Dark energy is a mysterious form of energy pervading the Universe that is causing its expansion to accelerate. Of all things in astronomy, we probably know the least about it, but this is in part due to it only being discovered in 1998! So there hasn’t been time to figure it all out.
But that doesn’t mean we know nothing about it, and the folks at Hubble have put out a really good documentary about dark energy on their site. I watched the whole thing through, and it does a good job describing how it was discovered, what we know about it, what we don’t know about it, and where this investigation will lead. It features interviews with astronomers Saul Perlmutter and Adam Reiss, who were instrumental in discovering this weird energy, and as an added bonus some fun quotations from astronomers who didn’t believe the results when they were first released.
I can see this documentary being useful to the public as well as in classrooms. If you’re a teacher than you should really take a look at it.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:18 am
I wonder why dark energy is never called dark forces?
December 6th, 2007 at 4:45 am
I assume it’s because a) it appears as an energy term in the GR field equations and b) because “force” isn’t terribly well defined in GR anyway.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:18 am
I wonder why dark energy is never called dark forces?
Because George Lucas would sue for infringement with the Dark Side of the Force.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:42 am
I’ll have to give this a view. Stuff like this is always cool!
It is also good to see that good science is being done, especially when I just saw on Yahoo news an article entitled “Do moonbeams have healing powers?”
Suggest you inject reality into them Phil, pronto!
December 6th, 2007 at 6:26 am
Speaking of videos, has anyone seen http://www.scivee.tv/? It’s supposed to be a sort of YouTube for science and scientists. No idea how good it actually is, but could be interesting.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:06 am
I want a t-shirt with this on it:
Dark Energy is repulsive!
Rich
December 6th, 2007 at 8:28 am
[…] ♦ Dark energy video from Hubble […]
December 6th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Dark energy is the *other* brane… lurking “out there” just waiting to collide again.
Seriously, this who dark energy thing is making me a champion of Steinhardt & Turok’s cyclic theory. It fits the available data and needs less “parts” than inflation theory. Science is always looking for the simple and elegant path, yes?
December 6th, 2007 at 9:26 am
— because “force†isn’t terribly well defined in GR anyway.
I don’t think it’s defined at all in GR, unless you want to look at it as the cosmological constant reborn.
This why I like cyclic theory. The inflationary consensus model is starting to get a “patched up” feel to it.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Grand Lunar, I don’t know about moonbeams, but moonSHINE is certainly useful. It’s handy for parties, removing old paint, getting rid of that annoying 20/20 vision, not to mention it will completely and cheaply eliminate our dependence on foreign oil (to listen to the radical right).
Rich, I like that T-shirt! It goes well with some of the others I’ve seen:
Quasars are far out!
Black holes are out of sight!
Black holes really suck!
Reunite Gondwanaland!
F = GMm/R² It’s not just a good idea - It’s the LAW!
For a good time, call 602-1023, ask for Avagadro
Acid is Base!
December 6th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Just an aside on the t shirt thing. I want one that says “I a little uncertain about this Heisenberg thing.”
We now return you to to your actual thread, already in progress.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:18 am
I wonder if a curved universe could explain this acceleration without bringing in a new force.
Since time flows relatively slower near earth than higher up in the atmosphere, matter follows this time gradient effectively “falling” towards earth.
If the universe’s temporal landscape was not just flat with time gradients local around all matter but was also sloped itself, galaxies would be “falling” through this slope giving the impression they are all accelerating away from each other.
Am I just spewing nonsense?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:12 am
buffalodavid,
That’s funny. If you print them I’ll buy one.
On a similar note, my daughter (19) has one that says’ “If it weren’t for Carbon 14 I wouldn’t date at all.” She says that she will not date any guy who doesn’t get it. That helps me sleep at night.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
I was wondering something along the same lines myself, although I wasn’t considering anything so elaborate as time gradients. (I’m not really sure what a time gradient would be exactly).
