as dark energy, eventually dominating the universe. This naturally sets the low energy scale of the dark energy.

Some special cases of quintessence are phantom energy, in which the energy density of quintessence actually increases with time, and k-essence (short for kinetic quintessence) which has a non-standard form of kinetic energy. They can have unusual properties: phantom energy, for example, can cause a Big Rip.


[edit] Alternative ideas
Some theorists think that dark energy and cosmic acceleration are a failure of general relativity on very large scales, larger than superclusters. It is a tremendous extrapolation to think that our law of gravity, which works so well in the solar system, should work without correction on the scale of the universe. Most attempts at modifying general relativity, however, have turned out to be either equivalent to theories of quintessence, or inconsistent with observations.

Alternative ideas for dark energy have come from string theory, brane cosmology and the holographic principle, but have not yet proved as compelling as quintessence and the cosmological constant.

Yet another, "radically conservative" class of proposals aims to explain the observational data by a more refined use of established theories rather than through the introduction of dark energy, focusing e.g. on the gravitational effects of density inhomogeneities (assumed negligible in the standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker approximation and confirmed negligible by studies of the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background and statistics of large-scale structure) or on consequences of electroweak symmetry breaking in the early universe[8].

See Phenomenology - Alternative Models and Theory - Alternative Models at INFN/Torino for an actively maintained list of recent work in this rapidly evolving field.


[edit] Implications for the fate of the universe
Cosmologists estimate that the acceleration began roughly 5 billion years ago. Before that, it is thought that the expansion was decelerating, due to the attractive influence of dark matter and baryons. The density of dark matter in an expanding universe disappears more quickly than dark energy, and eventually the dark energy dominates. Specifically, when the volume of the universe doubles, the density of dark matter is halved but the density of dark energy is nearly unchanged (it is exactly constant in the case of a cosmological constant).

If the acceleration continues indefinitely, the ultimate result will be that galaxies outside the local supercluster will move beyond the cosmic horizon: they will no longer be visible, because their line-of-sight velocity becomes greater than the speed of light. This is not a violation of special relativity, and the effect cannot be used to send a signal between them. (Actually there is no way to even define "relative speed" in a curved spacetime. Relative speed and velocity can only be meaningfully defined in flat spacetime or in sufficiently small (infinitesimal) regions of curved spacetime). Rather, it prevents any communication between them and the objects pass out of contact. The Earth, the Milky Way and the Virgo supercluster, however, would remain virtually undisturbed while the rest of the universe recedes. In this scenario, the local supercluster would ultimately suffer heat death, just as was thought for the flat, matter-dominated universe, before measurements of cosmic acceleration.

There are some very speculative ideas about the future of the universe. One suggests that phantom energy causes divergent expansion, which would imply that the effective force of dark energy continues growing until it dominates all other forces in the universe. Under this scenario, dark energy would ultimately tear apart all gravitationally bound structures, including galaxies and solar systems, and eventually overcome the electrical and nuclear forces to tear apart atoms themselves, ending the universe in a "Big Rip". On the other hand, dark energy might dissipate with time, or even become attractive. Such uncertainties leave open the possibility that gravity might yet rule the day and lead to a universe that contracts in on itself in a "Big Crunch". Some scenarios, such as the cyclic model suggest this could be the case. While these ideas are not supported by observations, they are not ruled out. Measurements of acceleration are crucial to determining the ultimate fate of the universe in big bang theory.


[edit] History
The cosmological constant was first proposed by Einstein as a mechanism to obtain a stable solution of the gravitational field equation that would lead to a static universe, effectively using dark energy to balance gravity. Not only was the mechanism an inelegant example of fine-tuning, it was soon realized that Einstein's static universe would actually be unstable because local inhomogeneities would ultimately lead to either the runaway expansion or contraction of the universe. The equilibrium is unstable: if the universe expands slightly, then the expansion releases vacuum energy, which causes yet more expansion. Likewise, a universe which contracts slightly will continue contracting. These sorts of disturbances are inevitable, due to the uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe. More importantly, observations made by Edwin Hubble showed that the universe appears to be expanding and not static at all. Einstein famously referred to his failure to predict the idea of a dynamic universe, in contrast to a static universe, as his greatest blunder. Following this realization, the cosmological constant was largely ignored as a historical curiosity.

Alan Guth proposed in the 1970s that a negative pressure field, similar in concept to dark energy, could drive cosmic inflation in the very early universe. Inflation postulates that some repulsive force, qualitatively similar to dark energy, resulted in an enormous and exponential expansion of the universe slightly after the Big Bang. Such expansion is an essential feature of most current models of the Big Bang. However, inflation must have occurred at a much higher energy density than the dark energy we observe today and is believed to have completely ended when the universe was just a fraction of a second old. It is unclear what relation, if any, exists between dark energy and inflation. Even after inflationary models became accepted, the cosmological constant was believed to be irrelevant to the current universe.

