What Is the Mysterious Force Opposing Gravity?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mouseonmoon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of dark energy and its role in the universe, particularly in relation to gravity and cosmic expansion. Participants explore the implications of dark energy, its mysterious nature, and its historical context in cosmology. The conversation touches on theoretical aspects, scientific uncertainties, and philosophical reflections regarding the nature of reality and existence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the conclusions drawn regarding dark energy, questioning whether scientists are jumping to conclusions about its nature.
  • Others suggest that dark energy appears to be a real phenomenon, although its definition remains vague and its implications are not fully understood.
  • A participant references the historical context of dark energy, noting that it was proposed to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe discovered in 1998.
  • There are discussions about the permanence of dark energy and its potential implications for the future of the universe, with some suggesting it may not lead to an end anytime soon.
  • Speculation arises about the existence of entities or dimensions related to dark matter and dark energy, reflecting a blend of scientific inquiry and imaginative thought.
  • Participants share philosophical musings about the naming of scientific concepts and the role of creativity in science, with references to cultural artifacts like movies.
  • Some participants express personal fears or curiosities about black holes and dark energy, indicating a blend of scientific and emotional responses to these concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of dark energy or its implications. There are multiple competing views and ongoing uncertainties regarding its definition and effects.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the current understanding of dark energy, including its vague definition and the challenges in pinning down its characteristics. There are also references to the speculative nature of some theories, such as M-theory, and the philosophical implications of scientific discoveries.

mouseonmoon
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4327735/

"We still have almost no clue what it is," said study leader Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore.

Gravity is losing some unknown battle, cosmologists admit. They theorize that about 70 percent of the universe is made up of dark energy, while most of the rest is another mysterious thing called dark matter and only a small fraction is real matter like stars, planets and living entities.

...when Edwin Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe in the 1920s, Einstein called his cosmological constant his greatest blunder.

=====

are we moving too fast, jumpin to conclusions?

am I an astronaut on the way to Mars, or only
hallucinating in a dentist's chair...

has 'reality' been debunked again?


------
seems the article fell into a 'Black Hole'?...another msnbc glitch?----added xcerts below
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by mouseonmoon
[Bhas 'reality' been debunked again? [/B]

I wouldn't say that, but dark energy does appear to be real.

People think that scientists like to understand things. Really though, scientists like to not understand things because that gives us something to do
----Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss


Science progresses one death at a time
----- Werner Karl Heisenberg and (approximately), Albert Einstein.
 
Last edited:
One of my favorites:

"The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Thomas H. Huxley (1825 - 1895)
 
here's a little more from the 'lost link' above...

Dark energy was conjured to explain a phenomenal discovery in 1998: Nearly all galaxies in the universe are receding from each other at an ever-faster pace.

With the more recent finding that the expansion is accelerating, Einstein's idea was revived.
The new findings support Einstein's cosmological constant, which modern cosmologists say implies that dark energy should not characteristically change over time. If that's right, the universe will continue to expand at an accelerating forever.
The new results suggest that even if Einstein and modern dark energy theory are both wrong, dark energy will not destroy the universe for at least 30 billion years, Riess and his colleagues say.
"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," Riess said.

Recent Hubble Space Telescope images of distant exploding stars add further confirmation to the permanence of a mysterious, repulsive force called dark energy that appears to dominate the universe.
While scientists are not ready to close the case, they said today that dark energy, which is thought to permeate the cosmos and work in opposition to gravity, does appear to be a constant presence as predicted.
The results bolster a theory that the universe won't end soon. But they leave researchers no more informed about the actual nature of dark energy.

Albert Einstein was the first to consider something similar, which he called a cosmological constant. He said even the emptiest space would have some of this strange stuff in it.

The universe is presently 13.7 billion years old.
====
((doesn't this depend on your time zone?-))

anyway,
Black holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy...wish they'd ask a poet to name this 'stuff'!

(if Black Holes are filled with light---why aren't they called 'light Holes' ?)
 
Because They're black. They don't reflect any light, they absorb it, compact it, and make it into a tiny little singularity. No light sent out.

White holes are predicted by a few theories, that they are the other end of a black hole, or that they happen in a 3 Dimensional brane when it collides with another roughly equal sized brane.

They infinitely shoot light, matter, everything, away from them, until they evaporate.

Of course, we don't know if they're real or not.
 
Originally posted by mouseonmoon
are we moving too fast, jumpin to conclusions?

A good question...it's all so new. But the definition of "dark energy" remains vague...kind of an anti-gravity force that acts at cosmological (intergalactic) distances. Astronomers still have a long way to go before pinning it down.
 
Originally posted by mouseonmoon
Black holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy...wish they'd ask a poet to name this 'stuff'!