I can however imagine the universe existing on the surface of a non-euclidean manifold … sort of like a rubber band traveling along the surface of an (unwound) trumpet… except in many more dimensions.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Paul,
A time gradient is nothing complicated. We live in one, it’s what keeps us on earth. Time “flows” more slowly at our feet than at our head.
If the universe’s time landscape is similar and not flat, then just as a drop of water in a falling stream sees all other drops above and below itself accelerating away, we would see everything in the universe accelerating away.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Um, has dark energy actually been discovered? Or has it been suspected/infrared/hypothesized about?
IE: it’s magic frosting that explains things that don’t makes sense without it. It could be the next ether for all I know. A centruy from now astronomers could be lauging at us at undergrad beer bong parties and making fun our our “dark energy.”
December 6th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
“If you’re a teacher than you should really take a look at it.”
There’s something ironic about this sentence.
Grammar Nazi, away!
December 6th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
If we don’t understand it, then it must be proof of intelligent design.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
“There’s something ironic about this sentence.”
Which is? Give us your grammar lesson, and we’ll see how well you’ve learned it.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I just showed this to my 8-year-old. He became a bit worried that the universe would blow up when he was older. I explained (I hope) that the universe has always been exploding; this is just the way it explodes, in slow motion, and it wouldn’t affect him.
(8-year-olds think in terms of explosions.)
December 6th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
With all due respect for all those who believe in “dark energy” probably even some ID’ers in the group I betcha– it’s not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s a fantasy (not just invisible). Put on your skeptic’s glasses and study it further. The idea is based upon Big Bang assumptions and misinterpreted observations– nothing more.
It is truely a co-incidence that Einstein stated that it was the biggest mistake he ever made in his theoretical carreer, but let’s realize that the BB theory needs this additional addendum theory, just like it needed Inflation Theory, otherwise it could be debunked.
Excellerated expansion goes against the primises of the Big Bang Theory in all of its 100’s (no joke) of known versions so they had to come up with— I’m sorry to say, this pure “f007 uqjaf” theory otherwise what alternatives would they have had?? Too bad. Are they ever going to wake up from this period of intellectual slumber in Cosmology? Consider statements by Astronomer Michael Disney below.
www.americanscientist.org/template/AuthorDetail/authorid/1841;jsessionid=baa9…
December 7th, 2007 at 12:44 am
—It is truely a co-incidence that Einstein stated that it was the biggest mistake he ever made in his theoretical carreer, but let’s realize that the BB theory needs this additional addendum theory, just like it needed Inflation Theory, otherwise it could be debunked.
No, the cosmological constant was what Einstein called his greatest mistake.
Dark Energy != cosmological constant despite similar appearances. It matches the job of the CC, but it is not the same thing.
The existence of dark energy is supported by observational evidence supporting the big bang theory, and is part of not only the standard inflationary model but the newer cyclic models as well.
You can consider dark energy a place holder, perhaps, but it is NOT fantasy. This is how science works. New observations are incorporated and old theories and models get revised. If inflationary theory does finally give way to one of the cyclic models, then so be it. That how it works!
A lot depends now on the value of w, a parameter involving the pressure and density of the dark energy. The Planck Surveyor probe to be launched in 2008 will attempt to make a very precise measurement of this value by observing the anisotropic variations of the cosmic microwave background much like the WMAP sdacecraft.
—Excellerated expansion goes against the primises of the Big Bang Theory in all of its 100’s (no joke) of known versions so they had to come up with— I’m sorry to say,
Pure nonsense. First of all, there are three leading versions:
[1] Inflationary (the standard model)
[2] The Steinhardt-Turok cyclic model
[3] The Baum-Frampton cyclic model
Some may disagree with my selection of the leaders, but, well, that’s why science encouraged debate. Anyway, they all incorporate dark energy. The cyclic model arose, in part, BECAUSE of the discovery of dark energy.
