Einstein Confirmed Again: Dark Energy Present In The Universe
By on May 22nd, 2011

The grand old man of Physics is proved right once again. Albert Einstein was vindicated yet again by a survey, which confirmed the presence of Dark Energy in the Universe. The ‘WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey’ was conducted by 26 astronomers from 14 countries using the latest in spectrograph technologies to map out more than 200,000 galaxies, many halfway across the Universe to confirm this startling fact.

What is Dark Energy?

Dark Energy is the name given to the unknown entity believed to be behind the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. It was Edwin Hubble, who in 1932, first noticed that the Universe was actually expanding. This gave a huge boost to the Big Bang theory, which says that the Universe came out of an ultra-dense singularity 14-15 billion years ago. Scientists have been expecting the expansion to slow down as time wears on, as then gravity will eventually dominate. What scientists found, instead, was that the Universe was expanding at an ever-increasing rate. It is believed that some mysterious source of energy was aiding the expansion process, thus named Dark Energy.

No one has come up with a proper explanation of Dark Energy, despite there being a number of hypotheses and models. Dark Energy supposedly makes up 73% of the Universe, Dark Matter 23 % (which is NOT the same as Dark Energy; Dark Matter slows down the expansion) and the rest 4% – is ordinary matter – stars, galaxies, nebulae and super-clusters.

Where Einstein fits in…

Einstein had almost predicted the expansion of the Universe in his Theory of General Relativity, but in an uncharacteristic situation in which his nerves weakened, he introduced a factor in his equations which predicted a static Universe. This amounted to including in his equations, a cosmological constant a ‘fudge factor’ which gives vacuum a repelling force, effectively enabling the Universe to counter its own gravity and preventing self-collapse. Later, Einstein would rue this as his ‘greatest blunder’. Now, it seems that the great man was not wrong!

Inflationary theories of modern cosmology use this idea of a cosmological constant to explain the supposed period of rapid expansion right after the Big Bang called inflation. Now, with the increasing rate of expansion, it seems that the cosmological constant was the genius’ masterstroke rather than a botch-up.

The WiggleZ survey

The WiggleZ survey, conducted by an Australian-based group led by Dr. Michael Drinkwater, used the latest in spectrography, thanks to latest Australian technology to survey galaxies more than 200000 of them some 7 billion light years away. Light takes a finite time to travel from one place to another, because of its finite speed. Thus the light from 7 billion light years away took 7 billion years to reach here. This means that we are seeing galaxies in the form they were 7 billion years ago, essentially looking back in time! (Thus, the easiest way to glance into the past is to just see. The farther away the object you see, the farther away in time it is!). The WiggleZ survey can map 392 galaxies in an hour!

Do Structures such as these give clues to Dark Matter and Energy?

Though, this doesn’t tell us the constituents of Dark Energy (or Dark Matter, which is also a mystery), it gives definitive confirmation of its existence. It gives scientists confidence that Einstein’s theory is not failing, and that Dark Energy can indeed be reconciled with General Relativity. The survey is exhaustive measuring both the pattern of distribution of galaxies in the Universe and the rate of formation of the galaxy clusters, essentially giving scientists a two-way confirmatory proof of Dark Energy.

So, there it is again! Einstein is proved right again, and in spectacular fashion. 96% of the stuff in the Universe is unknown, but at least we know that it’s there. Some consolation and a lot of work to be done!

Tags: , , ,
Author: Debjyoti Bardhan Google Profile for Debjyoti Bardhan
Is a science geek, currently pursuing some sort of a degree (called a PhD) in Physics at TIFR, Mumbai. An enthusiastic but useless amateur photographer, his most favourite activity is simply lazing around. He is interested in all things interesting and scientific.

Debjyoti Bardhan has written and can be contacted at debjyoti@techie-buzz.com.
  • Pingback: @WinObs Tweeted Links for 22 May 2011 | WindowsObserver.com

  • phayes

    “period of rapid expansion right after the Big Bang called inflation”

    Right before it. :)

  • Moonwhaler

    Looking at the image above I would say I’m looking at some kind of brain nerve system. Except from that – as usual – breathtaking just to think about it…

  • Andy

    Can you please refrain from stating that ” Einstein is proved right again.” This statement is inaccurate, as no scientific theory can ever be proven.

    I recommend looking into Karl Poppers work on the philosophy of science and what constitutes a theory (falsifiability, fallibalism, demarcation).

    • Debjyoti Bardhan

      I’m only slightly aware of Popper’s works and intend to look them up. Thanks for the suggestion.
      While I completely agree that no scientific theory can ever be truly proved, we do gain further confidence in a theory when it passes a strict test.

