Dark Energy Explained: Evidence & Meaning

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Thinker
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dark energy Energy
AI Thread Summary
Dark energy is a theoretical construct necessary to explain observations in cosmology, particularly the accelerated expansion of the universe. It emerged from the realization that standard models of gravitation and cosmology could not account for the universe's flatness and the insufficient mass observed. Key evidence includes the discovery of distant Type Ia supernovae appearing fainter than expected and findings from the WMAP satellite indicating a flat universe. Despite its significance, the nature of dark energy remains largely unknown, with current estimates suggesting it constitutes about 73% of the universe's total energy density. The ongoing debate within the cosmological community highlights the uncertainty surrounding dark energy and its implications for our understanding of the universe.
The_Thinker
Messages
145
Reaction score
2
It's a very simple question i guess, what is dark energy? Is it like that proton and anti proton thing where the anti-proton contains dark energy or something like that? I read recently that they had found evidence of dark energy, what is it, what is the evidence, how did they find it and what does it all mean? Could someone clear all of that for me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The standard model of gravitation, GR, and its cosmological model, LCDM, require the existence of Dark Energy to fit cosmological observations.

In the 1970's it was realized that there were three problems with GR, the horizon problem, the density problem and the smoothness problem. Guth discovered the theory of Inflation by studying the effect of the Higgs scalar field on the early universe. The universe is believed to have exponentially expanded at an enormous rate to 10^60 times its previous size at about 10^-33 second after the Big Bang. This sudden inflation solved the three problems but required the universe to have a density equal, pretty well, to the critical density at which the space-time of the universe is flat.

However it seemed that not enough mass was around, only about 2-4% of that required. Dark Matter was invented, some sort of exotic particle that has not been discovered and this also helped to explain why galaxies and their clusters were revolving at too high a rate for the matter that could be seen. However even with DM not enough mass was around, only about 30% that required.

Next distant Type Ia supernovae were discovered to be fainter than theory said they should be. To explain this it seems as though the universe has accelerated in its expansion against the normal expectation that it slows down because of the gravitational attraction of one galaxy on another.

Finally the WMAP satellite looking at the fluctuations in the microwave background discovered the universe was flat after all. These were the major observations and there are several other minor ones. To make up the difference between matter, dark matter and the density needed to make the universe flat dark energy was invented, and perhaps it can explain why the universe is accelerating as well!


If you don't know what it is, don't worry, nobody does! We don't know what dark matter is either and Inflation requires a 'Higgs boson' fundamental particle that hasn't been discovered. So make of that what you will. Some say there are other explanations for these observations but the cosmological community is very sure that they all do exist and they are known with "precision". (4% matter, 23% dark matter and 73% dark energy)


So the LCDM model is robustly established, or so we think, and yet we have not the slightest idea what 96% of the universe is. That is the state of cosmology at the beginning of the 21st century!

Garth
 
Hey, thanks grath for clearing that up for me. You know, that's what i like about physics, like one eminent scientist once said (forgot the name) "we all agree your idea is crazy, but is it crazy enough to work?" ;)
 
The_Thinker said:
Hey, thanks grath for clearing that up for me. You know, that's what i like about physics, like one eminent scientist once said (forgot the name) "we all agree your idea is crazy, but is it crazy enough to work?" ;)

Ha ha, that's great. Ehh... Are dark energy and the normal energy different?
 
I believe the name is misleading, energy is energy, the ability to work is the same no matter what. A better name for it would be Dark Gravity.
 
Its something physicists made up so that their theories would make sense. :)
 
Ubern0va said:
Its something physicists made up so that their theories would make sense. :)

Yep, that happens a lot, isn't gravity propartional to mass? Why's there so much more "dark gravity" than mass?
 
Ubern0va said:
Its something physicists made up so that their theories would make sense. :)

Thats how the neutrino came to be 'invented'. As Beta decay seemed to break conservation laws, a massless, non-reacting particle was called into solve the problem - the neutrino! It, of course, has since been detected...
 
see this link:
http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/darkenergy.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
the dark bit only comes into it because its difficult to "see"
 
  • #11
NASA site's
even the emptiest possible space, devoid of matter and radiation, might still have a dark energy
Is this ZPE?
 
  • #12
The_Thinker said:
Hey, thanks grath for clearing that up for me. You know, that's what i like about physics, like one eminent scientist once said (forgot the name) "we all agree your idea is crazy, but is it crazy enough to work?" ;)
Indeed, 'grath' is rather familiar with these matters. FYI, the version of that quote I am familiar with"

"Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true."
- Niels Bohr (to a young physicist)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top