Mysterious 'Dark Energy' May Not Exist, Study Claims

Mysterious 'Dark Energy' May Not Exist, Study Claims - space.com

"The universe may not be expanding at an accelerating rate after all, meaning that mysterious "dark energy" might not actually exist, according to a new study. This is quite the claim. In 2011, three cosmologists from two research teams won the Nobel Prize in physics for independently showing that distant Type Ia supernovas, which are a kind of exploding star, are moving away from Earth faster than nearby ones are."


However, the researchers that got the Nobel prize for the discovery seem to be less enthusiastic about these recent results.

No, Astronomers Haven't Decided Dark Energy Is Nonexistent

"...Once you read the article, however, it’s safe to say there is no need to revise our present understanding of the universe. All the paper does is slightly reduce our certainty in what we know—and then only by discarding most of the cosmological data on which our understanding is based. It also ignores important details in the data it does consider. And even if you leave aside these issues, the headlines are wrong anyway. The study concluded that we’re now only 99.7 percent sure that the universe is accelerating, which is hardly the same as “it’s not accelerating.”



Fallen.

Fallenangel said:

Mysterious 'Dark Energy' May Not Exist, Study Claims - space.com

"The universe may not be expanding at an accelerating rate after all, meaning that mysterious "dark energy" might not actually exist, according to a new study. This is quite the claim. In 2011, three cosmologists from two research teams won the Nobel Prize in physics for independently showing that distant Type Ia supernovas, which are a kind of exploding star, are moving away from Earth faster than nearby ones are."


However, the researchers that got the Nobel prize for the discovery seem to be less enthusiastic about these recent results.

No, Astronomers Haven't Decided Dark Energy Is Nonexistent

"...Once you read the article, however, it’s safe to say there is no need to revise our present understanding of the universe. All the paper does is slightly reduce our certainty in what we know—and then only by discarding most of the cosmological data on which our understanding is based. It also ignores important details in the data it does consider. And even if you leave aside these issues, the headlines are wrong anyway. The study concluded that we’re now only 99.7 percent sure that the universe is accelerating, which is hardly the same as “it’s not accelerating.”

Fallen.

Click to expand...

Yes. I had seen that and thought it quite interesting. It is quite a bit of change to the Atheists' world, if Dark Energy disappears and the I believe there is no God becomes a little more like whistling in the deep, dark woods.

But, when I read your title, I though it was something really interesting and someone had discovered Putin was not Dark Energy.

Dark energy, dark matter, is an interesting concept in an academic sort of way.
I can't see how it affects my life though.

joG said:

It is quite a bit of change to the Atheists' world, if Dark Energy disappears and the I believe there is no God becomes a little more like whistling in the deep, dark woods.

Click to expand...

....wat?

joG said:

Yes. I had seen that and thought it quite interesting. It is quite a bit of change to the Atheists' world, if Dark Energy disappears and the I believe there is no God becomes a little more like whistling in the deep, dark woods.

But, when I read your title, I though it was something really interesting and someone had discovered Putin was not Dark Energy.

Click to expand...

Uhh, what? Why does atheism need dark energy?

Deuce said:

Uhh, what? Why does atheism need dark energy?

Click to expand...

Because of the cookies!

What are these guys drinking? How can dark energy "not exist"? I can't think of a way to rationally explain the big bang and the universal structure without it. Also; how can dark matter exist without dark energy? Are they going to start claiming dark matter doesn't exist either? What about the galactic walls? The Great Attractor?

Go home 2016, you're ****ing ****faced.

Abbazorkzog said:

What are these guys drinking? How can dark energy "not exist"? I can't think of a way to rationally explain the big bang and the universal structure without it. Also; how can dark matter exist without dark energy? Are they going to start claiming dark matter doesn't exist either? What about the galactic walls? The Great Attractor?

Go home 2016, you're ****ing ****faced.

Click to expand...

Dark energy refers to an apparent expansion of the universe that we don't really have an explanation for. If the universe isn't expanding, that particular gap-filler is not required.

Dark matter refers to apparent gravitational forces from matter we can't actually see. Since we don't understand the nature of either dark matter or dark energy, there's no reason to expect one requires the other, although that's certainly possible.

Deuce said:

Dark energy refers to an apparent expansion of the universe that we don't really have an explanation for. If the universe isn't expanding, that particular gap-filler is not required.