Did you see the movie "Contact"? (scientist/astronaut laments not having a poet around to better describe the amazing sights)

Anyway, those names are pretty good, IMO, given that this stuff is invisible & full of mystery. They certainly catch people's attention. Sometimes, the IAU (the folks who get to name all the asteroids, craters, stars, etc.) uses public input in their naming of stuff (I once submitted an entry for naming the craters on the asteroid Eros...not sure what the results of that contest were. )

(if Black Holes are filled with light---why aren't they called 'light Holes' ?)

And why do we drive in a parkway and park in a driveway?
 
Phobos:
given that this stuff is invisible & full of mystery.
-----
trying to put all this together (as best my brane can do--which should be designated a "?-hole" (add a smily here for unknown-confusion), does it make any "sense" that there may be "beings" in any of this "darkness"?...other 'dimensions' of possible 'existence'?
Dark-matter 'entities'? or it's basicly 'gravity' ...i have some kind of 'primal-fear' of Black Holes...and the "dark energy" stuff doesn't help me sleep at night!...direct me to a link for 'enlightment' !

haven't seen "Contact"--seem to remember Armstrong got "One small step..." wrong.

just curious-What was your crater's name suggestion?

me/for Eros--Valentine Crater---Kisses---Milk Chocolate (for a "deep dark one"...
 
Originally posted by mouseonmoon
trying to put all this together (as best my brane can do--which should be designated a "?-hole" (add a smily here for unknown-confusion), does it make any "sense" that there may be "beings" in any of this "darkness"?...other 'dimensions' of possible 'existence'?
Dark-matter 'entities'? or it's basically 'gravity' ...i have some kind of 'primal-fear' of Black Holes...and the "dark energy" stuff doesn't help me sleep at night!...direct me to a link for 'enlightment' !

See? The names have whet your curiosity. :wink:
As for your questions...well, I'll be interested to see future research results too. M-theory (string theory) has some interesting possibilities to it.

just curious-What was your crater's name suggestion?

Aw crud...memory fading...hmm...um...I think it was "Serenade" or "Serenading".
 
  • #10
It seems that 'spite of'
'M-brane theory ((which is very close to meaning "in My-brain only theory"-or pretty darn 'imaginative-wild as UFOs'---Sign Post Up Ahead-- You're "breaking "The Speed Limit" Now!" kinda theories--))--(and I'm simply trying to 'clarify' the truly "strange" "Universe" we "live in" whether one is 'rational' or not! and I'm not sure how 'light-headed' i am-but 'things are really strange'))---

And there seems to be an 'irrational' ,IMO, immediate 'rejection' of the idea that traveling vast distances (as we 'know them'),are 'insurmountable' due to the 'laws of Physics, so that the 'idea' of ET visits to Earth is incomprehensible to some (yet 'naively' surmountable by children-
ie. maybe Santa's got 'twins'- and 'others' making full use of their imaginative faculities, and indeed 'rational' thinking that's 'out there' but wouldn't get you kicked out of the bed --being Science--for 'dreaming' up these wild theories. (( I'm lost in space ,right?...

I must confess, in spite of using electricity everyday, reading about it, and talking to electricians
(and a few are indeed my 'best friends'!), I still think it's just one of Santa's gifts-bottom line.

(and I've been using the 'heat' produced by electric kilns since '75--even doing my own 'wireing'...yep, I rely on the 'theories' of my friends-always check first to see if there's been any 'new developements'--everything seems to be working ok--and then folks who work in ceramics ask me how i get these 'results'...will take a long time to explain.)

So i don't see have a problem with 'these problems' ,like the 'speed of light', or 'gravity' only working in one direction (or what ever)...I think human's and possibly 'machines' may solve all these problems in ways we cannot imagine at this time--
man cannot fly...
rather than 'breaking the speed of light', there may be simply a 'way around it'...one guy at NASA came up with the 'hang-glider' and the rest is FUN!--even Leonardo de Vinci didn't get off the ground with his designs.

If ET is here (big jump here of course) then obvioulsy we'll be able to ask him how it's done--but like me understanding electricity, maybe it won't make sense, but we can still go along for a ride.


"just my imagination-running away with me"
====


"Cracky--the Love Crater"

yet another "crater's name suggestion"
 

Similar threads

Graduate "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
13K
Graduate Why is there no distance-measure in the standard model?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Graduate Question: Electromagnetism, Weak-force, Gravity, Strong Nuclear force ?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
17K
Graduate Superluminal Recession & Cosmological Redshift
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
9K
Graduate Dark Energy, the Cosmological Constant, General Relativity and you
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
White Paper on Revolutionary Technology - X-FORCE
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K