PDA

View Full Version : Dark Energy and Dark Matter - Is it needed?



Occams Ghost
2008-Feb-02, 06:08 PM
Dark Energy

''Ultima Thule''
'The end of the world.'

We will investigate the types of matter that is thought to dominate the observable universe, and some of their possible influences on the universal acceleration of expansion. Firstly, we will have a look at 'dark energy.'

Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy with a negative pressure that is thought to permeate spacetime. According to Einstienís theory of relativity, the effect of negative pressure is in opposition to gravitational force on massive and strong scales. It is believed by some that such a force maybe responsible for the universes evident accelerated expansion; which is ultimately indicating that our universe is dying!

Dark energy would make up the lions share of missing matter, making up about 74% of all matter in the vast universe. Two forms of dark energy are proposed as the 'cosmological constant,' a constant energy density filling spacetime homogeneously and there is 'quintessence', a dynamic field which has an energy density that can vary in space and time. It requires high-precision measurements to determine the exact speed of expansion.

During the 1990's, observations of type 'la supernovae' by the 'Supernova Cosmology Project' and the 'High-Z Supernova Search Team' have provided the suggestion that the universe is indeed accelerating - being backed up with several pieces of observable evidences which include measurements of the 'background microwaves', 'gravitational lensing' and improved measurements on observable supernovae have been consistent with something called the 'Lambda-Chromodynamics Model,' (but i will not explain this as it is not germane to the argument.)

The most direct evidence we have for dark energy comes from the la supernovae - the Hubble red-shift, a way of measuring 'time warps' from the light of receding objects - measuring how distant a thing is, is more difficult to say the least. Thus, it is necessary to find 'standard candles' - these universal candles actually help us in determining certain distances and magnitudes with good accuracy. Without standard candles, it is relatively impossible for us to measure red-shift distances without us making a wild guess, which is really not acceptable in the realms of science. Type la supernovae are the best known candles in our cosmos for our observations - simply because they are extremely bright and thus visible at distances of billions of light years.

The la supernovae is explained by the favored example of an old 'white dwarf,' which gains mass from a counterpart star and grows until it reaches the 'Chandrasekhar limit' - at this limit, the white dwarf is unstable to thermonuclear runaway and the result is that it explodes with a tremendous brightness, flaring ever outward with energy. It is this brightness that makes observing the Hubble red-shift possible - and it is our observations that indicate the universe isn't decelerating, but is in fact accelerating, at an alarming rate... and it is these observations that the acceleration in universal expansion might be caused by dark energy with negative pressure.

The presence of dark energy is really needed in physics, to reconcile with the measured geometry of spacetime with the total matter in our universe. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation made recently the 'Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe,' indicates that the universe is nearly flat - a big leap i must say from Einstienís highly curved universe. For a universe to be flat, the mass-energy density of the universe must be proportional to the 'critical density.'

'Baryons' and 'dark matter' is thought to cover only about 30% of the universes critical density matter (more on dark matter soon.) Thus, it implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the missing 70%. Before we continue, baryons are in the family of 'hadrons.' We have seen two types of baryons in this book - they being protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of atoms.

The very nature of dark energy is a matter of speculation. It is thought to be extremely homogeneous, not very dense and doesn't interact with electromagnetic, strong or weak forces; only gravity. Since it is not very dense, around 10^-29 grams per cubic centimeter, it is very hard to comprehend dark energy being detected in the laboratory - with it making at least 70-74% of universal matter would have as you can imagine a drastic impact on expansion. Two leading models as we have seen, concerning dark energy are quintessence and the cosmological constant.

The simplest explanation for dark matter is that it is the 'cost of having space.' Thus a volume of spacetime has some kind of intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant. It is sometimes called 'Lambda' after the Greek letter, which is used as a mathematical symbol to represent this quantity. The cosmological constant is estimated to be on the order of 10^-29g/cm3 or 10^120 in reduced 'Plank Units.'

The cosmological constant might be well known by the reader. It was first proposed by Einstein himself as a mechanism to proclaim a solution to the gravitational field equation, that would lead to Einstienís strange dream; a static universe. Though, his calculations proved to be quite unstable, and that a static universe would be unpredictable due to local inhomogeneties which would result in a universe that contracts or accelerates - this means that the universe, if it expands only a tiny fraction will continue to expand due to a release of energy from the vacuum, and if it decelerates a tiny fraction, again it will continue to contract. Thus, we now know that the universe is accelerating, and Hubble red shift proved this fact - Einstienís mistake went past history, as nothing but a curious flaw, as he himself said, it was his biggest blunder.

Dark energy might arise from the particle-like excitations in a dynamical field called quintessence. Quintessence can vary in spacetime, so it differs from the cosmological constant. Some scientists believe quintessence might be found in violation of Einstienís 'Equivalence Principle.'

