XMM observes evidence of dark energy

AI Thread Summary
XMM-Newton has discovered the most massive galaxy cluster in the distant Universe, providing rare evidence that supports the existence of dark energy. Some participants in the discussion challenge this connection, arguing that dark energy and dark matter are myths and suggesting that current gravitational theories are incomplete. They propose that reconsidering the cosmological constant might offer a simpler explanation for the observed phenomena. Others argue that dark energy and dark matter indicate the need for a new theoretical framework beyond the standard model of particle physics. The debate highlights differing views on the interpretation of astronomical evidence and its implications for fundamental physics.
stevebd1
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
747
Reaction score
41
'XMM-Newton’s massive discovery'
25 August 2008

'ESA’s orbiting X-ray observatory XMM-Newton has discovered the most massive cluster of galaxies seen in the distant Universe until now. The galaxy cluster is so big that there can only be a handful of them at that distance, making this a rare catch indeed. The discovery confirms the existence of dark energy.'


http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMY70XIPIF_index_0.html

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=43263

http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3817
 
Space news on Phys.org
stevebd1 said:
'XMM-Newton’s massive discovery'
25 August 2008

The discovery confirms the existence of dark energy.'


hogwash. does nothing of the kind. only the first of the articles even mentions any connection between the discovery and dark energy. DE and DM are a myth - we just haven't quite figured out everything there is to know about gravity yet...
 
if anyone is interested in debunking my statement above, please address in your response how you think dark matter and dark energy would fit into the standard model, and, if we apply occam's razor, why reconsidering the csomological constant would not be a simpler possible solution than dreaming up things that do not fit into any prior evidential history. thanks.
 
jnorman,

Why should anyone try to make DM and DE fit into the standard model of particle physics? Clearly they are astronomical evidence for physics beyond the standard model. The standard model clearly is in need of an overhaul (i.e. a new theory must be able to deal with black hole singularities, quantum foam, etc.) and DM and DE might be able to guide us to either a Theory of Everything (i.e. unification all 4 forces) or at least a Grand Unified Theory (i.e. unification Strong, Weak, and EM forces) .

I also don't understand what you're saying about DE and cosmological constant. Are you suggesting that we interpret the accelerating expansion as a manifestation of a cosmological constant and and not use the phrase, "dark energy?" Or are you saying that we should create a new gravitational theory that naturally explains the accelerating expansion?
 
I missed the part where dark matter was topical in the esa article, jnorman.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top