# Dark Energy Discoevery [NASA Teleconference 16 Nov]

1. Nov 15, 2006

### neutrino

Dark Energy Discovery [NASA Teleconference 16 Nov]

via Asymptotia

Looks like cosmology is accelarating.

Last edited: Nov 15, 2006
2. Nov 15, 2006

### George Jones

Staff Emeritus
I don't know what's going to be announced, but it seems that one possible take on it is that there is no dark energy.

Of course, this is a very non-standard interpretation.

3. Nov 15, 2006

### Garth

How would such DE be compatible with the WMAP results and BBN?

Better wait until tomorrow and see what the announcement actually says...

Garth

4. Nov 15, 2006

### Kea

Hmmm...given the participants, it would seem they are going to prematurely claim a victory for a Cosmological Constant, without acknowledging the correct answer, which is that DE does not exist.

5. Nov 16, 2006

### Chronos

A bold assertion, Kea. I admire your strength of conviction, but, am skeptical. I think the case for dark energy is strong, if not compelling. If DE is tossed out of the 'equation of state' [so to speak], cosmology has a ponderable mass of a mountain to climb. We live in interesting times.

6. Nov 16, 2006

### CarlB

The web of physics is woven with very long threads so it's hard to reject one part of it without setting yourself up for a multi-year crusade. Eventually you'll end up tilting at wind generators.

7. Nov 16, 2006

### EL

How can you conclude DE does not exist?

You wanna make a bet again?:tongue2:
(You'll get much better odds this time...)

8. Nov 16, 2006

### neutrino

9. Nov 16, 2006

### Garth

While we wait it might be pertinent to recall that there may be problems modelling SN Ia as standard candles.

Howell et al's paper Journal-ref: Nature 443 (2006) 308: The type Ia supernova SNLS-03D3bb from a super-Chandrasekhar-mass white dwarf star
(Emphasis mine)
(Supplementary information available at www.nature.com/nature)

Garth

Last edited: Nov 16, 2006
10. Nov 16, 2006

### neutrino

11. Nov 16, 2006

### neutrino

12. Nov 16, 2006

### Kea

It was just as I thought. No discussion of QG possibilities.

13. Nov 16, 2006

### Kea

Varying-speed-of-light cosmologies predicted the apparent acceleration before it was ever observed. It also predicted precisely the result just seen. I suggest people start considering all the alternatives before they decide to pass judgement. Come on, does anybody seriously believe that a fudge factor in GR has any explanatory power? It's unrelativistic. Einstein must be turning in his grave.

14. Nov 16, 2006

### SpaceTiger

Staff Emeritus
I think a lot of folks are missing the point of the article. For the purposes of the study they're describing, it doesn't much matter what the reason for the acceleration is, they're just parameterizing the behavior of "dark energy". If dark energy is really just a manifestation of modified gravity, then the result is still relevant. They're likely working with this parameterization:

$$P=w(z)\rho$$

In other words, above is the equation of state (or effective equation of state) of the "fluid" plugged into Einstein's equation. To first order, it can be expanded as

$$w(z)=w(z=0)+\frac{dw}{dz} z$$

For a cosmological constant, w=-1 and dw/dz=0. It appears that their measurements are consistent with a cosmological constant, though at least three things should be kept in mind:

1) The result doesn't rule out any modified gravity theory that mimics a cosmological constant.
2) The error bars on dw/dz are probably quite large.
3) Any supernova measurement is potentially subject to a large number of systematic errors.

Nonetheless, it is an interesting result. Whatever the dark energy turns out to be, it seems to behaving much like a cosmological constant. A great deal of money is currently being spent to check this statement to ever higher precision.

15. Nov 16, 2006

### Wallace

SpaceTiger is on the right track. 'Dark Energy' is actually a catch-all phrase that describes a host of models including modified gravity. There are plenty of 'dark energy' models that actually do not contain any new exotic energy. It's just a somewhat misleading collective name.

For more detailed info on how the equation of state parametrization includes the generic set of models see http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305286" [Broken].

For instance you could phrase a varying c theory in terms of the Dark Energy equation of state w(z). It seems odd but all it says is that such a theory is degenerate with the existence of dark energy with that equation of state model.

This degeneracy can be broken by non-SN methods such as growth measures, so the theories can be still be distinguished at some level. The fact that growth measure are consistent with Cosmological constant (or dark energy with similar properties) and cold dark matter universe but not so consistent with the varying c theories is the reason the physical dark energy picture is preferred (though it's far from a closed case).

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
16. Nov 17, 2006

### Kea

Hi Wallace

Did these varying $c$ analyses you refer to properly take into account adjusted luminosities, or do they assume the same standard candles? Which theories have been so tested?

Last edited: Nov 17, 2006
17. Nov 17, 2006

### Chronos

Kea, your insights are sharp, as usual. My main objection to variable c is it fails to explain cosmological redshift without wrecking almost every other independent distance indicator model.

The basic premise is, if I understand correctly, that c increases over time - thus implying the permittivity and permissivity of empty space has 'relaxed' since the big bang. Would not 'alpha' also vary? If all the fundamental constants of nature conspire to create such an illusion, this conjecture cannot be falsified. That does not mean it is wrong, merely irrelevant.

Last edited: Nov 17, 2006
18. Nov 17, 2006

### Wallace

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. If SN1A are not standard candles then we'll have to simply throw them out as being useful cosmological probes entirely.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'adjusted luminosities'? The apparent luminosity you expected an (assumed standard) SN1A to have at a given redshift depends on the cosmological model, with dark energy parametrized by the equation of state w. As I said, a varying c theory will be degenerate with a given dark energy model (i.e. with the equation of state matched to achieve this degeneracy), in terms of the expected luminosity-redshift relation from SN1A observations.

To the question of which theories have been tested then, ALL varying c theories are constrained through the current constraints of the dark energy equation of state, since they can be mapped to degenerate dark energy models. I don't know the specifics of which c models exist, what there equivalent equation of state is and therefore which are ruled out and which are allowed.

Remember the the parameter(s) w(z) are a mathematical convenience. If dark energy is a real exotic energy then it refers to the physical equation of state that it has. In other 'dark energy' theories, which by that I mean 'theories that explain the SN1A results' then the parameter(s) w(z) don't have the same physical meaning, but the effect of the theory, be in modified gravity, varying speed of light etc, can be represented with these parameters.

I strongly encourage you to read the Linder & Jenkins paper I linked in my previous post. Not all of it, just the first 2 sections (less than 2 pages). That should explain in detail what I mean.

That all being said, varying speed of light theories fail to explain the observed cosmic structure, so there is a good reason they are disfavored. Plus the limits of variations to the fine structure constant pretty tightly constrain any variation in the speed of light.

19. Nov 17, 2006

### Kea

The theory I have in mind has an effective Barrett-Crane spin foam description with the correct equation of state, which follows from the Kashaev volume conjecture. But in the more mathematical version of this M-theory (via twistor Strings) the Riofrio cosmology should work, because it is based on the correct Machian principles. Of course there are still standard candles...that is the point, after all...but the real luminosity depends on the cosmology. I somehow doubt the Riofrio cosmology has been properly checked by professionals. It should be, because she gets a fit to the WMAP power spectrum, whereas the Standard scenario doesn't do too well on this count.

Oh, and by the way, c is slowing down, not speeding up.

Last edited: Nov 17, 2006
20. Nov 17, 2006

### cesiumfrog

Regards the standard candles, note that SN1a aren't all just assumed to be the same - the original luminosity is more accurately estimated from a model which depends on the colour of the supernovae.

This announcement is interesting because, by looking to deeper redshifts, it should be able to eliminate most of the likely systematic errors (eg. possible grey dust just making distant candles look dull) from the SN1a data that initially produced the acceleration discovery.

A readable (and authorative) explanation, by Brian Schmidt, is "Measuring global curvature and cosmic acceleration with supernovae", Class. Quantum Grav., 19, 3487 (2002).