The term "dark energy" was coined by Michael Turner in 1998.[9] By that time, the missing mass problem of big bang nucleosynthesis and large scale structure was established, and some cosmologists had started to theorize that there was an additional component to our universe. This suspicion was reinforced by supernova observations of accelerated expansion, Riess et al[4] and later confirmed by Perlmutter et al.[3] as well as Gerson Goldhaber with his team at the Supernova Cosmology Project. This resulted in the Lambda-CDM model, which as of 2006 is consistent with a series of increasingly rigorous cosmological observations, the latest being the 2005 Supernova Legacy Survey. First results from the SNLS reveal that the average behavior (i.e., equation of state) of dark energy behaves like Einstein's cosmological constant to a precision of 10 per cent.[10] Recent results from the Hubble Space Telescope Higher-Z Team indicate that dark energy has been present for at least 9 billion years and during the period preceding cosmic acceleration.


[edit] References
^ P. J. E. Peebles and Bharat Ratra (2003). "The cosmological constant and dark energy". Reviews of Modern Physics 75: 559–606.
^ Sean Carroll (2001). "The cosmological constant". Living Reviews in Relativity 4. Retrieved on 2006-09-28.
^ a b S. Permutter et al. (The Supernova Cosmology Project) (1999). "Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 high redshift supernovae". Astrophysical J. 517: 565–86.
^ a b Adam G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team) (1998). "Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant". Astronomical J. 116: 1009–38.
^ a b D. N. Spergel et al. (WMAP collaboration) (March 2006). "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results: implications for cosmology".
^ S. Weinberg, "Anthropic bound on the cosmological constant", Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2607 (1987).
^ A.M. Öztas and M.L. Smith (2006). "Elliptical Solutions to the Standard Cosmology Model with Realistic Values of Matter Density". International Journal of Theoretical Physics 45: 925-936.
^ Primordial inflation explains why the universe is accelerating today by Kolb, Matarrese, Notari and Riotto, which is disputed by [1], [2] and [3]
^ The first mention of the term "dark energy" is in the article with another cosmologist and Turner's student at the time, Dragan Huterer, "Prospects for Probing the Dark Energy via Supernova Distance Measurements", which was posted to the ArXiv.org e-print archive in August 1998 and published in Physical Review D in 1999 (Huterer and Turner, Phys. Rev. D 60, 081301 (1999)).
^ Pierre Astier et al. (Supernova Legacy Survey) (2006). "The Supernova legacy survey: Measurement of omega(m), omega(lambda) and W from the first year data set". Astronomy and Astrophysics 447: 31–48.
HubbleSite press release: New Clues About the Nature of Dark Energy: Einstein May Have Been Right After All.
1998 paper announcing the dark energy discovery: Riess et al
1999 paper confirming dark energy discovery Perlmutter et al.
The group that first detected cosmic acceleration: High-Z supernova search team and the group that confirmed it Supernova Cosmology Project.
Sean Carroll's technical reviews: Why is the universe accelerating?, The Cosmological Constant, and Dark Energy and the Preposterous Universe.
Jim Peebles, Testing General Relativity on the Scales of Cosmology.
"The World's Most Successful Nearby Supernova Search Engine", The Katzman Automatic Imaging Telescope.
Supernova Acceleration Probe (SNAP), a proposed satellite experiment.
A reanalysis ([4], [5]) of an experiment [R.H. Koch, D. van Harlingen, J. Clarke, Phys. Rev. B 26 (1982) 74] to find the broad-band spectrum of Josephson-junction noise current claims to connect it to the spectral frequency upper limit predicted by matching estimates of the dark energy density to the measured vacuum energy density. This claim is not yet accepted. For disputes, see [6], [7], [8].
Christopher J. Coneslice, "The Universe's Invisible Hand," Scientific American. February, 2007.

