A comprehensive study of supernovae led researchers to the conclusion that dark energy is one of the causes of what Einstein called the cosmological constant, which he later regretted
The remains of "Kepler's supernova" - SN1604 Photo: NASA
"The great blunder" - this is what Albert Einstein declared regarding his own hypothesis about the existence of a cosmological constant (a force that opposes gravity and prevents the universe from collapsing), it is possible that there was no blunder after all, according to a study carried out by an international group of scientists including two scientists from the University of Texas.
The team of scientists is working on a project called ESSENCE, which studies supernovae (exploding stars) to find out whether dark energy - the force that accelerates the universe - corresponds to Einstein's cosmological constant.
University of Texas researchers Nicholas Sanchef and Kevin Crissons are partners in the project, which began in October 2002 and is scheduled to end this month (December) after achieving its goal, which is the discovery and study of 200 supernovae. The team uses a 4-meter telescope in Chile during the observing season between October and December to find supernovae.
In 1917, Einstein worked on the theory of general relativity, during which he tried to find an equation that describes a static universe - one that stands motionless and does not collapse under the influence of gravity. To keep the universe in a static state within the framework of the theory, Einstein added a cosmological constant Λ - a force that opposes the force of gravity.
12 years later, Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is not static - and in fact it is expanding. Einstein abandoned the idea of the cosmological constant and called it his "big screw up". In 1998, two teams of scientists (one of them co-founded by Sanchef from the University of Texas) discovered that not only is the universe expanding, but its expansion is accelerating.
"Therefore, the existence of another force was a necessity of the circumstances, a force that would overcome gravity and push the universe to exponential acceleration," says Sanchef. This opposing force is now called "dark energy" by scientists and is believed to make up about 74% of the universe. The other components of the universe are dark matter, which makes up about 22% and normal matter which makes up 4% of the universe.
"After 80 years, it turns out that Einstein was probably right (regarding the cosmological constant)," says Krissons. "He gave himself less trust than he deserved."
The ESSENCE research team studies supernovae that emit the same amount of energy and have a similar level of brightness. The researchers can compare the brightness observed in the sky with the brightness they know to calculate the distance of the supernova. The researchers check what is called the "redshift" of the supernova, a figure that shows how fast the universe is expanding. The scientists compare the distance of the supernova with its redshift, which allows them to measure the acceleration of the universe's expansion. This acceleration is caused by the force called dark energy.
The ESSENCE team uses the data regarding the acceleration to calculate the dark energy density and thus calculate what is called the W parameter. The W parameter must be equal to -1 in order for Einstein's cosmological constant to be true. So far, the results of the team create an impression confirming that the value is very close to -1.
"The magic value is exactly 1-," says Crissons. "If the number is equal to 1 - exactly, then dark energy is a very simple thing - it is Einstein's cosmological constant." Final results will be received later this year, but right now the measurements indicate approximately -1 with a margin of error of 10%, so the initial information shows that Einstein was right.
"We are unable to test dark energy in the laboratory, so astronomers will have to measure it (through observations). One of the ways to do this is through supernovae and the ESSENCE project," says Sanchef. "Dark energy completely unexplained by conventional physics." Perhaps this is the embodiment of the fifth dimension in string theory. Perhaps this is a new dense vacuum energy that changes slowly over time. We have no idea and this is what excites physicists and astronomers alike."
For a statement from the University of Texas (as copied to the Science Daily website)
On the same topic on the science website:
Does viewing the universe foreshadow its end?
We will discover a huge area in space that has nothing in it
The lonely future that awaits us in 3 trillion years
Hubble reveals: dark energy has been with us for at least 9 billion years
17 תגובות
I am a son of God, I believe that the earth was formed from two balls, a ball of ice, a ball of sand, they spun around in space until it fell and fell for the milky way from the snorting lump, a black hole, and two balls, one in the middle of the other, and the earth fell out, the hole was black, the black hole was insulted, and guess why, wait, what is the earth? Ice, sand, sand, wait, if they became her from Kaor and Mau, from my land, from my house.
City. Girat Kg
Class. The 3
Viruses, unlike parallel universes, can actually be seen.
to N.C
What you said is true, and really talking about billions more galaxies at the beginning of the XNUMXth century would have sounded delusional. But that doesn't mean that nowadays everything that is crazy has a justification. And there are endless crazy things, do you want to hear how many?, please.
The Andromeda Galaxy is approaching the Milky Way Galaxy to take it to a parallel universe and besides, the movement of the galaxies is the same game that the galaxies run, each of which has a personality.
Of course, you can go on and on. So what do you say N.C. Is there any point in these "ideas"?
Have a good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
peace to Yehuda,
Too firm answers are also unacceptable to me.
Imagine that before Edwin Habel, I used to write in some section
that I have hypotheses about the existence of other galaxies that exist
Explains some unsolved problems.
Would you not give me an answer similar to the one above?….
In my opinion, the existence of additional (non-parallel) universes is no more fantastic than talking about billions of additional galaxies
about a hundred years ago.
to N.C.
The one who said that you are talking nonsense is the same for all the other commenters so don't take his words too much to heart.
And regarding your words and theories
A. I don't like it being explained by parallel universes, for the exact reason that a doctor who doesn't understand what the disease is, claims it's a virus. What's the connection?, both a virus and a parallel universe cannot be seen. So things don't become true because they can't be contradicted. The collapse of the universe didn't start two or three million years ago either, just like that because it can't be contradicted.
Around every hypothesis there must be some basis in reality.
I hope my answer is satisfactory and I hope your ideas will be fruitful and realistic and more acceptable
All the best
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To all respondents.
I am not a scientist and the assumptions I made may not be correct
And not "scientific" enough.
But, those who say I speak nonsense, are not human,
On the other hand, they are not great sages, and thirdly, they are not cultured.
I wanted to comment my response here but I see that all the commenters here have gone crazy, so I won't comment here.
Now surely someone will say that I'm talking nonsense.
I'd better sign with my initials
Have a good evening
Acronyms
Arya you are talking nonsense.
Even if the cosmological constant was invented for the wrong reason, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used anymore. The cosmological constant is the simplest way to explain dark energy, and since then the discovery of dark energy is the most popular way. The fact that it now also matches the measurements is an excellent reason to use it. The likelihood of this being a coincidence is very low.
N.C. You are talking nonsense.
The first theory is flawed because the force of gravity is mutual, therefore the other universes together with our universe will reduce their expansion speed, therefore it is not possible that over time w=-1 will remain as the results of the experiment indicate.
The second theory is not flawed, but it is similar to the theory that the sun went out in the last 8 minutes.
Chaim, you are talking nonsense.
It is also impossible to understand what you want, and what you can understand is nonsense.
Ramen you are talking nonsense.
The force that keeps the universe from collapsing is the Spaghetti Power of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
This is known to everyone
ramen
I would love to hear if anyone understood Haim's words of wisdom.
N.C. You are talking nonsense.
Our 4-dimensional system "rests" on additional dimensions.
The system is 10 dimensions in a closed loop.
Dark energy is the 5th dimension on which our 4 dimensions sit.
It is the cause of the big bang and will continue to accelerate the expansion of the universe.
The dark energy has a finite value, so when it stops influencing the collapse of the cosmos will begin in two stages. The first stage will be the great collapse. Second stage the whole universe collapses towards the ten dimensions. Immediately after, the big bang will appear again.
By the way, time will begin when 4 dimensions are disconnected from the 10 dimensions (see string theory).
Do not believe? We will wait and see.
I want to add a new theory:
As we did not initially predict the existence of other galaxies alone
From our own, so it is possible that there are other universes to our universe and the distances
The ratios between them are not that great. (For example, the distance
The relation between the Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way Galaxy
is a grapefruit every 120 cm!).
If indeed there are other universes, it is possible that their gravity "pulls"
the extreme galaxies in our universe towards them, and this is the reason
That our existence does not stop its expansion and does not begin to collapse.
In my opinion "my theory" is no less good than all the other explanations.
But I also have a thing about the expansion of the universe:
Isn't it possible that about 2-4 million years ago the universe stopped expanding and began to collapse (oh my...) and we still don't know it?
After all, our most updated "news" is about 2 million years old
years (which is Andromeda's distance from us - which "incidentally" actually approaches us).
I would like to say that if 2,3,4, million years ago the universe began to collapse, we have no way of knowing this because as mentioned the "news"
Our freshest ones are several million years old (as the distance of the second closest galaxy to us.
I would appreciate a factual reference to my "theories".
Daniel If a constant appears in the equation that explains the matter, then it is surely a complete explanation of the phenomenon. But a new question arises.
Why is the Acre of the permanent exactly as it is. And of course the previous big question remains, why exactly the theory of relativity describes our world and not other theories (there are endless such).
In my humble opinion there is no connection between Einstein's cosmological constant and the parameter of dark energy which just happens to correspond, meanwhile, to the hypothetical cosmological constant. Einstein postulated the cosmological constant that precisely balances the mutual attraction of matter in the universe - to describe a static universe as believed at the time, otherwise it was supposed to collapse. From the moment it was discovered that the universe is expanding, there was no place for the cosmological constant. Since it is discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, the constant activated by dark energy does not have to balance anything and if the observations show that it is similar to the historical universal constant - it is just a coincidence. In my opinion, the link in Einstein's permanent message is just a media gimmick.
Both the cosmological constant and dark energy are not exactly "explanations". They do not clarify how it happens that the universe does not collapse and even expands at an increasing speed. This is a theoretical construction that roughly quantifies the power of that "factor" that balances gravity and even accelerates expansion. Therefore, even if mathematically the cosmological constant matches the measurements, it does not shed any light on the cause of the expansion, compared to the amount of matter that humans have discovered so far.
Oops,
I realized my mistake…
He added the constant so the universe wouldn't collapse.
And not the other way around.
something is wrong with me
Einstein added the Capricorn constant that the universe would remain static,
And here they say exactly the opposite,
Does that mean that Einstein saw this disturbance only that it is contrary to what he thought, so that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate?