Talk:Dark energy
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The total amount of dark energy increases as space expands. Doesn't that violate conservation of energy?
Conservation of energy is not well-defined in curved spacetime, since the stress-energy tensor does not transform cleanly under change of coordinates.[FAQ 1] References
The section 'Evidence of existence' lists as one of the bullet points the 'theoretical need' for another type of energy given a flat universe. Basically its saying that without Dark energy our math doesn't work. That may be true but since when is that evidence of existence? It is a clue at most. 2A02:A44A:1378:1:F590:F6F0:A753:FA0 (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Stijn de Witt |
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Dark Energy..
[edit](+) DARK MATTER AND ATOMS
(-)DARK ENERGY
ATOMS:- FINISHED GOODS
DARK MATTER :- SUPPORTING MATERIAL
DARK ENERGY:- WASTE
CALCULATION :- 72%-23%+5%= 44% (DARK ENERGY). THE HUGE AMOUNT OF DARK ENERGY(72%) IS ATTRACTING THE SMALL AMOUNT OF DARK MATTER(23%) AND ATOMS(5%). . — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajnishGuunwal (talk • contribs) 12:44, 12 December 2012
Introduction
[edit]A more updated review on dark energy should be cited in the introduction. I suggest the book [1]
- ^ Amendola, Luca; Tsujikawa, Shinji (2010). Dark Energy. Theory and Observations. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521516006.
It could also serve as citation for several of the "citation needed", e.g. the possible failure of general relativity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.246.99.116 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Observational skepticism section
[edit]IMO this should be its own section instead of a subsection of Theories of Dark Energy. Most articles of scientific theory for theories not already well-established have their contravened sections more conspicuous. It could probably use more content too but we've at least touched on the first of the Sarkar papers. We should probably expand the section with the V3 of their latest paper, "Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration" - https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04597
Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?
[edit]Seems recent studies suggest that Dark Energy thinking is seriously "Flawed"[1] - or that Dark Energy doesn't even exist at all[2][3] - if interested, my related pubished NYT comments may be relevant[4] - in any case - Worth adding to the main "Dark Energy" article - or Not? - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think dark energy will go the way of “the aether.” Far more believable is that expansion is due to the merger of universes. 174.205.98.225 (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
NOTE: A related discussion has been centralized on "physics Wikiproject", and can be found at the following link => "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive April 2024#Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Overbye, Dennis (4 April 2024). "A Tantalizing 'Hint' That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong - Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the fate of the universe". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 4 April 2024. Retrieved 5 April 2024.
- ^ McRae, Mike (18 March 2024). "Physicist Claims Universe Has No Dark Matter And Is 27 Billion Years Old". ScienceAlert. Archived from the original on 18 March 2024. Retrieved 5 April 2024.
- ^ Gupta, Rajendia P. (15 March 2024). "Testing CCC+TL Cosmology with Observed Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Features". The Astrophysical Journal. 964 (55): 55. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bc6.
- ^ Bogdan, Dennis (4 April 2024). "Comment - A Tantalizing 'Hint' That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong - Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the fate of the universe". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 8 April 2024. Retrieved 8 April 2024.
Drbogdan (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- A new study lends credence to this idea. See here: [1] 104.171.53.110 (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Studies presenting alternative models
[edit]We shouldn't be adding in competing theories right as they're published. Dark Enrgy as a thing is well established in cosmology and any countering papers are going to need to cross WP:ECREE thresholds. Certainly they may, but that's why WP:TOOSOON is a situation in this case. There are plenty of studies every year that come out proposing alternative models, there's no reason to include all of them as they arise when that's both against the consensus and the academic community hasn't even had time to weigh in yet. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Physical sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- B-Class physics articles
- High-importance physics articles
- B-Class physics articles of High-importance
- B-Class Astronomy articles
- Top-importance Astronomy articles
- B-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
- B-Class Cosmology articles
- B-Class energy articles
- Mid-importance energy articles