Dark Energy

In 1998, a totally unexpected result from astronomy caused a dramatic rethink of the Big Bang model. Measurements of the light emitted by a certain supernova suggested that it was further away than predicted by the Hubble constant. In other words, the exploding star did not lie on the straight line of the Hubble graph! This is a startling discovery as it implies that the expansion of the universe is not constant – instead the expansion is currently accelerating (see a description of the experiment here).

Skeptics at first suggested the result might arise from an error in the measurement of stellar distance – however, a similar observation was reported by a different group within two years. Further, independent support for the result soon emerged from measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). In 2002, precision measurements of the CMB by the WMAP satellite suggested a universe with geometry that is flat to within 1%. This result is completely inexplicable in the context of the known density of the matter of the universe (both ordinary and dark). The known density of matter points to a universe with = 0.3, a long way from flatness ( =1). Hence the CMB measurements suggest that there is a great deal of matter/energy in the uiverse unaccounted for.

As a result, cosmologists now talk about a new phenomenon; a form of energy that is pushing the universe outward, causing the expansion to accelerate and the geometry to be flat. The phenomenon is labelled Dark Energy : the physical cause for dark energy is thought to be some sort of vacuum energy. However, it should be pointed out that the numbers don’t yet stack up – detailed calculations suggests that the postulated vacuum energy would cause an accelerated expansion many orders of magnitude greater than that observed…this is a major area of research at the moment.

Putting Dark Energy together with Dark Matter, cosmologists postulate that ordinary matter, dark matter and dark energy all add up to the critical density required for the geometry of the universe to be flat (as measured). In other words, the current model of the universe can be summed up by

Density ord matter (4%) + Dens dark matter (22%) + Dens dark energy (74%) = 100%

or M (0.04) + DM (0.22) + ΩDE (0.74) = 1


Technical notes:

1. Is Dark Energy compatible with relativity?

Yes, but note that an accelerating universe is not predicted by the Friedmann equation, i.e. does not feature in any of the Friedmann universes (see post on the expanding universe below). Going back to 1st principles, when one applies the equations of general relativity to the cosmos, an extra term must be added in order to account for the accelerating expansion. This is rather reminiscent of the manner in which Einstein himself , dismayed by the prediction of a dynamic universe, originally added a term to his equations in order to keep the universe static (the positive cosmological constant) . Now we apply a term to the other side of the equation for the opposite reason.

Revised Friedmann graphs of the evolution of the universe

2. Is Dark Energy compatible with inflation?

Yes, for two reasons:

1. The fact that the expansion is accelerating now makes the suggestion of an exponential expansion in the first instants a lot less fanciful.

2. While the current accleration is many orders of magnitude less than that of inflation, it may be that the cause is some energy left over from inflation – more on this later.


Filed under Cosmology (general), Cosmology 101

10 responses to “Dark Energy

  1. Hi Doc..This is the hot topic on the web..Cold fusion..Could you please comment?

  2. Pingback: Topics about Energy » Archive » Dark Energy « Antimatter

  3. Dear Dr.C
    There has been an anti-science movement going on in America..esp.in Texas..
    They want to teach religion instead of science..
    Please read..
    Sir..I respect you as one of our great teachers of the Sciences…Will you take a stand against myth vs. Science and post it here publically?
    Will you man up and face the forces of myth or teach pure science? Please make a statement…I will be linking it in science threads..

  4. cormac

    Hey Hoosier- it’s interesting isn’t it?
    Cold fusion was a damp squid before, but it doesn’t mean it’s a damp squib now. At the very least,the rsearch exposes how little we really know of lattice physics..I have a post onthis somewhere, haven;t figured out how to categorize the posts yet…

  5. cormac

    Re creationism vs science, I certainly will take a stand. Give me a few days while I finish my little course in cosmology!

  6. db

    Call me an evil old cynic, but does taking a stand actually matter? I never met anyone on either side of the fence willing to change their minds.

    Thanks for the explanation about the unknown inflaton particle by the way. Do you have a personal favourite candidate?

  7. Call me an evil old cynic, but does taking a stand actually matter? I never met anyone on either side of the fence willing to change their minds.

    Thanks for the explanation about the unknown inflaton particle by the way. Do you have a personal favourite candidate?

    Comment by db | March 26, 2009
    You know what old man? There is a movement going on right now in Texas..and it all passed the school board..That non science creationist theory be taught in science books..
    If you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and everything is explained by the Bible…I know you don’t..
    But this is a major thing going on right now in Texas..Because Texas is so big all the nation has to buy their science books..It’s the way it is here..And now our science books will spout unproven bullshit…
    If you believe in Science..real pure science…then you should be horrified of what the Texas school boards are doing…There is live blogging on the vote…let me get you some links..here you go
    /You feeling me now bro?

  8. Outstanding article!! I will definitely visit again=)

  9. Pingback: Frontiers conference 2009 « Antimatter

  10. Pingback: Current status of the concordance model « Antimatter