The 'cosmic coincidence,' theory asks the problem to why the universe accelerated when it did. If acceleration began earlier than it did, planets stars and galaxies would not have had time to form life - we ultimately would not have been here if it had started earlier. Promoters of the 'anthropic principle,' use this to support evidence of the universes means to create us - possibly by superintelligence, like God.

However, the 'tracker behavior' of quintessence solves this paradox. The tracker behavior model of quintessence has a density which closely tracks (but less than) the radiation density until the matter-radiation is equal, which ultimately triggers the 'quintessence field' to act as dark energy to dominate the universe. One case of quintessence which is thought to exist is called 'phantom energy,' where the energy density can increase in time. As weird and wonderful phantom energy sounds, it might actually result the universe in a 'Big Rip,'. I truly hope not.

And for Dark Matter?

Exotic and Dark Matter

'Exotic matter,' is a hypothetical form of matter that has both a negative energy density and a negative pressure - it is thus, an antigravity substance. All states of known matter have a positive energy density and pressure that are always less than the energy density in magnitude. A good example of energy density you may have heard of is in a stretched rubber band; when a rubber band is stretched, its energy density is about 100 trillion times greater than the pressure. If such matter could be created, it might help us to manage faster-than-light travel, or using it to grow wormholes big enough for human transportation.

Exotic matter is non-baryonic; and one form of exotic matter is called 'dark matter' - called dark matter, not because it is a darkly colored mass, but because scientists have no idea what it is, and that it does not interact with light, or electromagnetic influences. (Most) dark matter in the universe will be non-baryonic - and scientists are confident 20-25% of all matter in the universe is made up of the hypothetical and mysterious dark matter.

At the birth of our universe, 15 billion years ago, all that existed was a hot primordial soup of erratic particles. As the universe began to cool down, ordinary particles such as neutrons, protons and electrons started to join together to form stable atoms, forming all the elements we see today - which was predominantly helium and hydrogen atoms.

The theory of element-making in the first few minutes of the universe was called, 'the big bang nucleosynthesis,' and is recorded in the 'standard model'. The theory was good in predicting hydrogen and helium to pervade our part of the universe. However, the theory, it turns out, relied rather sensitively on the amount of baryonic matter that the universe had available - and the big bang nucleosynthesis predicts the right ratio's for the produce of elements in our universe today - even if 15% of the critical mass of the universe was suffice in stopping cosmic expansion (big crunch).

Of course, it may turn out that our predictions are flawed. However, because the prevailing view that the standard model predicts at least more than 15% of all matter is made up of dark matter, we can be sure that most of all dark matter are not made up of baryons - and since we are not made up of dark matter, it must be another type of matter that accounts for the dark matter. We are made up of protons, neutrons, gluons, electrons, quarks ECT. - Just to mention a few.

Some dark matter might be well-known. Some scientists think that the 'neutrino' particle is in the family of dark matter. Billions upon billions of neutrino's pass through our body every second, spurted out by the sun. For a while, scientists thought that the neutrino might not contain mass, and moved like a luxen particle; like a photon, and traveled at the speed of light. Yet, this hypothesis was proven to be wrong, as it was shown to have a small mass after all.

Another hopeful candidate for non-baryonic dark matter goes by the acronym of 'WIMPS' - Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, that belong to a class of hypothetical heavy elements that hardly interact at all with common matter - hence the fact we have not discovered any as yet - heavy elements does not need to mean anything special - one heavy element we know of here on earth is iron but of a different class.

Some think that the WIMPS do not exist - basing this on the evidence that we have never seen one of these hypothetical particles, like the 'axion'. German scientists are planning an experiment that is essentially designed to 'tease' out dark matter in the form of the exotic particles that can travel through hard physical substances, like a mountain - just like the axion particle.

Dr. Andres Ringwald of DESY laboratory hopes to use a magnetic field to transform a laser beam of photons into axion-like particles. He say's, 'the idea is to send a laser beam along a transverse magnetic field, a fraction of the laser photons will transform into the new particles and travel freely through a wall without being absorbed. Finally, another magnetic field located on the other side of the wall can transform back some of these particles into photons - apparently from nothing.'

The discovery of exotic matter, if found through these experiments will extend the standard model of particle physics; some results that may even seem science-fiction-like, just as the good Dr. informs us, 'suppose that photon regeneration does work - you could set up an axion beam radio. Place the first part of the experiment somewhere to emit the beam and the second part far away, but in line with the first. You could then transport photons - and thus signals - over long distances through materials that normally absorb photons, such as rock and sea water.'