Click to expand...

If the universe isn't expanding, then the 'big bang theory' is essentially null and void.

Abbazorkzog said:

If the universe isn't expanding, then the 'big bang theory' is essentially null and void.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

Abbazorkzog said:

If the universe isn't expanding, then the 'big bang theory' is essentially null and void.

Click to expand...

The issue is whether the rate of expansion is accelerating.

joG said:

Yes. I had seen that and thought it quite interesting. It is quite a bit of change to the Atheists' world, if Dark Energy disappears and the I believe there is no God becomes a little more like whistling in the deep, dark woods.

But, when I read your title, I though it was something really interesting and someone had discovered Putin was not Dark Energy.

Click to expand...

I'm confused. What does Dark Energy have to do with Atheism?

TheGoverness said:

I'm confused. What does Dark Energy have to do with Atheism?

Click to expand...

Well, atheism is devil worship, the devil is the lord of darkness, therefore dark energy is the devil's energy!

Deuce said:

Well, atheism is devil worship, the devil is the lord of darkness, therefore dark energy is the devil's energy!

Click to expand...

Oh, right. Forgot about all that.

That reminds me, I need to dust off the 'ol Atheist Devil Worship Shrine in my attic. All hail Satan!

Deuce said:

Well, atheism is devil worship, the devil is the lord of darkness, therefore dark energy is the devil's energy!

Click to expand...

And marijuana is the devil's lettuce!

Deuce said:

Uhh, what? Why does atheism need dark energy?

Click to expand...

If Dark Energy does not exist, then the the physics were fundamentally wrong. As Atheism is an ersatz religion based on the belief that science explains the all, the argument for physics cracks, as it obviously did not.

TheGoverness said:

I'm confused. What does Dark Energy have to do with Atheism?

Click to expand...

Atheism is based on the assumption that science can explain things. If it turns out that physics was explaining things wrong to the extent of misreading reality by some 95% of existing matter, faith in our capabilities must be questioned. If we got it wrong and physics cannot explain reality and creation, the ersatz religion loses its credibility as well.

All a little tongue in cheek, of course.

joG said:

Yes. I had seen that and thought it quite interesting. It is quite a bit of change to the Atheists' world, if Dark Energy disappears and the I believe there is no God becomes a little more like whistling in the deep, dark woods.

But, when I read your title, I though it was something really interesting and someone had discovered Putin was not Dark Energy.

Click to expand...

tenchars/

Fallen.

joG said:

If Dark Energy does not exist, then the the physics were fundamentally wrong. As Atheism is an ersatz religion based on the belief that science explains the all, the argument for physics cracks, as it obviously did not.

Click to expand...

First, no, this wouldn't make "the physics" fundamentally wrong. It would make one dodgy area of physics wrong. Dark energy isn't some core pillar of known physics, we don't have a clue what it is. It just looks like the universe's expansion is accelerating and we don't know why that is, so we call it dark energy. It's just a gap filler, and "whoops there isn't a gap after all" doesn't fundamentally undermine physics as a whole. Newton and Einstein are still correct

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of science and atheism. A key difference between science and religion is that science has the capacity to change based on new observations. New data overturning old ideas doesn't destroy science, that is science.

Deuce said:

First, no, this wouldn't make "the physics" fundamentally wrong. It would make one dodgy area of physics wrong. Dark energy isn't some core pillar of known physics, we don't have a clue what it is. It just looks like the universe's expansion is accelerating and we don't know why that is, so we call it dark energy. It's just a gap filler, and "whoops there isn't a gap after all" doesn't fundamentally undermine physics as a whole. Newton and Einstein are still correct

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of science and atheism. A key difference between science and religion is that science has the capacity to change based on new observations. New data overturning old ideas doesn't destroy science, that is science.

Click to expand...

-If you want to think of physics as fundamentally correct, when it turns out to have miscalculated the quantity of mass by something like 95 percent, that is fine by me.

-Personally, I do not believe that physics has anything to say about religion and only touched that subject as prominent Atheists like Dawkins try to persuade their audience that science shows that Atheism is true and religion wrong. There is a certain irony there in knowing so little about reality that something like this can pop up.