  • al deyoung

    Einstein did not predict dark energy
    nor has the acceleration of the Universe
    or the Big Bang been proved.

    These are interesting to think about
    but Einstein would not have approved
    of people calling them proved

    • JTDwyer

      You are correct, sir!

      As I understand, when Einstien proposed general relatived and developed his analytical model of the universe, including the cosmological constant parameter, the universe consisted of the Milky Way, period. No other galaxies had been identified. Not only did he NOT think that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, he didn’t even think it was expanding – he included the cosmological constant ‘fudge factor’ to prevent any expansion or contraction!

      So, if those who think that the expansion of the universe is accelerating (not me) and that the conclusions of this study of a 3-d topological model of the 4-d universe (no, we haven’t captured the universe in a ‘Polaroid Moment’) confirms the original misinterpretation of evidence, good luck with that. IMO, this ‘study’ was produced with the hopes of catching some of the dark energy fanfare…

      Meanwhile, this article is apparently attempting to falsely imbue the reported research’s results with Einstein’s street cred!

  • Jim

    This is a really fluffy article. It would be nice if there was actually some information about the experiment such as what was actually measured in the survey and how that data proves the conclusion that is in the article’s title.

    Is it just me, or is the Internet being dumbed down to the point where all the “Science” articles are written such that any grade school child can understand?

    • Debjyoti Bardhan

      If you’re interested I can point out to you two papers that uses data from the WiggleZ survey to study Baryon Acoustic Oscillations at different redshifts, z=0.6 and z=0.8 to confirm the presence of dark energy. You’ve got to agree that this is too technical for the intended readership. You’d also agree that this is in the same spirit as using BAO for detecting Cold Dark Matter (CDM) – at least those based on linear response models – which has been very successful.

      • JTDwyer

        I agree with Jim, but then this site is called techie-buzz – the focus does seem to be on buzzwords…

        Are you just threatening to include the links to research reports, or will you follow through?

        I didn’t see anything proving the existence of dark energy, a proxy for some hypothesized unknown force required to reaccelerate expansion.

        At best these studies might confirm earlier studies based on type Ia supernova luminosities that have been interpreted to indicate that universal expansion began accelerating around z~0.7 after decelerating for billions of years.

        Those results are curious because it is the more distant observations’ discrepancies with the predictions of cosmological models that supposedly indicated the acceleration of universal expansion. To fit the data, researchers adjusted their models by including not only a positive cosmological constant parameter but a negative deceleration parameter. It’s difficult to understand what physical effect could be properly represented by applying negative deceleration to more ancient observational data (representing the conditions of the earlier universe)!

        I’d be interested in some direct physical evidence that some unknown force exists that allows standard cosmological models to fit the observational data without fooling around with their ‘fudge factors’. Unlike dark matter, which by definition cannot be directly detected, there are no restrictions on any ability to detect the effects of dark energy.

        You don’t think the observational evidence simply disproves the standard cosmological models, do you?

        I suggest a separate posting on the rationale behind perceived requirement any kind of galactic dark matter…

  • Alex

    It was not Edwin Hubble, who first noticed that the Universe was expanding. Vesto Slipher was first to notice redshift in 1912. In 1917 Willem de Sitter connected it with universe expansion. And finally, expanding universe was described in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann.

  • Jason Tannery

    Soon after astronomer Edwin Hubble proved the universe was expanding, it became evident that the universe was once very much smaller. The theory that the universe started from a single point (or very small area) is known as the big bang theory. The big bang theory has caused scientists to suggest that this universe would keep on expanding and creating by itself.

    The reason why astronomer Edwin Hubble claimed that he discovered the universe was expanding was merely due to he discovered that the galaxies were moving further away from this earth at higher speeds, proportional to their distance and from then, he jumped into the conclusion that the universe was expanding.

    However, there are a few reasons that are listed out below to show that it is irrational to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding by seeing the galaxies were moving with higher speeds further away from the earth:

    a) Let’s visualize that you are standing at a point where the earth rotates around the sun. As the earth makes a half round turn towards the point that is opposite to you, certainly you would express that the earth is moving far away from you. Let’s assume that you do not know that the earth simply rotates around the sun in a complete turn and what you have seen initially was simply its moving away from you right to the point that is opposite than you. Could you jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply due to you see the earth moving far away from you? Surely you cannot jump into this conclusion since the earth would spend about 182 days to rotate from the point that is opposite than you to the ultimate place where you stand to visualize and focus on its movement.

