rocketsocks t1_j8pfh9q wrote
Reply to comment by nogzila in The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope - the next major step in astronomy that will help unlock the secrets of the universe's expansion and dark energy. by upyoars
> They now think the dark energy is vacuum energy in older black holes .
That may be the case, but this is not how science works. Science isn't some Matlock-esque stage play where the hero rushes up, presents incontrovertible evidence, everyone says "yeah, that explains it" and then that's the end. Science is almost always a slow process of building a case piece by piece, layer by layer, which incrementally increases the likelihood of one specific explanation (competing theory) being true while eliminating alternative explanations.
The new idea of black holes being a source of dark energy is right now just a competing hypothesis, not an accepted fact. It may be true, it may not be, we don't know because we don't have enough observational evidence to say for sure. Science is the process of figuring out how to attempt to falsify a theory, collecting observational data, and seeing the results. It's possible that this theory will ultimately win out, but right now it's still just one of many potential ideas about dark energy.
OldTobyGreen t1_j8pxpgy wrote
Interestingly, the paper proposes that the mass of black holes is "cosmologically coupled" to the expansion rate of the universe. This was based on unexpected mass growth in black holes that our current models do not explain with accretion alone. The observations were made through analysis of older elliptical galaxies and gravitational wave signatures. What is being described by the researchers is the hypothesis that emerged from these unexpected observations.
My question is, if this expansion continues to accelerate to the point where only discrete massive objects exist in an expanding spacetime where all other objects have receded beyond the light horizon, would said objects continue their mass growth being coupled with an arbitrarily large, expanding spacetime? If so, what happens next?
It would seem that in this condition the "universe" would eventually consist of permanently displaced, high-density, high-temperature, low-volume objects gaining mass through some unknown mechanism by manner of spactime's continued expansion. Would the hypothetical conditions that altered the state of the proto-universe from pre-Big Bang to post-Big Bang arise in these objects? Would the continued mass growth over arbitrarily long time scales consequently increase the chances of the hypothesized causative quantum fluctuations yielding renewed expansion in any of these objects? Is there a critical point at which these infintesimally low probability occurences necessarily happen due to the continued addition of mass?
Most of the above is just speculation from someone who doesnt know nearly enough about these matters. Nonetheless, it seems the nature of this relationship - the cosmological coupling of black holes to expansion rate - may provide some very insightful avenues for continued research if the signal proves to represent an actual physical phenomenon.
Xaqv t1_j8qpjy6 wrote
Accretes the question : Is the boundary between cosmological space/time expansion and metaphysical speculation decreasing or not?
Limos42 t1_j8qez0n wrote
>just speculation from someone who doesnt know nearly enough about these matters
Well, I know I couldn't have put those sentences together, so you've got me beat!
I-tell-you-hwat t1_j8phrzf wrote
Yeah science needs to make sure the 1 is without a doubt 1 and 2 is absolutely 2 just so they can figure out what 3 is.
And even then there is always the chance that 1 isn’t quite correct.
We can’t even see dark energy with our equipment. It’s called “dark energy” for a reason.
nogzila t1_j8pos1l wrote
Dark energy is just a placeholder like a letter in an algebra equation . We don’t know what it is , we don’t know if it really even exists . We just know something is missing from the picture.
PickleJesus123 t1_j8qzxjf wrote
The thing that bothers me is that they never "go back to the drawing board" and instead choose to "tweak the current theory" x500 times. Doesn't seem very scientific, and reminds me of Luminiferous Aether or Quintessence. The descendants of those 16th century scientists are still marching around waving their hands, they just wear a different style of hat now
I-tell-you-hwat t1_j8r7o4z wrote
They can’t do anything more with dark energy until it is “found/discovered”
It’s just a hypothesis because they know there is something there that’s doing something about the expansion. Until dark energy, whatever it may actually be, is found it is just a sort of variable in a math equation.
ElReptil t1_j8tyikx wrote
There are lots of people going back to the drawing board every day, but so far none of them have found a better model than Lambda-CDM. Certainly not for lack of trying, though.
[deleted] t1_j8rseh2 wrote
[removed]
CrimsonEnigma t1_j8pksup wrote
> Science isn't some Matlock-esque stage play where the hero rushes up, presents incontrovertible evidence, everyone says "yeah, that explains it" and then that's the end.
In fairness, that does happen, but it's very rare. When the sensitivity conjecture was proven in computer science, the proof was short enough to be tweeted out (a formal paper a couple pages long was published at the same time).
nogzila t1_j8pok9x wrote
There is so many different sciences or schools of science that it does happen more so in some then others.
Theories and physics is a bit different but it can happen to have that ah ha moment.
There is so much that we don’t know or can see it’s hard to have it all figured out.
nogzila t1_j8pnfbw wrote
I have been reading about the whole dark energy thing for awhile and it never clicked .
So I guess I am excited about a different theory on the matter .
And no matter how smart any of us or all of humanity thinks we are we probably don’t even know a percentage of a percent of what would be considered the truth .
Science can be matlockesqe it has happened ..
When somebody finally cracks a cure to polio or malaria or eventually cancer sure there will have to be trails and studies but that person will feel that moment .
Spatial theory might be a whole different ballgame when it comes to that because even when you think you have it figured out you really don’t.
It is hard to have it all figured out when you can only see one piece of the puzzle.
[deleted] t1_j8u2zqn wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments