Year of the Comet
Comet C/2011 L4 (PANSTARRS)

PANSTARRS information

Comet C/2012 S1 (ISON)

ISON information

Astronomy News
E-mail Article to a FriendPrint ArticleBookmark and Share

Dark energy is real, say Portsmouth astronomers

Researchers conclude that there is a 99.996 percent chance that the mysterious force is responsible for the hotter parts of the cosmic microwave background.
By Royal Astronomical Society, United Kingdom Published: September 14, 2012
shells-compressed
A visual impression of the data used in the study. The relevant extra-galactic maps are represented as shells of increasing distance from Earth from left to right. The closest thing seen is our Milky Way galaxy, which is a potential source of noise for the analysis. After this are six shells containing maps of the millions of distant galaxies used in the study. These maps are produced using different telescopes in different wavelengths and are color-coded to show denser clumps of galaxies as red and less dense regions as blue. There are holes in the maps due to data quality cuts. The last, largest shell shows the temperature of the cosmic microwave background from the WMAP satellite (red is hot, blue is cold), which is the most distant image of the universe seen, some 46 billion light-years away. The team has detected (at 99.996% significance) small correlations between these foreground maps (on the left) and the cosmic microwave background (on the right). // Credits: Earth: NASA/BlueEarth; Milky Way: ESO/S. Brunier; CMB: NASA/WMAP
Dark energy, a mysterious substance thought to be speeding up the expansion of the universe is really there, according to a team of astronomers at the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom and Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich.

After a two-year study led by Tommaso Giannantonio and Robert Crittenden, scientists conclude that the likelihood of its existence stands at 99.996 percent.

“Dark energy is one of the great scientific mysteries of our time, so it isn’t surprising that so many researchers question its existence,” said Bob Nichol, a member of the Portsmouth team. “But with our new work, we’re more confident than ever that this exotic component of the universe is real — even if we still have no idea what it consists of.”

Over a decade ago, astronomers observing the brightness of distant supernovae realized that the expansion of the universe appeared to be accelerating. The acceleration is attributed to the repulsive force associated with dark energy now thought to make up 73 percent of the content of the cosmos. The researchers who made this discovery received the Nobel Prize for physics in 2011, but the existence of dark energy remains a topic of hot debate.

Many other techniques have been used to confirm the reality of dark energy, but they are either indirect probes of the accelerating universe or susceptible to their own uncertainties. Clear evidence for dark energy comes from the Integrated Sachs Wolfe effect named after Rainer Sachs and Arthur Wolfe.

The cosmic microwave background, the radiation of the residual heat of the Big Bang, is seen all over the sky. In 1967, Sachs and Wolfe proposed that light from this radiation would become slightly bluer as it passed through the gravitational fields of lumps of matter, an effect known as gravitational redshift.

In 1996, Robert Crittenden and Neil Turok, now at the Perimeter Institute in Canada, took this idea to the next level, suggesting that astronomers could look for these small changes in the energy of the light, or photons, by comparing the temperature of the radiation with maps of galaxies in the local universe.

In the absence of dark energy, or a large curvature in the universe, there would be no correspondence between these two maps — the distant cosmic microwave background and relatively closer distribution of galaxies — but the existence of dark energy would lead to the strange, counterintuitive effect where the cosmic microwave background photons would gain energy as they traveled through large lumps of mass.

Scientists first detected the Integrated Sachs Wolfe effect in 2003 and saw it immediately as corroborative evidence for dark energy. But the signal is weak as the expected correlation between maps is small, so some scientists suggested it was caused by other sources such as the dust in our galaxy. Since the first Integrated Sachs Wolfe papers, several astronomers have questioned the original detections of the effect and thus called some of the strongest evidence yet for dark energy into question.

The team has re-examined all the arguments against the Integrated Sachs Wolfe detection as well as improving the maps used in the original work. In their painstaking analysis, they conclude that there is a 99.996 percent chance that dark energy is responsible for the hotter parts of the cosmic microwave background maps (or the same level of significance as the recent discovery of the Higgs boson).

“This work also tells us about possible modifications to Einstein’s theory of general relativity,” said Giannantonio. “The next generation of cosmic microwave background and galaxy surveys should provide the definitive measurement, either confirming general relativity, including dark energy, or even more intriguingly, demanding a completely new understanding of how gravity works.”

Find us on FacebookFind us on Twitter
User Comments
Be the first to leave your comment below!

Only registered members of Astronomy.com are allowed to comment on this article. Registration is FREE and only takes a couple minutes.

Register Today!
 
5 stars
MAX LAROUX from AUSTRALIA (NSW) said:
Larry Robinson, re your comment of the age of the Universe, what you may be forgetting is that what we 'see' now, is what happened at a moment in time 14 billion years ago. Since then the Universe has still been expanding at a 'whatever rate'. The figure of 46 billion years relates to what the scientific world estimates the distance the images seen 'now' have travelled further into the unknown in the 14 billion years it has taken for the light to reach us . All very complicated to say the least, I just wish we could know for certain.
Re Bill Simpsons comment about an 'edge' to the Universe, this is another perplexing question indeed and is maybe tied up with the above statement. Will we ever know in our lifetime, if there were another Universe before the Big Bang, if so, did 'it' somehow shrink and implode upon itself to the supposed 'singularity' the Big Bang our Universe originated from? or is our Universe limitless and therefore timeless, therefore 'time' obviously started at the Big Bang. Which brings me to the question, what did the 'singularity consist of?
4 stars
RICHARD MCCONNELL from UNITED KINGDOM said:
Considering the total mystery surrounding Dark Energy, and almost equally in the case of Dark Matter, how is is possible to state that DE constitutes 73 percent, and that DM constitutes 24 percent of the content of the Universe, when neither has been observed directly. How is is possible to be so precise about this?
This is something that puzzles me every time I see these oft-repeated figures.
4 stars
JACK BARTH from CALIFORNIA said:
I am "echoing" the question posed by Larry Robertson. This cosmic
background radiation seems to be coming from outside the universe
as we think we might know it. I'd love to hear this claim explained
so I may set my mind at rest.
2 stars
KELLY FRAVEL from COLORADO said:
'Gee..
We are 100% positive that we DON'T... know what "Dark Energy/Matter" is... but we know... we have to find a reason for why our expansion data/equations were W R O N G... for several generations... so we need some place holder... names... and we are 99.996 sure!!! that we are right that something... ... is there.'

G O D... . You know what?

Apart from the ridiculous statistically trumped up... number of "99.996" which no doubt one would find is:

1. Based on 62.668964 percent assumptions... and the rest mathematical magic speak...
and...
2. will get someone tenured...

This whole story smells.

How about scientists ... and I am sure they exist... many of them... who are cogently saying that 'Dark Energy/Matter' is not what we think it is?

A lot of people are getting post-doc employment... is all "science"... is actually sure of.

Today... science can talk itself and more importantly humanity... into any convenient political myth. After all the... BANK... (the only one) ultimately writes the checks and makes way... a clear the path... .

Pardon my chocking skepticism, but after the... 'Warming of Global Derivatives'... that needed some dark matter... world taxation backing... "Science Inc." ... deserves our anger; and to the level Astronomy mag. has carried water for AGW, it does also.

Particles "wink" in and out of "existence."
Particles are "entangled" and exchange... ... information... at I beleive 100s of multiples of Light Speed.

Yes there is more out there... a LOT more... including the role of consciousness.. "in-forming," the Universe's.
4 stars
CHRIS R BAKER from CALIFORNIA said:
hey Bill, it's all relative... ;-) I had the same question as Larry. Best I can figure is we see it as it was, plus distortions, 13.7 billion years ago but it is now 46 billion light years away. If there is dark energy pushing everything apart and it's dependent on, or produced by, the space between everything and it increases as the space increases as it would if the space generates it somehow, then the farthest things will appear to be receding at the speed of light minus some miniscule fraction and their speed relative to us will never exceed the speed of light. Remember, looking in the opposite direction we see things speeding away from us at that same relative speed. The way I understand it is that for us their relative speed would be almost twice the speed of light but for an observer on either point, opposite each other from us, the other's relative speed would still only be an even tinier fraction less than the speed of light. It would still require infinite energy to push something massive to the actual speed of light and it would theoretically attain infinite mass by doing so. Unless I completely misunderstand the theory. On the other hand, if space is being created between them there is only a theoretical speed, not an actual speed and they can exceed the speed of light relative to each other, at which time they become irrelevant and completely beyond observation from each other. Actually I think someone has overlooked something and it's all completely wrong.
RALPH D KUENZ from MICHIGAN said:
In answer to Larry R. - The distant parts of the universe have been expanding at extreme velocities for 17 billion years. Our Galaxy, has also been in motion during this expansion. Add the distance traveled away from us during this time, and our added distance away from the distant galaxy during the 17 billion years, and 47 billion light years becomes a reasonable current distance for a receeding galxy that sent it's light toward us 14 billion years ago.
4 stars
SAM NAUMAN from TEXAS said:
This is a good point. I wish someone can explain it to me too.
MILES PAUL said:
Larry, You have to distinguish between "light travel time" distance and actual distance. Since the Universe is expanding, the actual distance is much greater (for very distant objects) than the distance we get from red shifts (light travel time). Light travel time gives us the distance of the object when the light was emitted. For example, the quasar 1435+638 was 10.4 Gly distant, well within the visible Universe, when its light we see was emitted, but its actual distance now is 17.4 Gly.
5 stars
GERARDO W FISCHER from ARGENTINA said:
By the way, the argument of Larry Robinson sr deserves a reply. But to the grain: Is the acceleration separating galaxies stronger in our vecinity and less in distances of 13 thousand million light-years o in other words the past? And, is the presence and density of black energy isotropic or can spots be found?
SCOTT CHURCH from HAWAII said:
Explanations for dark energy, the beginnings of our universe, etc., may be intertwined with other dimensions that we simply can never penetrate or peer into, and consequently, may never be able to investigate in detail, and hence fully understand. We 'hit a wall', left only with inference, but unable to piece the truth all together, a great tragedy but a possible result, too. I have hope this is not so, but fear it is.
12
SEARCH SITE
Subscriber Only Access
Subscriber Only Content
Look for this icon. This denotes premium subscriber content. Learn more »
Become a Member of Astronomy.com
Register today for access to more valuable resource information.
Interact in our forums, comment on articles, receive our newsletter and much more!
Not a member?
Subscriber and Member Login
Password
Remember me