• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nobel Discovery Challenged: No Dark Energy?

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Meanwhile, at the deep end of the pool . . .

In 2011 a Nobel Prize was awarded for the discovery of dark energy. Now there's a recent paper that claims dark energy does not exist. Yikes!

Dark Energy Might Not Exist After All
Sabine Hossenfelder, Backreaction

. . . What they found is that the best fit to the data is that the redshift of supernovae is not the same in all directions, but that it depends on the direction. This direction is aligned with the direction in which we move through the cosmic microwave background. And – most importantly – you do not need further redshift to explain the observations. . . .

This paper, I have to emphasize, has been peer reviewed, is published in a high quality journal, and the analysis meets the current scientific standard of the field. It is not a result that can be easily dismissed and it deserves to be taken very seriously, especially because it calls into question a Nobel Prize winning discovery. This analysis has of course to be checked by other groups and I am sure we will hear about this again, so stay tuned.
 
Jack Hays said:
Meanwhile, at the deep end of the pool . . .

In 2011 a Nobel Prize was awarded for the discovery of dark energy. Now there's a recent paper that claims dark energy does not exist. Yikes!

Dark Energy Might Not Exist After All
Sabine Hossenfelder, Backreaction

. . . What they found is that the best fit to the data is that the redshift of supernovae is not the same in all directions, but that it depends on the direction. This direction is aligned with the direction in which we move through the cosmic microwave background. And – most importantly – you do not need further redshift to explain the observations. . . .

This paper, I have to emphasize, has been peer reviewed, is published in a high quality journal, and the analysis meets the current scientific standard of the field. It is not a result that can be easily dismissed and it deserves to be taken very seriously, especially because it calls into question a Nobel Prize winning discovery. This analysis has of course to be checked by other groups and I am sure we will hear about this again, so stay tuned.
Click to expand...

I can't claim to be familiar with dark energy or it's properties. It's difficult to prove the existence of things that you can't see. But I believe dark matter can be shown to exist by its effects. Perhaps dark energy is the same?
 
Jack Hays said:
Meanwhile, at the deep end of the pool . . .

In 2011 a Nobel Prize was awarded for the discovery of dark energy. Now there's a recent paper that claims dark energy does not exist. Yikes!

Dark Energy Might Not Exist After All
Sabine Hossenfelder, Backreaction

. . . What they found is that the best fit to the data is that the redshift of supernovae is not the same in all directions, but that it depends on the direction. This direction is aligned with the direction in which we move through the cosmic microwave background. And – most importantly – you do not need further redshift to explain the observations. . . .

This paper, I have to emphasize, has been peer reviewed, is published in a high quality journal, and the analysis meets the current scientific standard of the field. It is not a result that can be easily dismissed and it deserves to be taken very seriously, especially because it calls into question a Nobel Prize winning discovery. This analysis has of course to be checked by other groups and I am sure we will hear about this again, so stay tuned.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure a single paper does not automatically negate prior efforts that it counters.

Others duplicating the same results might.
 
Irredentist said:
I can't claim to be familiar with dark energy or it's properties. It's difficult to prove the existence of things that you can't see. But I believe dark matter can be shown to exist by its effects. Perhaps dark energy is the same?
Click to expand...

“Dark matter” is really just a fill-in-the-blank phrase used to describe an excess of gravitational force that cannot be explained by the volume of normal matter in conventional physics. It has been suggested the physics are just wrong or incomplete on galactic scales and it wouldn’t be the first time that scale necessitated a change in physics. Unfortunately a very large number of physicists refuse to entertain the idea that their math is wrong and instead chose to invent the idea of invisible matter and forces in the universe that there is no direct evidence of. Sound familiar?
 
Jack Hays said:
Meanwhile, at the deep end of the pool . . .

In 2011 a Nobel Prize was awarded for the discovery of dark energy. Now there's a recent paper that claims dark energy does not exist. Yikes!

Dark Energy Might Not Exist After All
Sabine Hossenfelder, Backreaction

. . . What they found is that the best fit to the data is that the redshift of supernovae is not the same in all directions, but that it depends on the direction. This direction is aligned with the direction in which we move through the cosmic microwave background. And – most importantly – you do not need further redshift to explain the observations. . . .

