Did Dark Energy Just Disappear? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. All that time and words, only to say. The religion of the standard model still will not admit, "It's a Magnetic Universe". Gravity is part of the magnetic universal cycle. It's centripetal acceleration of incoherent polarised matter into counterspace, Inertia and Acceleration. The creation of matter and space is centrifugal acceleration of Force and Motion. Between the hyperboloid and toroid of the magnetic field.
   Dark matter, dark energy, higgs boson, gravitational fields, the Big Bang, ... never have existed. Space and time control nothing. Space is created for matter to exist in, a by product. Time is a measurement of magnitudes, a by product. It's the only story you atomists can come up with so you don't have to say, "We live in a Magnetic Universe". That Our Universe, is full of dielectric inertial ether. Atoms aren't empty, they are full of ether. Instead of making up all those words, you should have just made up "Dark Gravity".
2. is it possible universe is like bubble in a solution which is growing due to exothermic nature of solution and it is that reason why universe is expanding?
3. my ex girl friends ass hole is having a lot of black energy right now
4. I was listening until this guy said the universe is flat. What universe is he talking about? Where did you go to school?
5. back to square one  period
6. oh, my god......
7. think about what accselaration is. if you add the timedialation change from being less dense you dont need any energy at all to do the work of an accselarated expansion. you only feel know and see the universe as is is relative to you, the density of stuff as is is at the same point in time since the start of time at the edge of the observable universe isnt real to us, it doesnt exist in our reality, we are just a number of floating points of energy interactiing with each other and there is only causality with the actual stuff you can see in the time and state you can see it in, so to us it changes a certain amount in say 10 years and we can observe it in another state and at a later time 10 years later. while the object we are observing might be in a state so dense that there is massive time dialation so the rate of change we observe over 10 years might be all from a year to milliseconds
8. WHEN YOU FIND RESULTS OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SHIT YOU FUCKING DUPLICITOUS LIEING POMPOUS PHYSICIST ASSHOLES
9. does no one else hate this guy?
10. these damn scientist is back pladdling on us
11. i doubt dark energy or dark matter! the error science made? there is likely a huge difference in temperature in space that crate flow from the nucleus to away!like hot water and cold water . since the medium is not water or air . its atom the movement is like way more intense then in the water glass experiement
12. universe is probably flat? impossible ! the cmd axis of evil alone is proof of that! the fact that Einstein math assume the universe is in 2 d is the main reason why one team found the math problem and found out dark matter wasnt needed! you have to remember this .Steinmetz corrected tesla and Einstein ,he was good in math but not in the field eisntein was or tesla and often Steinmetz corrected math based on his knowledge( or whatever hidden reason) when you fix these math error you find out dark matter isnt needed to explain the universe various odd movememnt
13. I wish he talked about the astro-physicS more and statistics a little less
14. Just found your Channel and omg i Love it
15. The difference of the experiments was a dark energy wave ...
    But that's future info.
16. This is the "South Pillar" region of the star-forming region called the Carina Nebula. Like cracking open a watermelon and finding its seeds, the infrared telescope "busted open" this murky cloud to reveal star embryos tucked inside finger-like pillars of thick dust. Credit: NASA
    
    Five years ago, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astronomers for their discovery, in the late 1990s, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace.
    
    Their conclusions were based on analysis of Type Ia supernovae - the spectacular thermonuclear explosion of dying stars - picked up by the Hubble space telescope and large ground-based telescopes. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by a mysterious substance named 'dark energy' that drives this accelerating expansion.
    
    Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University's Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set - a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size - the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.
    
    The study is published in the Naturejournal Scientific Reports.
    
    Professor Sarkar, who also holds a position at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, said: 'The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe won the Nobel Prize, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by "dark energy" that behaves like a cosmological constant - this is now the "standard model" of cosmology.
    
    'However, there now exists a much bigger database of supernovae on which to perform rigorous and detailed statistical analyses. We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae - over ten times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based - and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call "3 sigma". This is far short of the "5 sigma" standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance.
    
    'An analogous example in this context would be the recent suggestion for a new particle weighing 750 GeV based on data from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. It initially had even higher significance - 3.9 and 3.4 sigma in December last year - and stimulated over 500 theoretical papers. However, it was announced in August that new data show that the significance has dropped to less than 1 sigma. It was just a statistical fluctuation, and there is no such particle.'
    
    There is other data available that appears to support the idea of an accelerating universe, such as information on the cosmic microwave background - the faint afterglow of the Big Bang - from the Planck satellite. However, Professor Sarkar said: 'All of these tests are indirect, carried out in the framework of an assumed model, and the cosmic microwave background is not directly affected by dark energy. Actually, there is indeed a subtle effect, the late-integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, but this has not been convincingly detected.
    
    'So it is quite possible that we are being misled and that the apparent manifestation of dark energy is a consequence of analysing the data in an oversimplified theoretical model - one that was in fact constructed in the 1930s, long before there was any real data. A more sophisticated theoretical framework accounting for the observation that the universe is not exactly homogeneous and that its matter content may not behave as an ideal gas - two key assumptions of standard cosmology - may well be able to account for all observations without requiring dark energy. Indeed, vacuum energy is something of which we have absolutely no understanding in fundamental theory.'
    
    Professor Sarkar added: 'Naturally, a lot of work will be necessary to convince the physics community of this, but our work serves to demonstrate that a key pillar of the standard cosmological model is rather shaky. Hopefully this will motivate better analyses of cosmological data, as well as inspiring theorists to investigate more nuanced cosmological models. Significant progress will be made when the European Extremely Large Telescope makes observations with an ultrasensitive "laser comb" to directly measure over a ten to 15-year period whether the expansion rate is indeed accelerating.'
    
    More information: J. T. Nielsen et al, Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae, Scientific Reports (2016). DOI: 10.1038/srep35596
17. Sometimes your videos are simply amazing: this is one of them imho
18. If we observe dark energy or dark matter, would that change them?
19. Cutting away the graph based on matter in the Universe seems premature, since Dark Matter isn't exactly proven either, and Dark Matter (under the assumption it exists) supposedly constitutes almost all of the mass in the universe.
    
    If it doesn't exist, suddenly you can't cut off nearly as much of the graph close to the origin.
20. si,ma G.