Michael J. Disney is welcome to his opinion, and all he really says is that all current theories could be replaced by something else. Wow. That’s for that newsflash, Mr. Cronkite. (rolls eyes) He doesn’t even address newer stuff like M-Theory and brane physics.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:48 am
—I wonder if a curved universe could explain this acceleration without bringing in a new force.
Current observational evidence supports a (nearly) flat universe.
—Since time flows relatively slower near earth than higher up in the atmosphere, matter follows this time gradient effectively “falling†towards earth.
I would think the gradient is too negligible to have any noticeable effect at all.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:12 am
OK, Phil. You suggested teachers might want to take a look at this, so I did. As it turns out, there’s a lot of information I can use in there - thanks for the link. In a splendid turn of serendipity, just yesterday I was introducing the Law of Inverse Squares (in connection with the difficulties that had to be overcome to allow continued communication with our Voyager probes as they traveled beyond Saturn.) Connecting that with the observations of supernovas is a great opportunity.
So, again, thanks for the heads-up.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:13 am
[…] Bad Astronomer, Dr. Phil Plait, writes about an excellent web documentary on Dark Energy over at HubbleSite.org. Physics - and especially […]
December 7th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Quiet_Desperation, Einstein’s gravitational equations have not been dismissed as yet. Many theorists have added his cosmological constant back, or have otherwise made mathematical changes to his equations to accommodate the dark energy paradigm, and the perceived accelerated expansion of the universe.
And I agree with those that theorize that the universe is completely “flatâ€â€”not just almost.
I believe that Einstein’s incites into time can be explained in a much simpler way. Since the electrons within you, as well as within all matter, travels around the nuclei, they travel near the speed of light– within a gravitational field like the Earth’s. The surrounding field is accelerating into the Earth which is the cause of gravity. Everything on its surface could also be considered as essentially accelerating against a stationary field. This perspective allows one to see that the atomic electrons within the field must slow down so as not to move faster than the speed of light relative to the field. This for the atom is time slowing down. The amount of rotations of its electrons will increase (compared to an equivalent time period here on Earth) at a rate inversely proportional to the atoms distance from the Earth’s center until there is only a minor effect from the sun. This is why what you said above in your last reply is true.
We on Earth consequently live at a “much†slower pace because of this effect. I’ve heard that in a seventy year-old man’s life span he would have slowed down .4 seconds, that’s a very long time in quantum physics—so we should be thankful for the extra time that we have. lol
Getting back to the dark energy paradigm, other possibilities for these observations have been proposed. The most prominent was that there are vast quantities of both inter and intra-galactic clouds of fermions including hydrogen atoms, molecules and other matter. The probability increases at a predictable rate how much light and heat this matter will absorb, giving the appearance that the observation is “fainter” and therefore further away than it really is. Most theorists, in this case have generally dismissed this possibility because they felt that the observations were too consistent (but such is the nature of built-up absorption/ probabilities). There are other proposed possibilities also but the interpretation that I believe is most likely is that it’s a condition of relativity, not one of Einstein’s versions, but another unknown aspect that I will provide info on if you’re interested.
As far as theories are concerned, the ones which can explain the same observations with the least amount of new physics are probably better. The Big Bang is a plethora of new physics—no chance!!! Inflation theory also falls into the same category of completely new proposed physics—it’s also out!!! The above cyclical theories provide for an infinite series of bangs, so if the BB falls so will they.
String theory proposes many new dimensions and is constructed solely based upon a multitude of new equations and physics— it’s also out!! Quantum Mechanics is great, it has many verifiable predictions but there is still a lot of inconsistencies with it, it will be refined as time passes. But Quantum Theory, the theory that attempts to explain the workings of quantum mechanics is completely, logically inconsistent—both verbal and mathematical logic are utterly violated—it’s completely out!!! Particle theory, “up, down, strange, charm, bottom, & top quarks—and gluons holding them together—never have independently been observed and never will be because they too are fantasies (even though there has been a Nobel Prize awarded concerning “their observationâ€. Of course there is an explanation but I’m pretty sure it’s much simpler than that if you want to hear it? Sure they know how to split the atom make calculations, etc. but bottom line none of these theories can explain any of the forces of physics and can’t answer any of the “why†questions—which I assert are not difficult to answer, again I’ll provide you with any or all of my 150+ page theory if you like. Lol. –but true.