    The same thing happened to the astronomer Edwin Hubble. He could not jump into the conclusion that the universe was expanding by seeing that galaxies were moving further away from this earth at higher speed since they could be a possibility that the galaxies would make a round turn after numerous days or months or years later. Thus, the assumption that the earth could be expanding by seeing galaxies were moving further away from this earth was simply some kind of speculation.

    By the way the earth rotates around the sun by 365 days, how do you know the galaxies might rotate themselves around with years due to vast space of this universe? Edwin Hubble jumped into the conclusion that the galaxies would be expanding by observing and comparing the galaxies within a few days in his span of life is insufficient or rather speculative. This is due to how we would know that some galaxies might take more than a hundred years to make a full turn since this universe is in a vast space.

    b) The earth is just small as comparative as the whole universe. To visualize from a small end, the earth, to the whole universe so as to jump into the conclusion is rather full of speculation. This is due to Edwin Hubble does not know how the universe looks like whether it looks like a sphere with boundary beyond. He also could not even be able to visualize what goes beyond the boundary. If there is a boundary that is beyond this universe, what substances that would be formed to restrict the space of universe? Could this boundary be stretchable or expandable? What if the boundary of this universe is not stretchable, the whole universe would be kept within it? If the boundary of this universe is not stretchable, how could the universe be expanding? Are there matters that go beyond the boundary of this universe? As Edwin Hubble saw the movement of the galaxies from the small little earth without the overview of the universe, his conclusion is full of speculation. Thus, it is irrational to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply by seeing that the galaxies were moving away from his sight while staring at the galaxies on earth.
    .
    c) There could be a possibility that this whole universe could be as a sphere and that all planets, moon and etc. could be rotating round and round within the sphere. It could be that the galaxies that Edwin Hubble was observing were moving faster speed than our galaxies. As the moving speed of another group of galaxies was faster than us, it seems to be that its moving away from our earth with fast speed. However, that group of galaxies might indeed perform its routine movement to turn round and round just that its speed is faster than the speed of our galaxies. Despite that galaxies might have moved faster than our galaxies, it still moves round and round within the big boundary of this whole universe. If that is so, it is irrational to use it to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply by seeing that the galaxies were moving away from his sight while staring at and comparing it while he was on earth.

    Thus, using the evidence from Edwin Hubble to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding is rather speculation. As it is speculation, it is irrational to use it to support that Big Bang theory.

  • Li Kong

    The following are the explanations why the discovery of Edwin Hubble does not provide a good evidence that our universe would be expanding currently:

    a)Despite many red shifts through telescope from astronomers, it does not provide the proof that this universe could be expanding for the following reasons:

    1) The possibility that our universe could be very huge that it would take more than trillion of years to reach the opposite end of the sphere. The assumption is based upon the following factors: This universe is assumed to be as a shape of sphere with external boundary and all galaxies were assumed to pull within the boundary of this universe.

    Let’s use a transparent ball to illustrate. Imagine that you would stand at one end of the sphere to view all the surrounding movement of galaxies. As all the galaxies were advancing at a high speed your end to the point that is opposite than you that form a half complete round, you certainly would visualize that all the galaxies were advancing as if that they are leaving away from you since their movement in speed is a few time faster than your galaxy. As this universe is very huge so much so that it would take a very long time, let’s say, more than a trillion years to reach the point that is right opposite to the point so as to make a half complete turn of this universe. Despite many galaxies have been moving towards the point that is right opposite to the point where you are viewing through telescope, the result would turn up to be many red shifts to be appeared in the sky. As universe is too huge for galaxies to travel from one end to another and only a few have completed a half turn to move than to the starting point of the sphere where you are, it turns up that they are many red shifts than blue shifts.

    2) The second possibility is that many galaxies might have advanced faster from yet and yet many galaxies might have made a complete half and full turn and yet the galaxies might not as what we think to keep rotating themselves and these could result that they do not turn back to us and they are beyond our telescope and technology that can be reachable since the universe is too big for us to imagine.

    3) The third possibility is that all the clusters of galaxies could be advancing in the same place and same direction just that most of the galaxies are advancing faster than us as if that their galaxies are moving further away from us. As we are in this tiny world and cannot have the full sight of this universe, we could not reject this possibility since it might be so without our full view of this universe since the astronomers just looked at the sky with a telescope that comes to their conclusion without viewing the universe as a whole. No matter how advance is the technology, it is unless to build an advice that could capture the whole view of universe from one end.

    4) The fourth possibility is that majoirty of the galaxies might have made a full complete in this universe within the boundary of the universe in many years ago, such as, more than a few thousand years ago. What the astonomers that have seen right now with many red shifts do not reflect the universe might be expanding since there might be a period of times in many years ago that almost all the galaxies have made a complete full turn and it turns up that many galaxies have turned up to be red shifts currently. Or in other words, it would take many years later, such as more than a few thousand years, in order to have many blue shifts instead of red shifts at that time.

    5) The fifth possibility is that universe was created in infinity and that all galaxies are advancing ever since the past. If that is so, it is erroneous to use many red shifts as discovered by astronomers to conclude that the universe is expanding.

    There might be other possibilities that you could think of why there are more red shifts than blue shifts and yet it does not come to the conclusion that the universe is expanding. As there are many alternative possibilities, to jump into conclusion that the universe is expanding through many red shifts being discovered is rather a little speculation.

  • Jason Tannery

    The reasons why the discovery of Edwin Hubble does not prove that our universe could be expanding:

    Despite his discovery about many red shifts in the galaxies through observations instead of hypotheses or theory drawn from the data, there is a shortfall in his discovery. This is due to his observation about many red-shifts in the galaxies was throughout his limited span of life instead of throughout generations from generations since it might take many years, let’s assume more than 1000 years or even higher, in order to get all blue shifts at that time.

    There could be a possibility that there were many blue-shifts in the past, let’s say, more than a few hundred years ago, due to many galaxies might have made a full turn at the same time. As many galaxies might have made a full turn in the past, the current view that galaxies have shown many red shifts do not reflect that the universe is expanding.

    As we are living in this small little earth, our perception through telescope could not give a full view pertaining to the situation about how our universe is responding.

    Edwin Hubble mentioned that the universe is expanding as if there is a boundary in this universe. If there could be no boundary that could restrict the universe, the universe should be in infinity. As we do not have a full view of the universe as a whole, to mention that this universe is expanding is little speculation in the sense that we do not know whether the universe could be in infinity or not.

    For instance, if this universe were in infinity, there should not be any reason for us to mention that this universe is expanding. Many red-shifts that the astronomers gather from galaxies could only show that many galaxies are advancing further away from us and it does not reflect that our universe is expanding since the universe is in infinity.

    For instance, if this universe could have a finite space, it is rational to assume that there should be a boundary to restrict the space of this universe. If there could be no boundary to restrict the space of this universe, how could there be a finite space in this universe? If there could be no boundary in this universe, how could the astronomers presume that the universe is expanding by seeing many red-shifts in the galaxies? To jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding without realizing whether this universe has a finite space is a little speculation.

    If this universe has a finite space, it is rational to assume that this universe should look like a sphere or a sphere with oval shape. It is irrational to assume that this universe should look like cube or rectangular shape or whatever. To assume that the universe would look like a sphere, is simply an illustration so to give the possibility of why red shifts do not reflect the truth that the universe is expanding. We could not have a full sight of this universe whether there could be a boundary. What if the universe does have the shape of sphere in reality, giving an example that this universe as a sphere would be the most appropriate approach. As we could not have the full sight of this universe, to jump into the conclusion by seeing many red-shift is rather a little speculation.

  • Li Kong

    Edwin Hubble mentioned that the universe is expanding by observing the existence of many red-shifts appear in the galaxies is itself an assumption. One might argue that the universe is not a sphere and that we have no proved to deny it since nobody in this earth did see the boundary of the universe. Some might assume that there is no ‘empty place’ in the universe into which matter expands. If that is true that there is no ‘empty place’ in the universe into which matter expands, questions have to be raised due to the uncertainty about what would go beyond the matter in which the universe itself is expanding: What materials could it be that would make up of that materials? Nobody in this world has ever seen in the past whether there could be any matter that covers the universe. So, nobody in this world would know whether the matter could be stretchable or non-stretchable. What if the matter that covers the universe is not stretchable, how could the assumption that the universe could be expanding to be true? By the way, as nobody could see that there could any matter that covers the universe and this includes Edwin Hubble. His theory that the universe is expanding by observing many red-shifts in the galaxies is just some kind of speculation. If there could be matter beyond the matter, how big could the matter be? Could there be anything or any other universe or anything that is beyond this universe that could block the expansion of this universe in many years later? What could that matter be made up of so much so that it could allow this universe to be expandable? If that could be some matter that covers this expanding, could the thickness of this matter be lasted into infinity? If there could be a matter that covers this universe, could this matter be breakable since the support that the continuous expanding of this universe is true? Would there be any substance after the matter that covers the universe that could be expanding? As there are many uncertainties about this universe and whether there could be any matter that covers this universe since nobody could have a full sight of this entire universe, Edwin Hubble jumps into the conclusion that this universe is expanding by seeing many red-shifts in the galaxies is a little speculation unless he could be certain that there were people in the past did see the matter that would cover the universe so as to make this conclusion. Or else, there could be a possibility that this universe might be lasted until infinity without any matter covering this universe.

  • Jason Tannery

    Edwin Hubble’s theory does not provide any support for the Big Bang’s theory since his theory involves speculation since we do not have the full sight of how this entire universe could look like.

    Is it true to mention that there is no blue shift in this universe? The following are the websites addresses in which you could locate evidences that there are blue shifts in the galaxies to disprove the argument:
    http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph-allsky?ra_constraint=Unconstrained&ra_1=&ra_2=&dec_constraint=Unconstrained&dec_1=&dec_2=&glon_constraint=Unconstrained&glon_1=&glon_2=&glat_constraint=Unconstrained&glat_1=&glat_2=&z_constraint=Less+Than&z_value1=0&z_value2=&z_unit=km%2Fs&ot_include=ANY&ex_objtypes1=Clusters&ex_objtypes1=Supernovae&ex_objtypes1=QSO&ex_objtypes2=AbsLineSys&ex_objtypes2=GravLens&ex_objtypes2=Radio&ex_objtypes2=Infrared&ex_objtypes3=EmissnLine&ex_objtypes3=UVExcess&ex_objtypes3=Xray&ex_objtypes3=GammaRay&nmp_op=ANY&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=B1950.0&obj_sort=RA+or+Longitude&zv_breaker=30000.0;
    http://www.beskeen.com/gallery/galaxy/m31/m31.shtml

    The following are the possible reasons for the above blue shifts to arise:

    a) This universe could have an immense space in which it might take more than 12 billion light years or even trillion light years to travel from one end of the universe to another initially. These galaxies might have travelled more than a half round in their usual routine tracks of rotation to its return and that there could be a possibility that there were a period of long time and that could be more than 12 billion light years ago that most of the galaxies might be in blue shift. As some of the galaxies are advancing slower than majority of the galaxies, it turns up that majority might have completed their full turn and moving upward and advancing further away from us and leaving a few galaxies to be in blue shift currently. As nobody could see the universe as a whole from the very past, especially what was beyond 12 billion light years ago or even trillion years ago, there could be such a possibility to occur in this universe. To jump into the conclusion that this universe is expanding simply by seeing many red shift is rather speculative.

    b) There could be a reason in which that all the galaxies might have travelled faster than the above-mentioned galaxies bypass our galaxies in numerous years ago and ultimately causes these galaxies to fall behind due to their rotating speed is slowly than most of the galaxies. This assumption includes the possibility that there could be many blue shifts in numerous years ago and that could be beyond 12 billion light years ago, as the galaxies were travelling a rapid speed toward us. As most of the galaxies have bypassed our galaxies in the past and at the same time they have completed a full turn from its rotation, these certainly result in many red-shifts in current world due to most of the galaxies have moved upward following its usual movement tracks for its half turn of its rotation. As a result, this causes us to have more red-shifts than blue currently.

    Most of the galaxies might not pass through us to be the centre of the point for rotating. However, it could be the possibility that most of the galaxies could have bypassed us in numerous years ago and this could be the reason to have the result in many red shifts than blue currently.

    As some of the galaxies were moving slower than most of the galaxies, this results that there are more red-shifts than blue currently.

    c) There could be a reason that some galaxies are moving fastest speed than the other and this causes some galaxies to be in blue shift since they have completed a half round turn in facing our universe in advancing.

    d)There could be many other possible reasons that we could think of for the possibilities to have more red-shifts than blue currently and that does not come to the conclusion that our universe is expanding or this universe could create something out of nothing.

    Some might mention that the discovery of many red shift in the galaxies have moving further away in rapid speed, could provide the support of dark matter theory or Big Bang theory. However, there is a possibility that most of the galaxies might well perform their routine movement and it might not give any signal that this universe could be expanding. As most galaxies are travelling in rapid speed, this causes them to bypass us fastest than a few galaxies and this has resulted in more red shifts than blue currently.

    Some might have mentioned that the observation could be through 12 billion light years old that the galaxies have been moved in all directions further away from us. However, consideration has to be taken into accounts pertaining to the size of the universe since the size of the universe could be so immense that galaxies might take more than 12 billion light years or even much longer than that, such as, a few trillion years in order for galaxies to make a half turn in rotation in order for us to have most of the galaxies to be in blue shift. As nobody could have the full view of this universe and nobody did see whether there could be a boundary of this universe, we could not reject the possibility of the vast space of this universe. Or in other words, there could be a possibility that galaxies might take more than 12 billion light years or even trillion light years in order that most of the planets could complete their half round turn so that we could have the many blue shift from that time onwards.

    Nevertheless, it is irrational to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply by observing the galaxies are advancing further away from us to conclude that our universe is expanding.

  • Li Kong

    Some might argue that there is no boundary in this universe and yet the universe could be expanding to support the Big Bang theory. There are a number of questions have to be raised:

    a)As nobody in this world in the past has seen there is a restriction in the space of universe, how could we be so sure that this universe could be in limited space for this universe to expand?

    b)As there could be no boundary in this universe and there has been no eye-witnessing that our universe could be restricted in space, how could we be so sure that there could be place for this universe to expand?

    c)As there could be no boundary in this universe and there has been no eye-witnessing that this universe could be restricted in space, how could we be so sure that this universe could be expanding since nobody could have eye-witnessed that this universe could be limited in space and that causes it to be able to expand further or even until eternity?

    d)As there could be no boundary in this universe and there has been no eye-witnessing that our universe could be restricted in space, how could we determine the diameter of this universe?

    e)As there could be no boundary in this universe and there has been no eye-witnessing that our universe could be limited in space, what yardstick has been set to determine that this size of this universe or whether this universe could be itself in infinity?

  • Li Kong

    The following is the website in which the calculation of the size of universe has been mentioned:
    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=151

    The following are the verses quoted from the above websites:

    My bright teenage son, after considerable calculation, has concluded that the universe is approximately 68 sextillion miles wide. He based his calculation on the basic 186K mi/sec speed of light x the estimated 15 billion year age of the universe.

    There are a few shortfalls in above computation of the size of the universe:

    a)It is a clear cut from the explanation above that the computation of the size of the universe is subjected to the travelling speed of 184 mi/sec speed of light for the movement of the galaxies. However, there is a limitation in the computation of the size of the universe and that is the computation does not take into consideration whether there could be a possibility that this universe could be in infinity and there could be no space limit after its formation. For instance, if size of our universe that has been formed could be in infinity and there would be no space boundary and space limit, the computation of the size of the universe would turn up to be speculative. This is due to we could not use the speed of the advancement of the galaxies farthest away from us to monitor the size of the universe due to the universe could have already been formed in infinity ever since its creation and there could be no reason for the universe to extend further since there could be no space limit in the first place.

    b)It is irrational to use the estimated age of the universe as a guideline to determine the size of the universe since there could be a possibility that the size of the universe could have been formed initially with its extension to infinity. If the size of the universe could have been formed initially with infinity, there should not be any boundary or space limit for this universe to extend further since the initial size of this universe could have already been extended to infinity. To fix the age of the universe in the computation of the size of the universe, would not determine the exact size of the universe since the size of it could have been lasted until infinity initially.

    Despite Edwin Hubble could produce the photos to prove that many red shifts in the galaxies ever since the commencement of the universe, to jump into the conclusion that the universe could be expanding is rather speculative for the following reasons:

    a)One possibility is that this universe might have been created initially with boundary and yet the size of the universe might be so immense that it might take more than a trillion years for the galaxies to travel from one end of the universe to another. As the size of the universe could be so immense that galaxies would take more than a trillion years to travel from one end to another, it turns up that most of the galaxies are advancing further away from this galaxy due to they would take many more years to complete their half turn in order that these galaxies would turn back to us in rotation to show majority to be in blue shift in the future. That could be the reason why there are many red shifts than blue. This possibility is there since nobody ever really sees that there could be a boundary in the galaxies.

    As nobody has ever seen the boundary of the universe, we could not deny that there could be a possibility that the universe could be so huge that it would take more than a trillion of years for galaxies to travel from one end of the universe to the other end.

    As nobody has ever seen the boundary of the universe, there is no support that the size of the universe could not be so immense that it might take a few trillion light years to travel from one end of the universe to another.

    If this universe could be so in reality, many red shifts in the galaxies do not reflect the universe could be expanding since the galaxies would take more than a few trillion of years to travel farthest away from our galaxy before they could make a u-turn so that we could have the view of many blue shifts since then.

    b)Second possibility is that this universe might have been created initially with infinite space. Or in other words, there could be no boundary or space limit in the universe ever since its creation. As there could be no space limit in this universe, the observation that there have been many red shifts than blue ever since 15 billion light years ago would not give us the information that this universe could be expanding.

    As nobody has ever seen there could be a boundary of the universe, there is no support that there could be any boundary in this universe. Or in other words, we could not deny that there could be a possibility that the universe could have been created in infinity and that this universe could be without space limit initially.

