Washington (DC) - NASA held a phone-in press conference today wherein three astrophysicists reported the latest findings on dark energy. They have now "clearly seen" the effects of dark energy on the most massive collapsed objects in the universe. This new evidence has aligned scientists behind the central belief that 1) dark energy exists, 2) that it explains why we are seeing the universe expanding and accelerating, and 3) that Einstein's General Relativity theory is correct - so long as the cosmological constant is applied (something Einstein himself called his "greatest blunder").


X-ray based

A press release issued today by Harvard's Chandra X-ray Observatory operated by NASA) explains that, "for the first time, astronomers have clearly seen the effects of 'dark energy' ... using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory." This effort, unlike previous Supernova research, brings an independent and welcomed confirmation to the possible existence of dark energy.




Scientists believe dark energy is a repulsive gravitational force which "now dominates the universe, although they have no clear picture of what it actually is," according to the press release. According to graphics given during today's presentation, dark matter acts as a constrainer. Dark energy, on the other hand, acts as a repeller.

They explain that within the first trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, the universe began a very rapid expansion. Very quickly this expansion slowed until it began contracting. And, ever since about 5 billion years ago it has been expanding again. The scientists stated that in another perhaps 30-100 billion years, due to the apparently growing repulsive force of dark energy and the resulting acceleration of all normal matter, there will not be any other galaxies visible in the universe as everything will have expanded away at absolutely amazing velocity.


Einstein was right

One interesting aspect of this early "proof" of the existence of dark energy is that, if it does exist, it allows Einstein's theories to continue at scales on the order of the visible universe. This has remained a question since it was first proposed in the early 1900s when Einstein was working as a patent clerk.

The concern comes from the reality that as our science grows we understand more today than we did yesterday. And presumably we will understand more tomorrow than we do today. Newtonian physics ruled all thought until Einstein came along and blew it out of the water. Einstein's theories weren't even provable for several years when the orbit of Mercury was being observed.

One report tells of a student coming to Professor Einstein and saying, "Professor, professor, they've done it. They've proven your theory," to which Einstein continued with what he was doing. The student was puzzled and asked, "Professor, aren't you excited? They've proven your theory. What if it would've been wrong?" Einstein is reported to have replied, "Then I would have feared for God because the theory is correct."

It is worth noting that there are still several less accepted "alternative theories" which do not rely on dark matter or energy, and which operate completely differently than Einstein's theory of relativity. These theories have been gaining popularity in recent years because many physicists still resist the idea of dark matter or dark energy.


Ultimate fate of universe

All of this talk on theories ultimately bring scientists to the point where they must consider the fate of the universe. In this case it is simple. If the dark matter and dark energy theories are true, the universe will continue expanding forever and ever and will never again collapse in on itself to create another Big Bang. If it is incorrect, then we don't know. Simple, yes?

There is another theory which states that "If anybody ever discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened," at least according to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. This existential consideration is taken from the follow-on book by Adams entitled The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, "In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."


Publication and research

All of NASA's dark energy research will be published in two papers in the February 10 issue of the Astrophysical Journal. The research work was carried out over many years at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington and The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, along with countless additional research from physicists around the globe.

Unification Theory

Dec 16, 2008 18:59     

I hate to differ, but if you would like a better explanation for the acceleration of the galaxies, please go to “ universe-reh.info “. Thank you, Robert Evan Howard aclepd.com This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Robert Evan Howard report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -10

just a quick question

Dec 16, 2008 20:31     

does this mean that the closed universe theory is, beyond any doubt, a dud? Im reading a book by Thomas R. Mcdonough and it is rather old so im guessing it's details about the closed universe theory are obsolete (that the amount of dark matter the amount of matter in the universe will out do the amount of dark energy, bringing the universes escape velocity up high enough to stop it's expansion.) correct? [According to the image shown on the interview link, the universe will continue to increase its expansion indefinitely due to dark energy's repulsive forces. Of course, all of this is just a theory. Nobody knows for sure. -Rick]

P.T.K report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

My guess

Dec 16, 2008 20:54     

One guess I have always had in mind is that the dark energy would be just antiparticles, who emit repulsive gravitational force (I guess that would be the weak link) and therefore does not form into galaxies, but fills the space between the galaxies of ordinary matter. Then what we call dark matter would be the absence of the dark energy inside the galaxies (of course antimatter does not live long beside normal matter) and therefore would seem like more ordinary mass inside the galaxy. This would take care of baryon anti-symmetry problem as well.

maxpower report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +2

The Grasses were better last century

Dec 16, 2008 21:17     

than they are now. People still smoke grass today but could not come up with anything of significant.
nofubu report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Abuse of the word Theory

Dec 17, 2008 04:10     

Just to nitpick at some of the comment responses by Rick: Please, for the love of Science, do not say "It is just a theory". The correct term is hypothesis, which is used to denote the same meaning as the colloquial usage of theory. I suggest this in order to at least prevent misunderstandings of what the word Theory actually means in the Scientific nomenclature. A theory is backed up with tonnes of evidence to research in order to explain a certain set of phenomena under a series of models that have been proposed and tested. A hypothesis is still an idea that is being developed and researched. Now, understandably, we don't know if the universe will continue to expand at an accelerating rate in the far future, but from what has been observed and tested, it seems that this is the reality for our universe. But to dismiss a Theory lightly is just silly. [Merriam-Webster lists "theory" as "6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject ". In short, it is just a theory. None of this has been proven. We believe we've seen something that fits. But it could still be something else. -Rick]

Bluefinger report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +4

2 headed leader of the universe

Dec 17, 2008 06:33     

now they r quoting douglas adams to explain the universe. these "math" guys have no clue whats going on. we do not know and we never will. we just do not have it in us to understand. its like trying to finish a jigsaw-puzzle with missing pieces. give it up guys, go out & get some beer & go get laid.
zaphodbebleebrox report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -6

Fascinating

Dec 17, 2008 06:44     

Fascinating stuff, and strange how dark energy only started doing its stuff later in the universe's life - maybe it's temperature dependent or something. And to those who think this sort of research (and the LHC etc) is a waste of money, imagine what we could do with something that emits an anti-gravitational force...
Jim report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

its true

Dec 17, 2008 08:25     

that the intollerant evolutionists cannot stand information that is contrary to thier beliefs. even jokes spoken in the classrom are not tollerated without a response berating the person. if these tollerant people could have their arguements demanding tollerence for them be used on them, they scream bloody murder. we need more open minded science again that will help us explain the universe, not closed minded science that tries to justify creation or evolution. evolution is not a fact nor proved by science, so start being open minded to other design concepts for the universe.

bill report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -12

Umm.huh?

Dec 17, 2008 08:48     

Dark Energy in a Nutshell: "Hmm... the Universe seems to be expanding at an increasing rate" "Well that doesn't make sense, it should be constant or slowing down if anything else" "Wait, maybe, if their exists an energy, which we cannot see, which is anti-gravitational and increases in effect as it expands" "OH MY GOD! YOUR EXACTLY RIGHT!!!!" Thus we have dark energy.... [Excellent synopsis. :) I envision it going very much like that. -Rick] BTW - i'd love to get a look at that press release if someone wants to fix the link :) [The "press release" link is correct. It appears they've taken the page down. -Rick]

Christopher report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -2

Theory

Dec 17, 2008 09:55     

Oh please, Rick, don't be citing Merriam-Webster to justify the use of the word theory. The point Bluefinger made was very apt. The word theory has a very different connotation in science than it does in the layman's world. More and more we have to deal with derision from laypeople over scientific ideas when they see the word theory (i.e. "evolution is just a theory!") We really don't need a supposedly smarter technology website throwing out the same kind of statements, it only encourages them. An idea has to earn its right to be called a theory. And then another idea has to earn its right to disprove that theory. Otherwise good article on a truly fascinating subject.

RobertFrost report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +5

Re 1 Umm.huh?

Dec 17, 2008 10:02     

Re: Umm.huh? It's increasingly obvious that a lot of folks here seem to have trouble to understand science. Not science as a collection of facts, but science as a method/approach and road towards knowledge. What Christopher makes fun of (probably to suggest that scientists are notorious and unreliable "flip-floppers") is simply the process of following the evidence wherever it leads you. An approach that has proven to be pretty successful over the last 500 years, you might consider. Are scientists often surprised by new findings? Sure they are! Are they "baffled" or uncomfortable with that idea, or do they regret having been wrong in the past? Hardly. In fact, something new is welcomed as exciting because it opens up new possibilities. Of course there are always scientists with their own pet theory, especially when they have invested a lot into it, who will find it hard to accept certain new facts. Scientists are people with all associated imperfections. But science as a whole will make the bend, IF AND AS SOON AS THE EVIDENCE WARRANTS IT. Because that's it: without evidence pointing you in the right direction, there's no reason to change course or at least to know WHERE you need to go next. That this isn't an easy process, is partly due to the fact that observations and measurements which seem to indicate problems with current theories, are themselves also subject to possible errors and interpretation difficulties. As such, counter-evidence typically needs to "pile up" to gain some strength before it acquires enough force to change an existing theory (which became a scientific theory precisely because it fit previous evidence very well, so you don't throw it out easily). Let's take a look at the expanding universe, dark matter and energy etc. In the beginning of the 20th century, Einstein develops his General Theory of Relativity. He thinks it through and finds out that his theory only allows a universe that is expanding or contracting. He looks at what astromical evidence tells at that particular moment and notices that NOTHING indicates a non-static universe. Thus, he introduces the cosmological constant, which he is free to do without invalidating his theory, to bring it into line with the available evidence. There was no reasonable excuse to NOT do this, except his own confidence in what his intellect told him (his confidence in mathematical theory actually representing reality). A couple of decades later, Hubble uses new and more accurate instruments and measurements to observe that the universe is actually expanding! Nobody had noticed, and nobody COULD have noticed because the hardware wasn't available. But this new, undeniable evidence, pushes Einstein to call his cosmological constant his biggest mistake and he removes it(which was a little harsh om himself since the best evidence at the time demanded it; but I guess he blamed himself because it had been a diversion from his usual confidence in beauty of a theorie being indication of its correctness). (continued)

meandmyself report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +9

Re2: Umm.huh?

Dec 17, 2008 10:03     

(continued) Next starts a discussion about whether the universe is open (ever expanding) or closed. Different possibilities are layed out and on the basis of the available evidence it is speculated that it might be flat or closed because there *could* be enough mass to do so. There is a lot of discussion since the limitations of the instruments and methods mean there isn't all that much evidence to go by. It looks like it's probably expanding but slowing down, based on the visible matter and the new evidence (rotation of galaxies) that there is much more mass than what we can see directly, which would logically results in this slowing down. But it is known that the available technology isn't able to DIRECTLY measure the rate of expansion, so the question remains open. Next come the late 90's. Other leaps in technology have taken place and the next step can be taken: for the first time it is possible to take distant supernovas as reliable markers to directly measure the rate of expansion during different periods in the history of the universe, and the new evidence suggests that the expansion is accelerating! It is unexpected and completely mysterious giving the currently available knowledge and evidence. WHATEVER the cause of the acceleration is, there has to be something other than what we know right now. The label "dark energy" is attached to it to indicate that there is 'something' that we still need to find out. And the particular terminology is used because there are reasons to believe that it might be something that pervades all of space, and thus becomes stronger while space expands, and thus results in an acceleration while the universe becomes bigger. Now: should scientists be ashamed that they had it wrong or that they didn't expect this? Why the f*ck should they? Did anyone actually "know" better? NO data was available previously to suggest the acceleration. You had to be stupid to defend the position, because there were no rational arguments to back yourself up. As long as the supernova data wasn't available, there was absolutely no honor in having been RIGHT about the acceleration, because you could only have been RIGHT about it for the WRONG reasons, or because you gambled! Science can, and SHOULD, only follow the evidence. Not more and not less. And as long as she is doing so, no scientist has (or will have) any reason to be ashamed.

meandmyself report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +6

Theory or Hypothesis

Dec 17, 2008 10:49     

Both mean the same thing, even in science. e.g. The Special and General Theories of Relativity were named theories long before a body of evidence was collected to support them. I must agree that the non-scientific community does not fully understand the implications of evidence to support a theory. But, just because you want to support an argument for the Theory of Evolution, doesn't mean you can change the definition of the word. We can bandy about semantics until the end of time (whether that be the big crunch or the expansion of the universe until it reaches absolute zero), but the fact is that General Theory of Relativity is just a theory. Just like Newton's theories, Einstein's and others' could be augmented or disproved by future evidence. In this case the theory of dark energy is not a strong one since there are competing theories that explain the expanding universe phenomenon as well. They are just not as popular, probably due to Occam's Razor. So simpler theories need to be eliminated before more complex theories are considered. The evidence presented by NASA does bolster the currently favored theory. However, it does not preclude future refutation.

Paul123 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -1

And what else

Dec 17, 2008 12:52     

And someone after 80 years will discover antimatter universe paralelly exist with us. Then more all kinds of universes are coming next. Maybe watch hitsory channel that gives you more solid background on this subject.
Mat report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

uh...

Dec 17, 2008 13:58     

No, Newtonian physics has not been "blown out of the water." It doesn't account for Quantum physics and can't -- it is limited, but not invalid. Who writes this stuff? [Jim, it is invalid. It is completely invalid in every possible way in fact. It is only mildly invalid at the levels that you and I are aware of (slow speeds and macro world), so we think it works well. But, it is ALWAYS completely invalid in every possible way (carry it out to enough decimal places). It's a very close approximation and good for getting us to the moon. As to "who writes this stuff?" It's me! :) -Rick] Anyway, the bigger question to me is, if dark matter is driving the expansion of the universe, what does that do to the big bang theory? Do we need it any longer to account for the expansion of the universe? Jim

Jim report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Proof

Dec 17, 2008 15:50     

Rick, you fail to understand how science works, and seeing this sort of short-sightedness on a tech magazine is actually really disappointing. Allow me to explain: Proof lies within the realm of mathematics. Theories rely on evidence, not necessarily proof, and Science doesn't go about proving things correct, it is the other way round. Science works by proving things wrong. Example: We have three hypothesises (A, B, and C) that try to explain and model phenomena X. Scientists then test the hypothesises under the pretence of seeing how to prove the hypothesises wrong with predictions made in accordance to the proposed models. Scientists then analyse the results, and we may be left with hypothesis A and C being false. This leaves hypothesis B as being NOT FALSE (which doesn't necessarily mean it is true). So now we have a reasonable hypothesis. But it doesn't become a theory just then. More tests and research are done when the hypothesis is expanded upon when more predictions are made based on the model it presents, and this is an ongoing pursuit to try to prove the hypothesis wrong. This in turn will either show the hypothesis to be erroneous or to be in accordance with observed data. Hypothesis B may never get 'proved correct', and may be subject to many revisions as the evidence is gathered, but it may still be the only hypothesis with the most accurate model to represent Phenomena X. It is only then, after exhaustive research has been done to show that Hypothesis B is accurate, does the Hypothesis become a Theory. And if the Hypothesis is replacing an older, less accurate idea, then it must be in accordance with the Correspondence Principle (incorporates the older ideas in some way and explains why they worked in their limited scope, which is what Special Relativity did with Newtonian Mechanics). When you understand how Science works and the terminology used within it, then dismissing something under "oh, but is just a theory" is ultimately a stupid thing to do. Are you gonna say the same to Atomic Theory? Quantum Theory (of which all electronics has to take into account of, due to the scale at which they operate)? Are you willing to dismiss the way Science works just to allow for your own preconceptions? I sure hope not... Anyway, I'm done. The article itself is okay, but please, don't cite dictionaries when defining Scientific Nomenclature. Dictionaries only carry popular definitions to words (which ultimately change in accordance to the way they are used, and why dictionaries get revised so often), not necessarily the actual and accurate terms within the field they are used within. Ultimately, Science follows where the evidence leads. If the evidence points to Dark Matter and Dark Energy, then so be it.

Bluefinger report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

Re: Theory or Hypothesis

Dec 17, 2008 16:03     

Paul, >but the fact is that General Theory of Relativity is just a theory Your use of the word "just" in the previous sentence is the real (false) sentiment that is being pointed out here. It is not just about semantics. Typing "just" suggests that there is some mythical Absolute Certainty available somewhere to us, against which a "simple" scientific theory has to compete, can be compared to and falls short of. As if at some point we will have Absolute Certainty in this or that knowledge, at which point all those failed silly old theories will be seen in their true insignificance. But the fact of the matter is that "a" Currently Best Evidence Fitting Scientific Theory is the best we will EVER have available. That mythical Absolute Certainty is a ghost that can be chased but will never be captured. Don't ask of theories what they can't attain by definition, but instead respect them for what they are: our collective best efforts at understanding what's going on by using the best methods available.

meandmyself report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +2

Lighten up

Dec 17, 2008 17:30     

Is it a theory or hypothesis? Does it *really* matter? I have a MPhys in Theoretical Physics, and I would certainly not get so up tight (and dare I say arrogant) about the difference when reading an article such as this. This website story is not pretending to be a scientific paper! Seriously, lighten up, you're giving scientists a bad image (whether you are one or not).
Jim B report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Expanding

Dec 17, 2008 20:18     

Into what?
Bian G. Brooks report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Re: Lighten up

Dec 17, 2008 20:23     

Excuse me? Correcting someone's misconceptions or mistakes is somehow "arrogant"? Considering the misinformation that goes around about Science, one should do what they can to clear up any confusion and what not. Or is that too 'arrogant' of me to do so? Come on, seriously now. How is correcting someone giving Scientists a bad image? Maybe because criticism hurts other people's feelings? Or perhaps we just care not to be misrepresented. *sigh*

Bluefinger report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -1

Newtonian physics is invalid?