You probably have heard of Verchuur’s observations and statistical interpretations.
www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/11/big_bang
Most all of today’s theories will eventually be debunked , I believe, at least in part, except for Evolution which also needs refinement, but will be improved as time passes, in my “humble opinionâ€,
Respectfully, forrest (and not Forrest Gump to clarify things)
December 7th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
my error of ommision above, the end of paragraph 3 above should have read ” at a rate inversely proportional to the square of the atoms distance from the Earth’s center”.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Some recent thoughts about Dark Energy
Ahmet Oztas and I become worried about the predictable past and future of Dark Energy in 2005. When we took a look at the mathematics used by the Kirshner and Perlmutter groups we found significant problems. They all use a version of the Friedmann model within the Robertson-Walker framework, designated the FRW model. The Dark Energy rises from the cosmological constant, a separate term, within this model. The math is very uncomfortable with this extra term - solutions about our present situation are warped and even disappear at lower matter densities. So this model with “Dark Energy” suffers inconsistencies. We have pointed this out in an article in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics
http://www.springerlink.com/content/5228552224410ul3/?p=086852aaa89046d480c1948b9358a79b&pi=5
The article can often be obtained by students and profs. via university on-line libraries for free or by credit card if one is a “civilian”. I don’t think one has to be too savvy in math to appreciate the figures.
Ahmet and I have used the most recent, public data set, 192 SNeIa to next examine the FRW solution and have found inconsistencies springing up everywhere. These solution are presented on-line for free at
http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/forth/smithASTP1-4-2008.pdf
The inconsistencies can be viewed in Fig. 1.
We perform a task significantly different from astronomers in that we use the data and errors as true distances with distance errors and not log(data) and log (error). People in many branches of science gave up using log(data) many years ago because this type of evaluation tends to place too much emphasis on distant data with large errors rather than discriminating against poor data.
Anyway, I told Sean Carroll, a Dark Energy man about this problem over a year ago and just watched him on a recent TV show discussing the virtues of Dark Energy.
He didn’t sell me but there are hundreds of people in physics and astronomy who don’t mind math with questionable results.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Mike,
Looks like interesting info. I’ll try to study it a bit from the url’s that you posted. If there is such a thing as dark energy I’ll eat my hat. If there was a BB, for that matter, I’ll also eat my hat. And I have never specifically made this promise before, although I’ve always known that the BB was just BS. Ten years from now the BB will be on its way out too. That’s another prediction. A currently little known theory will take its place.
I completely agree with your last statement Mike “there are hundreds of (countless) people in physics and astronomy who don’t mind math with questionable results (validity).”
forrest_forrest@netzero.net
your friend forrest
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Forrest,
The questions of the Big Bang or Dark Energy are really different, and nowadays unrelated questions. Dark Energy is an invention of Einstein who was told 100 years ago that all stars are permanently fixed in place and neither collapsing towards the center of the Milky Way nor moving away from each other. To make the math work for a stable Milky Way he needed Dark Energy. He took about one page within a series of three articles of about 75 page length to describe Dark Energy.
A. Einstein (1952) “The Principle of Relativity”. Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 11501, English translation.
About 15 years later Hubble informed the world that galaxies were all moving away from each other so Einstein’s math worked perfectly without this Dark Energy term in the math. From what I understand Einstein lost a lot of respect for astronomers after that. Up to that time he had been a superior scientist at picking the real data and worthwhile conclusions from the large “background” of questionable results and wrong conclusions that are unavoidable in freely exchanged science.