Scientists are sure these Wimps particles exist, and are in close rival of 'MACHOS' - Massive Compact Halo Objects. According to the theory of MACHOS, galaxies like our own are cocooned by exotic systems of dark matter haloes, which are populated by luminous objects, such as 'brown dwarfs', which is the remnant of a Red Giant.

We can use specialized lenses, that can focus and bend light rays from a source behind the observable objects, like a shadow play. This is called 'microlensing,' and has had some success - some scientists think we might be able to detect the MACHOS using this technique - using the same technique, they have discovered the presence of planets previously not detected.

However, not enough MACHOS have been found to account for a fifth of all dark matter - however, as you can guess, because Macho's are made out of baryons, they will be restricted by the big bang nucleosynthesis predictions, since baryonic matter makes up a fraction of all the matter in the universe. This must mean, that our calculations say that MACHOS are ruled out for having the bigger slice of dark matter pie. Another way to catalogue dark matter is to say whether it is of the 'cold' or 'hot' varieties. Very light dark matter that moves a fraction shy of 'c' - the speed of light - is called hot dark matter. Cold dark matter is accounted for by WIMPS. There is, as scientists suspect, more cold dark matter than the hot varieties - just like we have more Bradyons than Luxens in our part of the universe.

We also know that, whatever dark matter is made out of, it will be a major gravitational producer in the universe. Thus, scientists suspect that the missing dark matter most probably helped in the formation of galaxies. In fact, there will be entire galaxies made up of dark matter. Most of these galaxies will look like our own - others like colorful clouds, set out in all their array, as if it where on a magicians darkened stage.

Mike Smith
2008-Feb-03, 07:27 PM
Occum's Ghost:

The parameter used to "discover" dark energy is simply a term placed in parallel with the term for spacetime in the FRW solution for Hubble's Universe. Using fairly recent supernova type Ia data, Hartnett and coworkers have found solutions of a more specialized nature to the FRW fit the data best without dark energy or matter. You may read the abstracts for free at the "Foundations of Physics Letters" and at "Foundations of Physics" journals. Using the most recent and best data set yet of 192 SNe Ia Smith and Oztas have fit the data with the FRW model and find serious discontinuities. Serious because this means either the FRW model including dark energy is useless or that the Universe will simply cease to exist in the future. This may be found for free at

http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/forth/smithASTP1-4-2008.pdf

notice Fig. 1. One suspects th Universe shall continue and the FRW model which includes dark energy should simply be tossed.

Cheers,

Mike

Jerry
2008-Feb-04, 04:28 AM
Interesting.

Smith & Oztas use a value for the Hubble constant of 62.3; rather than the Hubble Key value of ~73. Quite a difference that.

Cougar
2008-Feb-10, 01:52 AM
...improved measurements on observable supernovae have been consistent with something called the 'Lambda-Chromodynamics Model'
Er, that's the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model) or the concordance model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model)of big bang cosmology.


The most direct evidence we have for dark energy comes from the la supernovae...

This is correct, however....


....the Hubble red-shift, a way of measuring 'time warps' from the light of receding objects - measuring how distant a thing is, is more difficult to say the least.

This is incorrect in at least a couple of respects. I don't know where you got this "time warp" stuff. There is a very simple relationship between redshift and distance. The more redshift, the more distance. End of story. Well, almost.


Without standard candles, it is relatively impossible for us to measure red-shift distances without us making a wild guess....

Totally incorrect. In fact, as you continue with your essay, you introduce a number of other inaccuracies. I suggest going through that first LCDM link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model) for a more accurate rendition.

Ken G
2008-Feb-10, 02:32 AM
Don't be too hard, that's not a terribly bad summary of the state of things. I hope the process of putting it together has helped Occam's Ghost to obtain better confidence that a lot of good science goes into the concordance model, right or wrong.

livephenox
2008-Mar-07, 08:42 PM
Dark matter is only nessisary if time is constant throughout the galaxy. It is known that gravity causes a variance in time. The reason science believes we need more matter in the galaxy because the observed speeds of stars in the galaxy do not match the newtonion model of the gravitational curve. Time dialation has not been factored in. We can only see the galaxy from earth so our perception may be altered. It is widely acepted that at the center of the galaxy there is a black hole. If we view an object close to the event horizon from Earth it may take us years to see a few seconds pass. The effect is the illusion that the object is moving slowly while in its own time frame it is actualy approching the speed of light. On the other end of the scale are the stars further out that are moving faster than Mr. Newton would allow. The further we get from the black hole the closer to true time we get. When we observe a star at the outer edge of the galaxy from Earth we may see twelve hours in the hour we are looking. We need a time map of the galaxy to make acurrate asumtions where time is a factor. To create a low resolution time map of the gallaxy we need to do a few billion simple calculations. First calculate the G nessisary to bend light into an orbit. That is the event horizon. Set Newton's curve at the caculated location of the event horizion. Because Earth's time is dialated we most likely will not fall on that curve. Speed equals distance over time. By determining the change in T needed to put each star on Newton's curve we can map the time dialation field of the galaxy as well as determine the true time of the universe.