    If this universe could be so in reality, many red shifts in the galaxies do not reflect the universe could be expanding since the universe itself could be in infinity and there could be no space limit.

    c)Third possibility could be as what was described by Edwin Hubble that the universe could be expanding.

    As there are two out of three possibilities that could not come to the conclusion that the universe could be expanding, to jump into the conclusion through many red shifts in the galaxies is a little speculative.

    The reason why Fred Hoyle defended steady stage and yet later supported the expansion was merely due to many red shifts in the galaxies. However, there are other possibilities that might not come to the conclusion that the universe could be expanding simply by observing many red shifts in the galaxies ever since the creation of the universe.

  • Jason Tannery

    Refer to the website address below for the evidence of dark energy: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080811-dark-energy.html

    The following is the extract from the above websites under the fourth paragraph:

    The new image reveals the spectral fingerprints created by dark energy as it stretches huge supervoids and superclusters, structures that are roughly half a billion light-years across.

    Dark energy is being defined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy as a hypothical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe. Despite there was an image to reveal the existence of something, or the so-called, dark energy, that it could stretch huge supervoids and superclusters even up to half a billion light-years across, it might not provide the truth that the universe could be expanding due to the following possibilities:

    a)The universe itself could be created initially in infinity and there might be no space limit or boundary. If that could be our universe to be since nobody in this earth did ever see any boundary of this universe, the thing that stretches huge supervoids and superclusters, structures to move would not lead to the conclusion that this universe could be expanding. Instead, it simply gives information that something has been causing the huge supervoids and superclusters to move forward.

    b)There could be also the possibility that this universe could be so huge that it could take a few trillion light years for galaxies to travel from one end to another in order to have their return facing us in a few trillion light years later.

    There are a few likeliness that would not give the conclusion that the universe could be expanding by seeing that thing that stretches huge supervoids and superclusters across and there are:

    1)The so-called, dark energy, might simply perform its routine function to cause the huge supervoids and superclusters to be stretched across and yet it is either within the huge boundary of the universe in which it would take a trillion years for the galaxies to travel from one end to another until its final return in advancing to us in a few trillion years later or in the universe that could have been created to be lasted until infinity.

    Let’s refer to another website pertaining to the velocities of the galaxies in advancement: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7109-evidence-of-dark-energy-missed-30-years-ago.html

    The following is the extract for the analysis:

    In 1972, Allan Sandage of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, US, reasoned that in the nearby universe – where the expansion is at its slowest – the gravitational attraction between groups and clusters of galaxies should produce significant deviations in their velocities from the otherwise largely smooth speed of expansion. These deviations are called “peculiar velocities”, but Sandage pointed out that galaxies in our vicinity – those lying just beyond our “Local Group” of the Milky Way and its immediate neighbours – showed abnormally low peculiar velocities.

    Let’s assume that you would blow a balloon. The air would go from one end and to move in one direction to cause the balloon to expand. However, consideration has to be taken in is the moving speed for all particles in the balloon should be the same regardless whether those particles that are nearby each other or big or small to the ultimate reach of the boundary of the balloon so as to cause it to expand further. There should not be any reason for all particles within the balloon to travel with various speeds despite the particles could be big or small.

    As discovered by Allan Sandage of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, in 1972 that there is a significant deviations in their velocities among galaxies, it does not provide a good source to prove the galaxies might be expanding. If there could be a constant force that could cause the universe to be expanded, the moving speed for all the galaxies should be the same in advancing further away from us instead of with irregular velocities that some are advancing faster than another.

    The deviation of velocities of galaxies in advancement is mentioned the same in the website as follows: http://www.universetoday.com/16170/astronomers-find-new-evidence-for-dark-energy/

    The following is the extract:

    When the team compared galaxies against the CMB, they found that the microwaves were a bit stronger if they had passed through a supercluster, and a bit weaker if they had passed through a supervoid.

    As the velocities of all the galaxies have been deviated from each other, it is irrational to be quick to jump into the conclusion that our universe could be expanding so as to use it to support Big Bang theory in which something can be created out of nothing.

  • http://universalrule.info Shahidur Rahman Sikder

    Both places are same i.e. 1-D or dark energy or big bang is- on this place. Space-time and physics- is the result in our life-time i.e. lifeless position is in the dark energy. Brain’s dark energy or reflected power of very brain is the result of this universe. History of the universe or case is early & Copy or such like- Digital CD i.e. Digital Universe: http://twitpic.com/4cjmuq see a-DEMO and than Dark Energy Confirmed

  • Jason Tannery

    Big Bang theory has been used to support that this universe could be formed out of chaos.