For me, I first became interested in Dark Energy because this violates the first law of thermodynamics. I thought that I and all scientists should take interest in Dark Energy because thermodynamics is a very large portion of the foundations of all science, from physics to biology to psychology. I have been very lucky to have spent two years learning to analyze data - back in the stone age of the very first programs that objectively analyze data. It took me many months for me to finally admit to myself that the methods used to calculate Dark Energy, and other parameters, using the supernovae Ia data were faulty. These astronomers use what is called the linear least squares method for the final analysis. Most other scientists have given this method up if the data do not line up in a straight line and if the model used to fit the data is not a straight line. When I mean give this type of analysis, up I mean 20 to 30 years ago.
On top of this, a report just surfaced from a fellow who is well respected in Europe, Dominick Schwarz. I think I can paraphrase his conclusion to be something like …the evidence for Dark Energy is OK but certainly not spectacular.
D.J. Schwarz and B. Weinhorst (2007). “(An)isotropy of the Hubble diagram: comparing hemispheres”. Astronomy & Astrophysics 474: 717-729.
There is another article which takes a look at the supernovae and gamma ray burst data, but still using the log(data) style analysis is
J. G. Hartnett (2008). “Extending the Redshift-Distance Relation in Cosmological General Relativity to Higher Redshifts”. Foundations of Physics 38: 201-215.
Even using the data analyzed in the old-fashioned manner he concludes that Dark Energy is unnecessary.
Ahmet, Jan and I have a new paper coming out where we again analyze the data rather than log(data) which tends to agree with the results of the Hartnett publication
Spacetime Curvature is Important for Cosmology Constrained with Supernova Emissions
International Journal of Theoretical Physics (2008)
ISSN 0020-7748 (Print) 1572-9575 (Online)
DOI 10.1007/s10773-008-9680-7
Kind regards,
Mike Smith
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Mike,
The relationship that first comes to mind concerning the BB cosmology and dark energy is that it seems to me that BB theorists, before the assertion of the existence of dark energy, predicted the opposite. There was the Hubble constant — that the universe “is expanding at a constant rate”, or that it was possibly slowing down. These were the predictions before the dark energy assertion.
Mike, I believe both the “accelerated expansion of the universe” as well as the BB theory are both completely based upon fanciful mathematics, and misconstrued observations. I believe the recent distant galactic observations are the beginning of the end for the BB theory.
Dark energy, I believe, is a false idea basic unknown a concept of relativity concerning matter diminution. This dark energy theory will naturally fall if the BB falls and will be helped along by all those that enable more logical analysis and realistic mathematics and interpretations of observable reality.
Mike, maybe you might explain your above statement which I probably don’t understand — “Spacetime Curvature is Important for Cosmology Constrained with Supernova Emissions”. As for me the curvature of space-time concept I also believe will not fly in the end.
your friend forrest
May 5th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Forrest,
It turns out that Dark Energy is sort of an “add-on” by Einstein to his mathematics, which is the real reason why Dark Energy math has it’s own difficulties. Without DE his math model works perfectly well looking back say 14.5 billion years and forever into the future. The reason why astronomers thought 10 years ago the Universe expansion was slowing down was that they really had very little data and what was available was only good for the past 1 billion years - perhaps less than this. This is called the dynamic range problem (one portion of the dynamic range problem) and is very common for all sciences.
After launch of the Hubble satellite for 1.5 B $ or so, and with an upkeep bill of many millions $, astronomers were expected to find something wonderful for all that money. While most of us think the absolutely thrilling photos are reward enough, the oneupmanship plaguing all science demanded those responsible for much of the telescope time report something quite spectacular. And that they did. Here is where many convince themselves that the data and analyses are good enough for Dark Energy, but not for me. Dark Energy sells books and puts peoples faces on TV, good for them and their institutions for the next few decades.
W/r to our recent title that spacetime curvature is of paramount importance, I stick by this. Mathematically all one needs is just a trace of curvature, just a sprinkle of a curved line-of-sight here and there, and all of the spacetime between galaxies becomes important. So spacetime cannot be ignored in a quantitative explanation of the Universe. If one decides to ignore spacetime one is left with Dark Energy - this is how the math plays out.
W/r to the Big Bang this is true whether one likes Dark Energy or not. It is an unavoidable consequence of General Relativity which continues to pass all expeimental and theoretical tests. Personally, I think many of these tests are simply wastes of time and money and do not lead to a better understanding of anything. Einstein’s model is there as a first and second order solution to problems of spacetime and gravity. We might add on some small corrections, but these will always be just tiny adjustments for those who are quite particular. I suppose these tests give many very bright people something to do.
I do not see the Big Bang event as being counter to most any modern religion but something which is compatible with Christian, Muslim, etc. faiths. Likewise, most astronomers and physicists see the Big Bang as something very unusual, interesting, true and really impossible to fully explain. Though many people are attempting to understand the Big Bang via string theory, brane theory, etc. it really is impossible at this moment because we have so little data to compare the various models. I do mean nearly zero data about the event itself; we have plenty of data pointing to the Big Bang, that it really did occur, but nothing pointing to why this occurred.
Kind regards,
Mike Smith
May 6th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Hi Mike,
“It turns out that Dark Energy is sort of an “add-on” by Einstein to his mathematics”. I agree but more than than recent interpretations in cosmology have brought the idea back to life. Prior to this assertion, the accelerated expansion model would have been contrary to the BB model.
Google Big Bang Predictions. You will never see, as I haven’t a single prediction ever made beforehand. Only those claiming a prediction after observations have been made. Dark Energy was a surprise, but like every other part of the BB theory, I believe it is based on misinterpreted observations.
Einstein’s General relativity theory is an Aether based model. Einstein said “According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristics of matter, as consisting of parts (’particles’) which may be tracked through time.
(Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture).
The warped space-time model would accordingly be a difference in aether density model. Which is certainly no problem, since under high-gravitational influences it produces more accurate predictions than Newton’s model. It makes no prediction of aether drag however, that other aether models predicted and has been observed in regard to the decelerating velocities of the two voyagers. These first aether drag theories surfaced in the mid-1800’s. Some more modern aether drag theories have come close to the observations of the voyagers but lack the horizontal vector forces observed. These, accordingly, are also non- linear solar system aether vector forces, similar to those predicted by Einstein close to the sun.
I believe the correct theory of gravity is that of a pushing force which is a combination of warped space/ aether of general relativity, aether drag, and non-linear vector forces that become asymptotic at gravitational boundaries between stars. These additional forces, which collectively are still Newtonian, would be somewhat non-linear relative to the source initiating these gravitational field forces. These non-linear forces can explain stellar motions within a galaxy and how these galaxies can maintain their form with little change for maybe billions of years.
your friend forrest
Dark Energy I believe, is a misinterpretation of data and is the result of a condition of Relativity related to the diminution of matter which is compensated by an increased matter count.
your friend forrest
May 6th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Forrest,
I think you might be referring to Einstein’s 1920 lecture at Leiden.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Leiden-1920.htm
According to this website Einstein seems to say there may well be an aether but not much one can really do with it. Other than offer a medium for light propagation the aether really has no properties one can measure. (If one cannot test a “thing” in the lab it becomes much more difficult to convince other people of this existence.) He also seems to say that aether is consistent with Maxwell’s electromagnetism so the aether has some value.
On the other hand, the Planck-Einstein photonic equations for light do not need the aether and are 100% consistent with experiments (as are the Maxwell equations). I have measured single photons with a photomultiplier myself and imagining light as little photons traveling thru empty spacetime is often a useful mental tool.
On the predictions coming from the Big Bang physicists, you might check out this website.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html
While NASA advertises some questionable theories, such as dark matter and dark energy, I think the supporting data on this website is a Universe ahead of claims for the dark side.