This paper, I have to emphasize, has been peer reviewed, is published in a high quality journal, and the analysis meets the current scientific standard of the field. It is not a result that can be easily dismissed and it deserves to be taken very seriously, especially because it calls into question a Nobel Prize winning discovery. This analysis has of course to be checked by other groups and I am sure we will hear about this again, so stay tuned.
Click to expand...

That's what science does: Use the best available information and evidence to try and make a good model of the natural world. And if new information comes along that disproves a long held theory, any scientist worth their weight will drop that old theory and move on to the better theory immediately.

That's what makes it so much better than ideas based on faith, such as creationism and flat earth, or religion. No matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented, those people just keep on believing
 
Napoleon said:
“Dark matter” is really just a fill-in-the-blank phrase used to describe an excess of gravitational force that cannot be explained by the volume of normal matter in conventional physics. It has been suggested the physics are just wrong or incomplete on galactic scales and it wouldn’t be the first time that scale necessitated a change in physics. Unfortunately a very large number of physicists refuse to entertain the idea that their math is wrong and instead chose to invent the idea of invisible matter and forces in the universe that there is no direct evidence of. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...

No, that doesn't sound familiar. Their math isn't demonstrably wrong. If it was, they wouldn't use it.
 
JustHanging said:
That's what science does: Use the best available information and evidence to try and make a good model of the natural world. And if new information comes along that disproves a long held theory, any scientist worth their weight will drop that old theory and move on to the better theory immediately.

That's what makes it so much better than ideas based on faith, such as creationism and flat earth, or religion. No matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented, those people just keep on believing
Click to expand...

You might enjoy Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions if you have not already read it.
 
JustHanging said:
No, that doesn't sound familiar. Their math isn't demonstrably wrong. If it was, they wouldn't use it.
Click to expand...

Of course they would and they do. Newton's law of universal gravitation was used for over 200 years until Einstein replaced it with general relativity. This is no different. That galaxies aren’t flying apart based on current equations of gravitational force demonstrates that the current physics are wrong on galactic scales. You don’t just get to make up non-scientific concepts of invisible things out in the cosmos in an attempt to explain away the fact that your equations have been falsified by the observable state of the universe.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
You might enjoy Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions if you have not already read it.
Click to expand...

a recent find for me was Graham Farmelo, whose 2019 book, The Universe Speaks in Numbers, focused on the differences and similarities of physicists and mathematicians over the years
 
Jack Hays said:
Meanwhile, at the deep end of the pool . . .

In 2011 a Nobel Prize was awarded for the discovery of dark energy. Now there's a recent paper that claims dark energy does not exist. Yikes!

Dark Energy Might Not Exist After All
Sabine Hossenfelder, Backreaction

. . . What they found is that the best fit to the data is that the redshift of supernovae is not the same in all directions, but that it depends on the direction. This direction is aligned with the direction in which we move through the cosmic microwave background. And – most importantly – you do not need further redshift to explain the observations. . . .

This paper, I have to emphasize, has been peer reviewed, is published in a high quality journal, and the analysis meets the current scientific standard of the field. It is not a result that can be easily dismissed and it deserves to be taken very seriously, especially because it calls into question a Nobel Prize winning discovery. This analysis has of course to be checked by other groups and I am sure we will hear about this again, so stay tuned.
Click to expand...

With the new discovery of these super mega massive black holes. it is possible for neither dark energy nor dark matter to exist.
gravity is enough to keep galaxies together and with all of these super dense black holes that would give a good indication that dark matter
is no longer needed either.

There was an indian professor that came up with a theory a while ago that said the same thing.
 
JustHanging said:
That's what science does: Use the best available information and evidence to try and make a good model of the natural world. And if new information comes along that disproves a long held theory, any scientist worth their weight will drop that old theory and move on to the better theory immediately.

That's what makes it so much better than ideas based on faith, such as creationism and flat earth, or religion. No matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented, those people just keep on believing
Click to expand...

science does not negate faith or religion.
There are things that science can and will never be able to explain.
they can theorize but that is about it.