Why is there no red or blue shift in the galaxy? It is specualted that space/time is the medium through which light travels. As the density of space/time changes there is a coresponding shift in wave lenth.

Why is the Red shift a false indicator of the universe expanding at all points. The first evidence is the FACT that galaxies collide. There is a galaxy on a collision cource for the milkyway right now. How could it even begin moving tward us if every galaxy was moving away from each other. So what causes the red shift. Tesela reportedly invented somthing called the Tesla dome. This dome was to create a field of static wave using interferance patters. This field would be affective aganst nuclear radiation by changing the wavelenth of gama to radio frquency. Check out scaler wave weppons. Very interesting stuff. There is a very powerful energy field everywhere in the universe that was discoverd by Casimir. Particals are constantly popping in and out of existanct from this part of the multivers. If interferance waves ocur uniformly then this could expain the lenthining of these distant light waves. We also do not know the decay processes of photons over eons of tavel.

If you have the means to do this research then by all means do it please. All I ask is to be invited to watch you recieve your Nobel Prize. I lack accredadation so the best I could ever hope for is personal victory because public victory is not for me. I know my place.

CodeSlinger
2008-Mar-07, 09:01 PM
Why is the Red shift a false indicator of the universe expanding at all points. The first evidence is the FACT that galaxies collide. There is a galaxy on a collision cource for the milkyway right now. How could it even begin moving tward us if every galaxy was moving away from each other.

Simple answer: not all galaxies are moving away from each other; for example, AFAIK, the galaxies in our Local Group are not moving apart from each other. Even as space expands, gravity keeps clumps of matter together and attracted to each other, if they are close enough to each other. That's why galaxies can collide while space continues expanding.

Cougar
2008-Mar-12, 07:41 PM
Time dialation has not been factored in....
Incorrect. It has been factored in, and considering the speeds and masses of the objects orbiting in the Milky Way, nothing comes close to having a relative velocity or mass acceleration anywhere near a significant fraction of the speed of light. Therefore, the effect of time dilation is completely negligible.

WalrusLike
2008-Mar-15, 07:57 AM
...considering the speeds and masses of....orbiting in the Milky Way, nothing comes close to...near a significant fraction of the speed of light. ....time dilation is completely negligible.

Did you read about the theory proposed, that it is in fact, the time dilation caused by the mass in the 'bubble walls' of the large scale universe, that mean that time in the 'voids' has actually run out to near 18 billion years for the age of the universe. Meaning that the red shift doppler effect has been incorrectly calculated... and so no need for dark energy. I don't know... just parroting (and probably mashing... :) ) what I read....

See this paper:

We propose an explanation for the present accelerated expansion of the universe that does not invoke dark energy or a modification of gravity and is firmly rooted in inflationary cosmology.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503117

and this article:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/12/21/2124258.htm?site=science&topic=latest

and this thread:
http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/71193-kolb-et-al-wiltshire-reckon-dark-energy-furphy.html

Cougar
2008-Mar-15, 07:22 PM
...the time dilation caused by the mass in the 'bubble walls' of the large scale universe, that mean that time in the 'voids' has actually run out to near 18 billion years for the age of the universe. Meaning that the red shift doppler effect has been incorrectly calculated... and so no need for dark energy. I don't know... just parroting (and probably mashing... :) ) what I read....
Yes, that was a bit of a mash :o , but thanks for the link to that paper by Rocky Kolb, et al. (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503117), which is actually a "proposal" that currently has no evidence to support it.



"Our proposal is as follows. Suppose cosmological perturbations with wavelengths larger than the present Hubble radius, H0−1, exist...."

Of course, this is interesting and well thought out, and the authors explain how, from future observations, their idea can be differentiated from other ideas that propose to explain the apparent accelerating expansion.

I am a fan of Rocky Kolb, who wrote the very excellent book, Blind Watchers of the Sky, The People and Ideas that Shaped Our View of the Universe [1996].

WalrusLike
2008-Mar-15, 11:39 PM
Yes, that was a bit of a mash :o , but thanks for the link....

You are most welcome... I think I _might_ have the capacity to understand this stuff... I just need 3 years full-time on it for the basics... another for a honourable extension... then 3 or four more to really get to grips with it... Then just regular day to day working with it and reading at night...

Nah... I think I will just be lazy and wait for the podcast to come out.... :)

So from what you say... I will need to wait a while before any testing of the proposal starts to indicate if it has any merit... ok... Its another thing I look forward to hearing about in the future.. its bound to be interesting...