Kind regards,
Mike
May 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Mike,
I wrote a book on cosmology and theoretical physics to be published in English in the fall of 2010. Its current title is The Pan Theory, a General Unified Model of cosmology, the forces of physics, classical mechanics, and quantum theory.
I would like you to review my equations which are in a simplified format for publication. You can see the concept is different from all others.
With your recent analysis concerning dark matter related equations maybe we might collaborate on a technical paper concerning gravity mechanics related to cosmology equations. First I could send you my related formulations and drawings, for your analysis along with the text which explains it. We would then discuss the details. If we are in agreement I would pay for publication, if we can’t find a gratis publisher. I have some connections which may be of interest to you.
what do you think? your friend forrest
forrest_forrest@netzero.net
May 7th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Forrest,
I have been thinking along these same lines but with collaboration including Ahmet Oztas, with whom I have written daily these past several years. What I was thinking about is a paperback that would go on sale at airport paper shoppes, Dalton Books, Borders books, etc. the title would be “Dark Energy Revealed” or something to this effect. Dark Energy is susceptible to criticism which the common person can easily understand given some instruction. Once explained, this person could well grasp the first law of thermodynamics. My feeling is that a paperback on the level of the first Hawking book is the target. Big hit that book! There would be one difference in that the Hawking book really presented nothing new. New to the airline traveler but not to you or me. Our book would be a distillation of all information debunking dark energy but after first building up dark energy via several chapters. In the introduction we would write something like”…this is a detective story please follow along…”
Don’t mean to insult you but have you read our papers in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics? vol 45 pages 925 thru 952 and the follow-up presently online at the IJTP? (This one about 15 pages I believe.) While we can borrow some of the arguments from these presentations the common reader will quickly get lost with the math. A few simple equations might be alright - like Einstein’s “Relativity”. The more drawings the better. I would want to stay away from the BB and from Dark Matter for the moment and simply concentrate on DE. (Ahmet and I are developing a new very complicated equation set for the BB, so I like the BB. He and I will get together in Sweden with Jan Paul for three weeks this summer.) After all - those people claim this DE is 75% of everything important in the Universe. A larger topic cannot be found. The punchline would be something like Dark Energy is results, presented slightly too early using data which are very noisy…and we can be very pleasant with our point of view and still make the reader a disbeliever.
Some practical points, Forrest.
1. Do you have access to the program language LaTeX ? This is used by many of the publishing houses and even publishers of paperback science would tend to like a manuscript delivered using LaTeX rather than WORD. If you don’t have it, you should purchase PCTeX on-line and practice a bit. PCTeX allows insertion of drawings and diagrams - preferrably those generated with a program displaying these in eps format. But it is not cheap.
2. I get the distinct feeling that such a paperback would be well received in the EU but not at all in the US, therefore an EU printing/publisher should be our first target. Australia/NZ are OK, too.
3. I will present the chapter(s) outline in a few days so you can have a look.
Kind regards,
Mike
May 7th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Mike,
I agree with you. The time is right for your book. And the best sales will probably be in Europe.
Thanks for all the great tips. Think most of your advise and observations also would apply to my book. Will study your posting above (copy it for my files) and glean as much as I can from it.
My own cosmological equations somewhat follow the Dirac, Narlikar-Hoyle variable mass models (a diminution of matter by maintaining all-relative-proportions model) but gravity vectors would become asymptotic (perpendicular) to the line of sight at gravitational boundaries between stars. These vectors would be evoked by a dark matter vortex which would be the cause of the pushing forces of gravity. The idea and equations would attempt to explain why galaxy rotation promotes the maintenance of a spiral galaxy’s form, as well as how the galactic red-shift can be explained by variable mass cosmology.
talk to you soon, your friend forrest
May 8th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Forrest,
Please contact me at mlsmith55@gmail.com ? You might also list the journals where I can read about your models?
Kind regards,
Mike