Dec 17, 2008 21:21     

Idiotic comments like that remind me of the dumb geek in science class who had the "more correct" answer because his parent's bought him a calculator that went all the way to 8 decimal places, whilst our measly primitive ones only went to 4 or 5. The idea of significant digits were utterly lost on the poor soul. Same goes for anyone who says that Newtonian physics "is completely invalid in every possible way in fact." You disgrace science with your haughty ignorance.

theDagda report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Re: Theory or Hypothesis

Dec 18, 2008 08:50     

You hit the nail on the head meandmyself. There is a truth out there. That is what science is constantly endeavoring to find. Theories are our best understanding of the truth at the time they are valid. Some theories are completely invalidated and some are proven through measurement. For example: The world is round (actually its a lumpy spheroid, but you get the picture). But if you start think of a Theory as something that is incontrovertible, you lose your scientific neutrality. It is just a theory. Relativity is just a theory, both General and Special. If you start to think of them as even close to fact, then why bother delving deeper into the ultimate truth of the nature of the universe and reality itself? It's a good thing that Einstein ignored those who said that Newton was absolutely right. Instead, he thought of Newtons accomplishments as "just a theory" and expanded upon them to create an entirely new view of reality. Quantum physicists did the same with Einsteins ideas. Once we stop thinking of these ideas as just theory, we stop the progress of the ultimate goal: to determine the absolute certainty of reality. It is not mythical. It is there and we should never stop trying to find it.

Paul123 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

My theory :Not to be discredited

Dec 18, 2008 09:57     

Do you like the light or the dark meat? What if it was only our galaxy that we see? A parabolic image of it into the past and future. As we are currently caught spinning around a giant black hole into our doom. OK now seriously, If the galaxies are expanding, then where is the projected focal point of their orgin? Would the dark matter be stronger there? Will we ever know? Will it ever Matter.
Sorbitol report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

This whole debate reminds me of...

Dec 18, 2008 10:05     

A very popular video which, I believe, I post now in a similar light: http://www.123video.nl/playvideos.asp?MovieID=139313 ----- Theory, Hypothesis ... Really? The dollar is crashing, the Fed cuts interest rates to zero, they've loaned 8.5 trillion dollars in the last 8 weeks and not even the U.S. Congress can get an answer as to who they lent it to. We have Joe Biden saying that an "engineered event" will occur after Obama is sworn in, one designed to test the resolve of this new 47-yr old president, much the same way JFK was tested... ...and this is what we're quibbling over? WOW! I mean seriously. WOW!

Rick Hodgin report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -1

Re: this whole debate reminds me of...

Dec 18, 2008 15:44     

Hey Rick, where can I reach you over mail? [My first name at this website. -Rick]
meandmyself report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Postulate...or...Pustule

Dec 18, 2008 16:10     

Kind of evolution...way too many missing facts (or artifacts).
AG report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Hey Sorbitol! (and Rick)

Dec 18, 2008 21:24     

Galaxies are not expanding, the Universe is. Rick, a discussion of the economy would be off-topic for this article. However, if you really think we should hit you with it . . . Current economic theory would suggest . . . :-D
Paul123 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Light and Dark, Transversing the speed of light

Dec 21, 2008 12:50     

I usually think outside the box, and this is way out. But something came to me in the middle of the night, quite some time ago, but has haunted me... as the key to a door not yet opened.... simplified it is... "When you approach the speed of light, make a right turn". Sounds strange but, electrons are always making a right turn around the atom, are they not? How? Why? Is that the secret? Jim
Jim O report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

bullsh--t

Dec 23, 2008 05:22     

1st, the idea of dark energy/matter makes Einstain's theory only a law or even a empirical generalisation - and a bad one. A theory must have an explanation for every case. And Einstain's 'theory' doesn't predict dark energy/matter - that's a completly new theory. 2nd, nothing was proven. At least not in scientifical sence. In real science it's equal to suicide to say that something is proven absolutly. 3rd Einstain is a ret--- that stole a ideas from people around him, the only thing he should be complemented on is that he had guts to publish others people work with his name.

Nikola report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

cce

Jun 15, 2009 08:22     

If all of this is based on the red shift data being interpreted as doppler at the distant sources then resulting conclusions are suspect. Assume the red shift is caused by a loss of light energy, lower frequency, in eons of travel then accelerating expansion is not mandated!!!!
walter keller report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0