And yes. science is the procession of wrong ideas disproved. But that is not the irony of Atheists based in reality loosing 95 percent of it, because the instrument they base their religion on got it wrong.

joG said:

If Dark Energy does not exist, then the the physics were fundamentally wrong. As Atheism is an ersatz religion based on the belief that science explains the all, the argument for physics cracks, as it obviously did not.

Click to expand...

No one believes that science explains the all. Rational people, religious or not, understand that the scientific method is the best way we have of understanding the world around us. When a scientific hypothesis is questioned, that's science, that's not science being fundamentally wrong.

You get a new cosmology most every year. It's a highly speculative area, and there is a crapload we simply don't know.

Personally, I hate the accelerating universe and I don't much care for dark matter. But I am not a scientist, more like a fan in the stands saying the ref's a bum.

Wait a year, there'll be something new to argue about

joG said:

-If you want to think of physics as fundamentally correct, when it turns out to have miscalculated the quantity of mass by something like 95 percent, that is fine by me.

Click to expand...

Gravity is still gravity. Light is still light. Electricity is still electricity. The wings on my plane still work, the engines still work. Your computer still works.

One bit of astrophysics doesn't change all of that.

-Personally, I do not believe that physics has anything to say about religion

Click to expand...

You're right, it doesn't. Which is why I find it so strange that some religious people get so defensive about all this. Why do they see science as they enemy? Why do you?

Science makes no attempt to study the divine. Because it can't. There's no test you can run, no experiment to make, no data to collect, that would provide evidence either for or against the existence of a deity. It does, however, test and study a great deal about our world. If they come up with something that you perceive to be in conflict with your religious beliefs, well, it's up to you to resolve that. (or not)

and only touched that subject as prominent Atheists like Dawkins try to persuade their audience that science shows that Atheism is true and religion wrong. There is a certain irony there in knowing so little about reality that something like this can pop up.

Click to expand...

People like Dawkins have a belief system based in skepticism. Science is all about questioning and testing. When someone presents him ideas from a holy book, he questions them. He asks for evidence. And when no evidence arises, he rejects the idea. Because that's what science does. If I told you an invisible dragon was on my lawn, you wouldn't accept "well you can't prove its NOT there!" Right?

That's what religion asks us all to do. Take the idea on faith. That's the whole point, right? Believing something rather than knowing something. It's the opposite of how science works.

And yes. science is the procession of wrong ideas disproved. But that is not the irony of Atheists based in reality loosing 95 percent of it, because the instrument they base their religion on got it wrong.

Click to expand...

You keep calling science a religion, but I've explained to you how it's fundamentally different. New ideas aren't changing your belief on the subject. Interesting.

95% of science has not been disproven. In fact, just one aspect of astrophysics is only 97% certain now. And here you are, proclaiming the end of science.

Why? What's it to you?

If science is a religion, then it's one that millions of people accept. Consider this: People will get on an airplane, most of them not understanding the physics that keeps it in the air, but they don't believe that it will suddenly fall out of the air for no reason. They accept the science on faith and put their lives in its hands without hesitation. They may not really even understand statistics enough to know that airplane crashes are far less likely than car crashes, yet they still get on the plane willingly.

If, on the other hand, a religious figure told them that they could handle venomous reptiles without harm if only they believe in the name of the lord, very few would take him up on it. There are a few, of course who do, and most of them get bitten, but not many take religion on faith.

Not only that, but people who have been believers all of their lives nevertheless dread death, even though they profess to believe that death leads to a better life.

People believe that the physics of flight will not let them down, and it won't. They don't believe that religion won't let them down, however.

joG said:

If Dark Energy does not exist, then the the physics were fundamentally wrong.

Click to expand...

No, certain scientific hypotheses will be ruled out. New hypotheses will be put forth. Science, physics will march right along in exactly the way they're supposed to.

And a technical point. Dark energy itself was a wrench in the standard cosmology model (which, even today, has not been sufficiently explained). A completely unexpected observation, not a prediction of our theories. If the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (ie, dark energy) turns out to be nonexistent, this doesn't create a problem. The problem goes away. We'll return to the standard cosmology model. So your argument is completely backwards, never mind mistaken.

joG said:

As Atheism is an ersatz religion based on the belief that science explains the all, the argument for physics cracks, as it obviously did not.

Click to expand...

No, atheists do not suppose that 'science explains all'. We know very well the limits of empirical observation to our understanding of the world (see: all of philosophy).