    Refer to the website address, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html, regarding to the 1st law of Newton’s Principle. It is mentioned that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. If this concept has been applied to the formation of this universe, it implies that this universe would remain nothing as it was until external force that would cause it to change. Or in other words, if there could be no external force or substance that could cause the formation of this universe, everything would remain as it was and the universe, that would remain nothing, would continue to remain nothing.

    If this universe could be created something out of nothing, there must be the external force that would cause something to be created out of nothing. Stephen Hawking might comment that it was gravity or quantum theory or etc. However, there must have external force that would cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work. If there would not be any external force to cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work in the formation of this universe, how could there be the formation of this universe since this world would remain nothing until eternity as supported by 1st law of Newton’s principle? Thus, the concept that this universe could be created something out of nothing is questionable from scientific point of view.

    Even if one insists that this theory could be correct, how could quantum theory or gravity or etc., be so efficient to manage the universe well in such a way that it could create sophisticated earth which plants and animals could survive here? What made the earth to be created far from the sun and not just next to it? For instance, if this earth was created a short distance just next to the sun, all animals and plants would not survive. Thus, the creation of this universe could not be co-incidence and this certainly puts quantum theory to be in doubts pertaining to its creation from something out of nothing.

  • Jason Tannery

    Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity, pertaining to general relativity. It is mentioned in this website 6th line after the title of ‘’Introduction to general relativity’ that the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time. As the phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, is mentioned for general relativity, it gives the implication that there have to be some kind of masses in order to create gravitational attraction through warping of space and time. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity or dark energy could exist prior to the formation of this universe at the absence of masses or objects in order to create something out of nothing. Or in other words, in order that gravitational force or dark energy would exist, there must be masses in this universe to interact in space and time in order to generate gravitational force.

    Refer to the above website 17th line after the title of ‘Introduction to general relativity. It is mentioned that general relativity also predicts novel effects of gravity such as, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and an effect of gravity of time known as gravitational time dilation. Let’s examine all these factors, i.e. gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and gravitational time dilation below:

    Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave, pertaining to gravitational waves. It is mentioned in this website 10th line after the title of ‘Gravitational wave’ that the existence of gravitational waves is possibly a consequence of the Lorentz invariance of general relativity since it brings the concept of a limiting speed of propagation of the physical interactions with it. The phrase, Lorentz invariance of general relativity…brings… the physical interactions…, here gives the implication that gravitational waves have to be dealt with physical interactions or masses. As gravitational masses have to be dealt with masses, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which Hawking mentioned that gravitational wave could exist at the presence of substances or masses prior to the formation of this universe. As gravitational waves have to be dealt with substances or masses, it is irrational for Stephen Hawking to use it to support that gravity or dark energy could exist at the absence of masses so as to create something out of nothing.

    Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing, pertaining to the gravitational lens. It is mentioned that a gravitational lens refers to a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, that is capable of bending (lensing) the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer. The phrase, a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, gives a strong proof for a must to have matters or substances in order to activate a gravitational lens. Thus, gravitational lens in general relativity needs to rely on masses or substances in order to be generated and this opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity could exist at the absence of substance to create something out of nothing.

    Refer to website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation, pertaining to gravitational time dilation. It is mentioned that gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the lower the gravitational potential, the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.

    Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential, under the sub-title of ‘Potential energy’ pertaining to gravitational potential. The following is the extract of the formula of gravitational potential:

    The gravitational potential (V) is the potential energy (U) per unit mass:
    U = mV
    where m is the mass of the object. The potential energy is the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving the body to its given position in space from infinity. If the body has a mass of 1 unit, then the potential energy to be assigned to that body is equal to the gravitational potential. So the potential can be interpreted as the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving a unit mass in from infinity

    From the above formula above, it is obvious that U (the potential energy or dark energy or gravity) has a direct relationship with m (the mass of the object). If m = 0, U (the dark energy would turn up to be 0 since U (the potential energy) would turn up to 0 whatever the number that V has when V is multiplied by m that is equal to 0. Thus, the generation of potential energy in general relativity would certainly have found to have conflict with Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy or gravity could exist at the absence of masses or substances prior to the formation of this universe so as to create something out of nothing.

    Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking has abused general relativity to support his quantum theory in which something could be created out of nothing since general relativity demands masses or substances in order to generate dark energy or gravity.

  • http://twitter.com/beyondEinstein beyondEinstein

    History of the Universe or case is Early & Copy such like- Digital CD i.e. Digital Universe http://twitpic.com/4cjmuq see a-DEMO- Brief History of Universe

 
Copyright 2006-2012 Techie Buzz. All Rights Reserved. Our content may not be reproduced on other websites. Content Delivery by MaxCDN