PS scientist do the same thing you accuse other people of doing.
 
[FONT=&quot]Space[/FONT]
[h=1]Scientists find further evidence for a population of dark matter deficient dwarf galaxies[/h][FONT=&quot]Chinese Academy of Sciences Headquarters This figure illustrates structure in the simulated universe, in a box 200 million light-years on each side. It is color coded, using black, green, yellow, pink and white to represent… view more Credit: NAOC Researchers from the National Astronomical Observatories of the Chinese Academy of Science (NAOC), Peking University and…
[/FONT]
 
ludin said:
science does not negate faith or religion.
Click to expand...

I agree. Science simply doesn't need it. Science and religion are incommensurate.

This thread shows how cutting edge astronomy is. I'm amazed at how different our knowledge of the universe is today than back when I was a kid, rooting for the Apollo astronauts. Every decade brings more discoveries and more questions and problems. I read about the current theories of the "multiverse" and my head explodes.
Dark energy and matter no doubt have major revisions ahead, and may indeed be overturned by some totally new approach to explain the weird data we keep turning up. It could be revolutionary, a la Thomas Kuhn. If so, I just hope it's within my lifetime.
 
Last edited:
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]How the tiniest particles in our universe saved us from complete annihilation[/h][FONT=&quot]Recently discovered ripples of spacetime called gravitational waves could contain evidence to prove the theory that life survived the Big Bang because of a phase transition that allowed neutrino particles to reshuffle matter and anti-matter, explains a new study by an international team of researchers. How we were saved from a complete annihilation is not…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Doubts about basic assumption for the universe[/h][FONT=&quot]Study by the Universities of Bonn and Harvard questions a fundamental principle of cosmology University of Bonn No matter where we look, the same rules apply everywhere in space: countless calculations of astrophysics are based on this basic principle. A recent study by the Universities of Bonn and Harvard, however, has thrown this principle into…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Napoleon said:
“Dark matter” is really just a fill-in-the-blank phrase used to describe an excess of gravitational force that cannot be explained by the volume of normal matter in conventional physics. It has been suggested the physics are just wrong or incomplete on galactic scales and it wouldn’t be the first time that scale necessitated a change in physics. Unfortunately a very large number of physicists refuse to entertain the idea that their math is wrong and instead chose to invent the idea of invisible matter and forces in the universe that there is no direct evidence of. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...

To be more accurate, it is "cannot be explained by the volume of known normal matter in conventional physics".

In interstellar space, the only known matter is that which we can see. In short, stars and the planets around them along with other cosmic remnants. But there are things we are observing that seems to be affected by matter we can not see. Therefore "dark".

Many believe it is just cosmic debris in the void of space. Collections of dust and other debris that did not have sufficient mass to form into another star system. Remnants of a nova, planets thrown from their orbits, things like that. We have a lot of that kind of debris around our own sun.

In general, any mass that affects other objects is thrown into a theoretical box marked "dark matter", and the same with things that appear to be affected by energy that we can not detect. In reality, both terms are just placeholders until more information is gathered.

Not unlike a letter in an algebraic formula. The letter does mean something, but you have to work the problem to figure out what it is.
 
jpn said:
I agree. Science simply doesn't need it. Science and religion are incommensurate.

This thread shows how cutting edge astronomy is. I'm amazed at how different our knowledge of the universe is today than back when I was a kid, rooting for the Apollo astronauts. Every decade brings more discoveries and more questions and problems. I read about the current theories of the "multiverse" and my head explodes.
Dark energy and matter no doubt have major revisions ahead, and may indeed be overturned by some totally new approach to explain the weird data we keep turning up. It could be revolutionary, a la Thomas Kuhn. If so, I just hope it's within my lifetime.
Click to expand...

Really? I think that the multiverse is key to understanding the concept of an omniscient and omnipotent God while retaining the concept of individual free will.
 
Dayton3 said:
Really? I think that the multiverse is key to understanding the concept of an omniscient and omnipotent God while retaining the concept of individual free will.
Click to expand...

:mrgreen: Yeah, good one!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom