PLoS ONE Publishes Cosmology "Breakthrough"

[mistermack]

I smell a Templeton nomination in the air - or is it pig shit? So hard to tell the difference with the 'we can prove scientifically that science is wrong' brigade.

That's just what relativity did though. And Quantum physics.
Einstein couldn't get his ideas accepted for a long time. Even though they knew he was brilliant, they still were loathe to accept it.
I seem to remember he got the Nobel prize for the photo-electric effect, not relativity, because they were still skeptical of relativity seventeen years after he published it.

[hackenslash]

You remember incorrectly. Yes, the Nobel was ostensibly for his work on the photoelectric effect (and his work on Brownian motion in pollen grains, the first experimental demonstration of the existence of atoms), but they weren't skeptical of relativity, they just a) hadn't worked out all the implications yet and b) some of the core predictions hadn't yet been experimentally verified. nothing to do with skepticism. Lest we forget, GR had it's first experimental validation in 1919

[Brian Peacock]

I smell a Templeton nomination in the air - or is it pig shit? So hard to tell the difference with the 'we can prove scientifically that science is wrong' brigade.

That's just what relativity did though. And Quantum physics.
Einstein couldn't get his ideas accepted for a long time. Even though they knew he was brilliant, they still were loathe to accept it.
I seem to remember he got the Nobel prize for the photo-electric effect, not relativity, because they were still skeptical of relativity seventeen years after he published it.

Yeah, but you know which brigade I'm talking about, the 'because we are sceptical about the ability of science to tell us stuff about the world when it contradicts our ideology we can dispute the validity of science before going on to assert that we can prove scientifically that science is wrong, therefore god' brigade.

[mistermack]

You remember incorrectly.

Well, skepticism doesn't mean rejection. You can be skeptical of something, while still suspecting that it's right. Einstein didn't get to where he got, without treating his own ideas to skeptical examination.
I think he got his Nobel prize in 1922. But it was for the photoelectric effect as I said.

The presentation speech began by mentioning "his theory of relativity [which had] been the subject of lively debate in philosophical circles [and] also has astrophysical implications which are being rigorously examined at the present time". (Einstein 1923)

That was seventeen years after publishing on relativity.
He never got the Nobel prize for his work on relativity.

[mistermack]

Yeah, but you know which brigade I'm talking about, the 'because we are sceptical about the ability of science to tell us stuff about the world when it contradicts our ideology we can dispute the validity of science before going on to assert that we can prove scientifically that science is wrong, therefore god' brigade.

Oh, right.

That happens all the time, but it's definitely not in this case. It's just an attempt to propose an explanation for the problem of dark energy.

Dark energy is a proposed answer to a riddle, that arose when cosmologists discovered that the Universe isn't just expanding [ which it can do without energy input ], but it's APPARENTLY expanding at an accelerating pace.
For the entire universe to be doing that requires a gigantic amount of energy, pushing on every part of the universe, and being converted into kinetic energy as the galaxies speed up.

Such energy has never been detected, but people are looking hard to try to detect it.
But it's not just an unknown form of energy, it has to be a special kind, that can accelerate massive objects. And it has to be directional. Because if the acceleration was random in direction, it wouldn't show up as a consistent change in the red shift.

It's a hugely speculative solution to an unexpected observation. So it's not so silly to try to propose alternatives.

[hackenslash]

Well, skepticism doesn't mean rejection. You can be skeptical of something, while still suspecting that it's right. Einstein didn't get to where he got, without treating his own ideas to skeptical examination.

You really don't, do you?

I think he got his Nobel prize in 1922. But it was for the photoelectric effect as I said.

Pay attention. He got it (in 1921) for 'services to theoretical physics', including, but not limited to, his work on the photoelectric effect and his work on brownian motion in pollen grains.

Sometimes, just paying attention to somebody who actually knows what they're talking about is useful.

That was seventeen years after publishing on relativity.
He never got the Nobel prize for his work on relativity.

And?

[hackenslash]

Dark energy is a proposed answer to a riddle, that arose when cosmologists discovered that the Universe isn't just expanding [ which it can do without energy input ], but it's APPARENTLY expanding at an accelerating pace.

No, dark energy is the riddle, not a proposed solution. Dark energy is the name we give to accelerated expansion.

It's a hugely speculative solution to an unexpected observation. So it's not so silly to try to propose alternatives.

Except that it isn't a solution at all, it's the name we give to the observation. There are quite a few proposed solutions, not least that provided by general relativity, in the form of those solutions to its equations that result in gravity becoming repulsive, and cumulative.

Fabric of the Cosmos (Greene 2005) is a good lay explanation of the relevant concepts.

[hackenslash]

http://www.quora.com/What-were-peoples- ... Relativity

Acceptance of special relativity


Eventually, around 1911 most mathematicians and theoretical physicists accepted the results of special relativity. For example, already Planck (1909) compared the implications of the modern relativity principle — especially Einstein's relativity of time — with the revolution by the Copernican system.[98] As a result, the fundamental difference between the dynamic approach of Lorentz and the kinematic one of Einstein was pointed out, and the term "Lorentz-Einstein-Theory" wasn't used anymore. Only a few theoretical physicists like Lorentz, Poincaré, Abraham or Langevin, still believed in the existence of an aether in any form.[99] Another important reason for accepting special relativity was the extension of Minkowski's space-time formalism around 1910–1913.[83] So in 1912 Wilhelm Wien recommended both Lorentz and Einstein for the Nobel Prize in Physics – even though this prize was never awarded for special relativity.

[mistermack]

I don't detect a point in any of that, except some pointless quibbling about fuck all.
Maybe wikepedia got it all wrong, I don't really care, but they are apparently quoting Einstein himself :

In 1922, Albert Einstein was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics,[1] "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". This refers to his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", which was well supported by the experimental evidence by that time. The presentation speech began by mentioning "his theory of relativity [which had] been the subject of lively debate in philosophical circles [and] also has astrophysical implications which are being rigorously examined at the present time". (Einstein 1923)

No, dark energy is the riddle, not a proposed solution. Dark energy is the name we give to accelerated expansion.

That's just plain wrong. Which is odd, coming from someone ''who knows what he's talking about''.
The riddle is the unexpected observation. The observation is the red shift and brightness of the more distant ''standard candles''.
Some kind of dark energy, causing accelerated expansion, is the proposed explanation of those observations.

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

[hackenslash]

I don't detect a point in any of that, except some pointless quibbling about fuck all.

Then perhaps learning to read...

Maybe wikepedia got it all wrong, I don't really care, but they are apparently quoting Einstein himself :

In 1922, Albert Einstein was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics,[1] "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". This refers to his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", which was well supported by the experimental evidence by that time. The presentation speech began by mentioning "his theory of relativity [which had] been the subject of lively debate in philosophical circles [and] also has astrophysical implications which are being rigorously examined at the present time". (Einstein 1923)

Or perhaps it doesn't say what you need it to, namely that people were 'skeptical' of relativity (in case your tiny mind missed it, this was where I came in).

That's just plain wrong.

Except, of course, it's exactly right, your ignorance of the relevant physics notwithstanding.

The riddle is the unexpected observation. The observation is the red shift and brightness of the more distant ''standard candles''.

Yes, and we call it dark energy.

Some kind of dark energy, causing accelerated expansion, is the proposed explanation of those observations.

Whatever the final solution is, it's dark energy. Dark energy is simply a placeholder for we know not what. In other words, it's what we call the observation of accelerated expansion.

Once again, you're waving your dick around, little realising that you don't actually fucking possess one.

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

You're reading it wrong. Dark energy isn't a single hypothesis, it's a single observation with quite a few candidate solutions, including the inflaton field arising from inflationary cosmology, the aforementioned repulsive gravity solution arising from general relativity, and several others.

You should read the primary literature, which talks about candidate solutions for dark energy. Here, allow me to assist you in the reduction of your public embarrassment:

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=c ... _sdt=0%2C5

Alternatively, you could read the book I recommended, probably the most comprehensive of the many hundreds of books for the layman on this topic. I've read the majority of them, as well as huge swathes of the primary literature. If you think a few paragraphs from Wiki are going to rescue you, you're even more mistaken than merely your idiot posts would tend to show.

If you're going to tell somebody they're wrong, you should try having a fucking clue first.

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/fo ... rk-energy/

[mistermack]

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

You're reading it wrong.

You are a dick sometimes. I take no pleasure in watching the top of your head as you dig holes.
So carry on if you must. I don't care.

[hackenslash]

Yes, I am a dick sometimes, but I'm not an idiot. You clearly don't care about accuracy, and the only holes I've dug here are holes in your understanding. If you spend a few decades studying the subject matter, as I have, you'll discover that I'm correct.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Yes, I am a dick sometimes, but I'm not an idiot. You clearly don't care about accuracy, and the only holes I've dug here are holes in your understanding. If you spend a few decades studying the subject matter, as I have, you'll discover that I'm correct.

That's just an argument from authority fallacy, Hack, and you know it. Mistermack's opinion is just as valid as anyone else's despite his complete lack of understanding of the maths and physics behind the subject because he can find someone on the interwebz somewhere that has published a half-arsed paper that he doesn't really understand but which looks like (to him) it supports his case. Checkmate!

[hackenslash]

It wasn't supposed to be an argument but a retort to the ad hominem. The argument ws given earlier, along with the link to Google scholar with the search results for candidate explanations for dark energy. The reason that those candidate explanations exist is because dark energy is not, in and of itself, a hypothesis explaining the acceleration, but the observation that expansion is accelerating. It requires a source of energy, and we can't see it. What that energy actually is is the topic of those candidate hypotheses.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It wasn't supposed to be an argument but a retort to the ad hominem. The argument ws given earlier, along with the link to Google scholar with the search results for candidate explanations for dark energy. The reason that those candidate explanations exist is because dark energy is not, in and of itself, a hypothesis explaining the acceleration, but the observation that expansion is accelerating. It requires a source of energy, and we can't see it. What that energy actually is is the topic of those candidate hypotheses.

Oh yeah? So how do they know it's dark then? Eh? Or are they just racist?