Super-computer could throw light on 'mysterious' dark energy

Guess what's really driving the expansion of the universe.

http://www.presto...ndex.htm

Um. TimESimmons:

"Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are two completely different theoretical concepts.

Dark Matter is thought to consists of black holes and exotic particles which have gravity, but escape conventional forms of detection, thus theoretically explaining the so-called "missing mass" in galaxies and certain star clusters.

Dark Energy is the theoretical force which causes space-time expansion.

Tim, not to mention you have ZERO evidence. I've read your page three or four times now, I like your ideas, but...

Until you put a hoverboard in my hands, PURE SPECULATION of anti-grav matter means jack.

IMO, the results can be explained with current information without the invention of new terms and phrases.

As far as the article goes, simulations of bad information don't shed light on anything.

Earls said: "simulations of bad information.." etc.

Too true. A computer program can only do what it is programmed to do. In this case solve some differential equations (most likely approximately) and then blit them to the screen as an image. It doesn't "shed light on" anything. A person must solve a general algorithm, and consequently the general equations, before they can even begin to program a computer. Therefore the computer cannot tell you anything about a simulation that you could not have learned by solving the problem by hand.

Bad theory Bad evidence = bad model, regardless of how good the mathematics and computer simulations may be.


Right now, I consider "Dark Energy" to be about as scientific as the "Force" from Star Wars.

At best, one could view "Dark Energy" as a mere catch phrase for "All the stuff we don't know about physics."

In fact, most often you can substitute that phrase for "Dark Energy" and the sentence still holds true gramatically and contextually.

Also:

"The discovery of dark energy in 1998 was completely unexpected and understanding its nature is one of the biggest problems in physics."

This is a misleading statement which might lead an un-informed reader to think that scientists have ever actually "seen" dark energy in a lab or measured or tested it. They haven't.

The substance called "Dark Energy" could be almost anything, or it could be the product of several things which are otherwise unrelated, nobody knows. But that statment in quotes above makes it seem like someone already has a sample of it somewhere or something.

Dark Energy is undefined as of this time, though there are a number of differing models of what it might be or how it might interact with the rest of the universe. H owever, whatever Dark Energy is, as far as we know, it could be one or more forms of matter or energy, and not just one simple substance.

It could be.

DE = unknown energy/substance A

DE = B (an error in "law" of gravity!)

DE = A B

DE = A any number of other factors

DE = B any number of other factors

or

DE = A B any number of other factors

and so on.

Yeah. I find the results of the studies into the nature of Dark Energy interesting, and I'm sure everyone else does too, but I've been completely baffled by the media response to it. I like hearing about guesses as to the nature of DE, but I'd also like it made clear that they are in fact wild guesses with little, or in some cases absolutely no, evidence to support them. They're cool guesses, but still still guesses.

One of the things that this kind of cavalier treatment of these stories leads to is for common joes on the street to see a story labelled "ZZZZ's idea about DE proven wrong" and then say "AHHA, See, Science was wrong again!". When if fact it is nothing more than someone's wild pet conjecture being disproven.

Of course, no-one's going to take seriously the idea that the accelerated expansion of the universe is to caused by any energy as we know it. That is, just as virtually no physicist takes Bohmian mechanics seriously.

So Bohm found that in order to causally explain quantum wave diffraction in terms of hidden variables he needed to describe a distinct cause acting in addition to the forces, which he called the quantum potential. This cause needing to be described given that quantum objects are both particles or point objects with defined trjectories while in motion and also indefinitely extended waves which deflect the particle paths so as to cause diffraction pattern. While, unlike all the forces, the quantum potential would need to be nonlocal in that, unlike the four fundamental interactions, such a cause could not be described as acting as it surrounds objects in 3D space.

Then couple the Bohmian causal account with the evidence for the "proxy wave" - whereby the diametre of photon waves are measured to increase over astronomical distances, and it seems to me, you have the beginnings of a theory of 'dark energy' as a nonlocal "cosmic quantum effect".

And you can also think, well, what about the formation of cosmic voids as nonlocal quantum effects, and then... um... Galaxy and galaxy cluster formation?!!

What? Cosmic nonlocality?? Must be a cranky idea really, musn't it?

earls - Yes i know my evidence is circumstantial but the list is growing. One day my proof will come in.

http:\\www.preston.u-net...ndex.htm

Sometimes a single new clever idea can save a lotta money spent in computer simulation, which were done in the hope, the old theories can reveal some new secrets.

By Aether Wave Theory the Universe expands by increasing speed by the same way, like huge stars are collapsing. This makes their interior more dense, so that the view through such interior brings an illusion, the farther areas are even farther. The same effect can be observed at shorter distance scale (compare the MOND gravity theory).