Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 5:53 PM Jesse Mazer wrote: *> "The article > at > https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/ > > says: 'One alternative theory proposes that

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

The article at https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/ says: 'One alternative theory proposes that the universe may be filled with a fluctuating form of dark energy dubbed “quintessence.” There are also several other alternative models that assume the

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:00 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > "*The next question will be what causes DE to change?"* That is a very good question but nobody has a very good answer, but at least now we know that's the correct question to ask. Assuming of course this result holds up and dark energy

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

"If the work of dark energy were constant over time, it would eventually push all the stars and galaxies so far apart that even atoms would be torn asunder,..." That's not true.  The estimated strength of dark energy, w=-1, implied that galaxy clusters and any smaller groups would still be

NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription. 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