[edit] Further reading and external links
Robert R Caldwell. "Dark energy", Physics World, May 2004.
Dennis Overbye. "9 Billion-Year-Old ‘Dark Energy’ Reported", The New York Times, November 2006.
"Mysterious force's long presence" BBC News online (2006) More evidence for dark energy being the cosmological constant
"Astronomy Picture of the Day" one of the images of the Cosmic Microwave Background which confirmed the presence of dark energy and dark matter
SuperNova Legacy Survey home page The Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey Supernova Program aims primarily at measuring the equation of state of Dark Energy. It is designed to precisely measure several hundred high-redshift supernovae.
"Report of the Dark Energy Task Force"
"Dark energy" BBC Science & Nature (2006)
"Dark energy in the accelerating universe" Supernova Acceleration Probe (SNAP) Satellite Observatory home page.
"Calculation of the Cosmological Constant by Unifying Matter and Dark Energy" A geometric model of dark energy as Poincaré sphere - calculated: OD = 0.734, observed: OD = 0.65...0.85 (see also blog).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy"
Category: Physical cosmology

 

Kaiduorkhon: The following confuses me a bit.

I wonder if we are talking about the same Steady State (or Continuous Creation) cosmology.

I am thinking of the Steady State cosmology advocated by Hoyle circa 1947-1960. That cosmology claimed that the universe was essentially unchanging on a large scale. It claimed that on a large scale, the universe was the same now as in the infinite past and the infinite future. On a large scale, it did not vary with distance in any direction.

• Observational evidence (a la Hubble & others) indicated that distant galaxies were receding, with the recession velocity increasing with increasing distance. Continuous creation of matter is obviously required if the universe iis to remain the same on a large scale.
  
  The required amount of matter was too small to be measurable at the time of the Steady Stae cosmology, and I think it is too small to be measurable by modern technology. The Steady State universe did not fail due to the requirement for creation of matter to make up for dissipating density. It failed due to the discovery of Quasars (and I think other observational evidence) which indicated that the universe varied with time.

In the above quoted paragraph, I do not understand how the same amount of matter distributed over a greater amount of space can maintain the same relative density. Perhaps the term relative density means something other than density. I am confused by this statement.

As far as I know, the red shifts are considered to be due to Doppler effects. The most familiar Doppler effects are due to a sound source moving relative to the listener. If receding, the pitch is lower & wave length longer; If approaching, the pitch is higher & the wave length is shorter. The expansion of the universe is not considered to be due to matter expanding into an infinite space, like the effects due to an explosion. It is considered due to the expansion of space itself, with matter carried along by the expansion. The Doppler effect would be the same no matter what the cause of the increased velocity of a light (or sound) source relative to an observer.

I think that some science-for-the-layman writer misinterpreted a statement by some cosmologist he was interviewing for an article. In his mind Doppler shift might have been associated with velocity. When told that Big Bang was not due to velocity but due to expansion of space, he assumed that the red shift was not a Doppler effect (a definite error).

I see the cosmological constant history as follows.

• When Einstein put a cosmological constant in his equations, he had been told by observational cosmologists that the universe was static and finite. Without the constant, his equations predicted gravitational collapse in a finite universe, and (I think) expansion in an infinite universe.
  
  
• When observational evidence later indicated an expanding universe, Einstein was disappointed that he did not trust his original equations, causing him to say that the constant was his biggest error. If he had not added the constant, he would have predicted the expanding universe before Hubble observed it.
  
  
• Now observational evidence indicates an accelerating expansion, requiring some adjustment to GR & Big Bang, or the junking of both. An unexplained repulsive force would fit the observations. I think cosmological constant is jargon for the repulsive force required today and required by Einstein. The cosmological constant applied to space is analogous to the gravitational constant applied to matter.

So called Dark Energy seems to be a buzz word for whatever causes the observed acceleration of the Big Bang Expansion. As far as I know, they do not yet have a clue about the nature of the repulsive force. Perhaps it is no more explainable than the attractive force of gravity. Matter having properties seems intuitively okay, while empty space having properties seems intuitively incorrect. So we accept repulsive gravity, while rejecting repulsive space. An intelligent creature born in a Star ship which never came near a galaxy or solar system might never conclude that there was an attractive force associated with matter.

Sorry I have not addressed other issues mentioned in this thread.

 

Past is Prologue. A Historical Reprise

News Release Number: STScI-2004-12
New Clues About the Nature of Dark Energy: Einstein May Have Been Right After All
Introduction Release Text Release Images Release Videos Fast Facts Related Links The full news release story:

View this image
The good news from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is that Einstein was right — maybe.

A strange form of energy called "dark energy" is looking a little more like the repulsive force that Einstein theorized in an attempt to balance the universe against its own gravity. Even if Einstein turns out to be wrong, the universe's dark energy probably won't destroy the universe any sooner than about 30 billion years from now, say Hubble researchers.

"Right now we're about twice as confident than before that Einstein's cosmological constant is real, or at least dark energy does not appear to be changing fast enough (if at all) to cause an end to the universe anytime soon," says Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore.

