Posted on 11/28/2007 7:02:29 AM PST by Red Badger
Einstein's self-proclaimed "biggest blunder" -- his postulation of a cosmological constant (a force that opposes gravity and keeps the universe from collapsing) -- may not be such a blunder after all, according to the research of an international team of scientists that includes two Texas A&M University researchers.
The team is working on a project called ESSENCE that studies supernovae (exploding stars) to figure out if dark energy – the accelerating force of the universe – is consistent with Einstein’s cosmological constant.
Texas A&M researchers Nicholas Suntzeff and Kevin Krisciunas are part of the project, which began in October of 2002 and is scheduled to end next month after achieving its goal of discovering and studying 200 supernovae. The team uses a 4-meter diameter telescope in Chile during the observing season of October to December to find the supernovae.
In 1917, Einstein was working on his Theory of General Relativity and was trying to come up with an equation that describes a static universe – one that stands still and does not collapse under the force of gravity in a big crunch. In order to keep the universe static in his theory, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant – a force that opposes the force of gravity.
Then, 12 years later, Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is not static – it is actually expanding. So Einstein scrapped his idea of a cosmological constant and dismissed it as his biggest blunder.
In 1998, however, two teams of scientists, one of which Texas A&M researcher Suntzeff co-founded, discovered that the universe is not only expanding, but its expansion is actually accelerating – going faster and faster.
“So there had to be some other force that had overcome the force of gravity and is driving the universe into an exponential acceleration,” Suntzeff said. This opposing force is what scientists now call dark energy, and it is believed to constitute roughly 74 percent of the universe. The other constituents of the universe are dark matter, which composes about 22 percent of the universe, and ordinary matter, which is about 4 percent.
“Eighty years later, it turns out that Einstein may have been right [about a cosmological constant],” Krisciunas said. “So he was smarter than he gave himself credit for.”
The type of supernovae that the ESSENCE team studies all give off the same amount of energy and have essentially the same peak brightness. Researchers can compare the observed brightness of a supernova that they see in the sky to its known actual brightness to figure out how far away the supernova is.
Researchers also look at what is called the redshift of the supernova, which tells them how fast the universe is expanding. When scientists compare the distance of the supernova to its redshift, they can measure the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. This acceleration is caused by the force scientists call dark energy.
The ESSENCE team can then use the value of the acceleration to figure out the density of dark energy, which they then use to calculate what is called the w-parameter. For Einstein’s cosmological constant to be correct, the w-parameter must equal -1, and so far, the results of the ESSENCE project seem to confirm that it is indeed very close to -1.
“The magic value is -1 exactly,” Krisciunas said. “If the number turns out to be precisely -1, then this dark energy is a relatively simple thing – it is Einstein’s cosmological constant.” The team won’t have the final results until later next year, but right now, the measurement is coming in at -1 plus or minus 10 percent error, Suntzeff said, so the initial data seems to point to Einstein being correct.
“We can never test [dark energy] in the laboratory, so astronomers have to measure it [through observational data], and one of the ways we’re measuring it is with supernovae in the ESSENCE project,” Suntzeff said. “Dark energy is completely unexplained by conventional physics. Perhaps this is a manifestation of the 5th dimension from string theory. Or maybe it is a new vacuum energy density that is changing slowly in time. We have no idea, and that is what excites both physicists and astronomers.”
Source: Texas A&M University
“Dark energy is completely unexplained by conventional physics.”
well wake me up when they do because I thought this was what the article would be about
So those Freepers who understand membrane theory, please comment.
If we assume that our visable universe was created by contact between two “branes”, would it be possible that the universe, in response to that contact, is still flexing away from that contact?
Wouldn’t that be a possible explanation for the acceleration of the universe?
Wouldn’t the appearance inside the “brane” be that all points were expanding away from each other as the fabric of the “brane” stretches out?
Or am I out in left field with my mental picture?
The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe.
We are like a little child entering a huge library.
The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues.
The child knows that someone must have written these books.
It does not know who or how.
It does not understand the languages in which they are written.
But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books
- a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
“Dark energy is completely unexplained by conventional physics.”
Translation: We need more research $$$$$$$.............
The universe is held together with “Dark Glue”.............
“He was right even when he was wrong” Sounds like John Kerry commenting on Albert Einstein
That is the best way for me to visualize. However, the scale is mind blowing and the “energy” involved is unbelievable...
Great. Some idiot went and observed the universe, and now it done blowed up.
I’m still trying to figure out how dark chocolate is connected to all of this.
I read a story about two years ago or so where some researchers are saying that based upon red shift the expansion is different in the further out from us places in the universe. If I get time today I will look for it.
DON’T LOOK ETHEL!!!!!!!.....BUT IT WAS TOO LATE!.....SHE”D ALREADY BEEN MOOOOONED!.............
Dark light.
I prefer Dark Beer.............
Exactly how was Einstein correct in this regard.....?
He was wrong about the static universe, but maybe right about an anti-gravity force...............
it’s an ingredient for a fudge factor!
I don't understand why they just don't ask Al Gore to explain the universe. He knows everything about everything else.
In An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine" Claude Bernard said that some studies could never be experimental. He gave astronomy as an example. Never say never, Nick.
Thermal energy from the Earth is making the universe expand! If Bush had only signed Kyoto!
This is the first article I've seen where he's "mostly correct buy partially wrong."
We know there appears to be a type of "anti-gravity" but it's doing the exact opposite of Einstein wanted his theory to do.
It's like praising Hoyle for being completely wrong about the nature of the Universe's beginning but nailing the production of heavy elements in stars (which was actually a great observation but still, he was 80% wrong).
I'm not really disputing the article so much as I find its tone a little ridiculous: I think these researchers are trying to make a name for themselves by invoking Einstein.
It never ceases to astonish me when I realize that someone is convinced that the world that we can sense is all that there is.
We are much closer, in understanding reality, i.e. absolute truth, to a fly with its compound eyes, than we are to Whatever can understand it.
Countless times I have said to my wife, "But surely, on some level, they realize that..." To which she replies: "No. They really believe that what they are saying is true." And this is hard for me to grasp.
Truth--reality--is infinitely multilayered--in our flimsy ability to comprehend it, and the layers are part of a spectrum.
The Hindus, Buddahists, and Taoists are absolutely right in their contention that ultimate truth is so far beyond human comprehension that no concept or word can describe it.
In my best comprehension, God is the ultimate and only Truth. He cannot be explained or adequately described. And the greatest Truth is God Is. And that is infinitely more inadequate than the phrase The Big Bang is to describe or explain the initial explosion.
Dark dark.
You can’t see Dark dark...............Unless you get millions of $$$ in grant money.........
Dark Democrats.
That must be why my old pants don't fit any more...
LBJ discovered them in the 1960’s..........
All this postulating on dark matter and energy makes me sleepy and my “glial cealls” cannot handle the expansion of the universe as all I see is the entropy “moonbats” call “evolution.” Partially right, partially wrong? Hmmm this wouldn’t fly in my old physics classes. Maybe it’s just all the cows farting as Al( Einstein) Gore says.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.