Riess used Hubble to find nature's own "weapons of mass destruction" — very distant supernovae that exploded when the universe was less than half its current age. The apparent brightness of a certain type of supernova gives cosmologists a way to measure the expansion rate of the universe at different times in the past.

Riess and his team joined efforts with the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS) program, the largest deep galaxy survey attempted by Hubble to date, to turn the Space Telescope into a supernova search engine on an unprecedented scale. In the process, they discovered 42 new supernovae in the GOODS area, including 6 of the 7 most distant known.

Cosmologists understand almost nothing about dark energy even though it appears to comprise about 70 percent of the universe. They are desperately seeking to uncover its two most fundamental properties: its strength and its permanence.

In a paper to be published in the Astrophysical Journal, Riess and his collaborators have made the first meaningful measurement of the second property, its permanence.

Currently, there are two leading interpretations for the dark energy as well as many more exotic possibilities. It could be an energy percolating from empty space as Einstein's theorized "cosmological constant," an interpretation which predicts that dark energy is unchanging and of a prescribed strength.

An alternative possibility is that dark energy is associated with a changing energy field dubbed "quintessence."

This field would be causing the current acceleration — a milder version of the inflationary episode from which the early universe emerged.

When astronomers first realized the universe was accelerating, the conventional wisdom was that it would expand forever. However, until we better understand the nature of dark energy—its properties—other scenarios for the fate of the universe are possible.

If the repulsion from dark energy is or becomes stronger than Einstein's prediction, the universe may be torn apart by a future "Big Rip," during which the universe expands so violently that first the galaxies, then the stars, then planets, and finally atoms come unglued in a catastrophic end of time. Currently this idea is very speculative, but being pursued by theorists.

At the other extreme, a variable dark energy might fade away and then flip in force such that it pulls the universe together rather then pushing it apart.

This would lead to a "big crunch" where the universe ultimately implodes. "This looks like the least likely scenario at present," says Riess.

Understanding dark energy and determining the universe's ultimate fate will require further observations. Hubble and future space telescopes capable of looking more than halfway across the universe will be needed to achieve the necessary precision. The determination of the properties of dark energy has become the key goal of astronomy and physics today.

CONTACT
Don Savage
NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC
(Phone: 202-358-1547; E-mail: dsavage@hq.nasa.gov)

Ray Villard
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD
(Phone: 410-338-4514; E-mail: villard@stsci.edu)

Adam Riess
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD
(Phone: 410-338-4509; E-mail: ariess@stsci.edu)

______________________________

Dear Dinosaur:
Thank you very much for your avid and sincere communication. When you enter in google, 'Einstein may have been right after all', a somewhat redundant series of communications releases appear and may be followed up on. It seems the 'big bang' theory is elaborately plundering Einstein's 'abandoned' cosmological repelling force - and the Steady State theory - by any other name, to prop up their increasingly failed foundational premeses. Apparently the 'evolving progress' of the so called big bang 'theory' is embarassed to confront itself with the retreat they are finding in the 'outdated' works they are very conspicuously falling back on.

Regarding 'empty space', there doesn't seem to be any, in consideration of action at a distance, by whatever name, 'gravity', 'dark matter', 'quintessence', 'repelling force', 'impelling force'.
Field physics carrys the day. A 'particle', discontinuous from the 'space' which 'surrounds' it, has yet to be found to the hour of this writing...

Hoping that an inclusion of my forum address is acceptable to the administratiors and moderators of SciForums.com, I refer you to a condensation of a sold out 627 page 1976 copyrighted, 6th edition hard copy, small press book I authored, more modest renditions of which were published, distributed and sold out (in three languages) as early as 1959 (Ten small press editions have been sold out since then. 'I am unable to disqualify it'. - Dr. Richard Feynman, 1966. I hope you have interest and impetus enough in these issues to respond to my request that you read it, by doing so. Although the condensation is a work in progress, a retinue of questions and answers is contained in the package I am referring you to; the reading of which will expedite this communication.

I invite constructive criticism, corrections and/or compliments. The subtitle of the work I refer you to here is: 'The reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned (Steady State) Unified Field'.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
Presently, I do not think enough information has passed between us to resolve a mutual understanding of what is - and is not - meant by the physical - 4-D - expansion of matter itself, and an ensemble of critically important (consequential) contingencies thereof. I look forward to your response to the reading of the issued information at the provided address.
The first three chapters provide the foundation upon which the multi faceted statement rests. There aren't many new facts here, only previously unrecognised ones.
Again, I thank you for your interest and self evident sincerity.
Best regards to you and yours, K. B. Robertson (RascalPuff@hotmail.com)