Dark energy is "real"

The "Dark Energy is Real" kerfuffle is continuing with interesting comment over at Universe Today on the issue. As Nerlich points out;

I mean how the heck did ‘dark energy’ ever become shorthand for ‘the universe is expanding with a uniform acceleration’?

I have to agree. It seems that, with the recent Missing Mass Hysteria, there are some issues to do with astronomical press releases, namely that the truth is somewhat stretched to make the story interesting to the media. 

This is, in my opinion, a problem. Some feedback I have received on this is that any press is good press. But I don't think this is necessarily the case. What happens when dark energy is possibly shown not to be real? Or that the missing mass was not discovered by an undergraduate student during a vacation project? 

Perhaps the assumption is that the general public has a short memory, or that telling the complete truth doesn't really matter. Continuing down this road, we can expect this to come back to bite us. We should not forget what happens to "sexed up" stories, and our colleagues in climate science are actively accused as liars in various areas of the press.

My feeling is, therefore, that the astronomers have to pull their heads in a little, and tell it like it is. Perhaps tempering their press releases to more realistically reflect the actual science, rather than pandering to the hyperbolic to get the press interested.

The press, on the other hand, has to realise that science is not all Nobel prize winning results, and that incremental science is still newsworthy. Media that actually reflects the doing of science is not a bad thing (and will potentially reassure those entering science that you don't need to be Nobel prize winner to make a realistic contribution - something we all learn in the end).

Closing with Nerlich, his final comment hits the mark;

Not saying it’s impossible, but no way has anyone confirmed that dark energy is real. Our flat universe is expanding with a uniform acceleration. For now, that is the news story.

Comments

  1. Phillip Helbig23 June 2011 at 20:13

    The name "dark energy" is one of the worst coinages in history. As Sean Carroll pointed out, many things are dark and everything has energy. He suggested that, if a better name than "cosmological constant" is needed (and I see nothing wrong with that name), then "smooth tension" captures the important features of the cosmological constant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cusp9 July 2011 at 13:12

    Oh my goodness! A comment. Sorry, I had thought I was writing this to myself and didn't really realise anyone would actually read it :)

    Yes, I agree that Dark Energy is not a good name. According the Wikipedia, it's Mike Turner's fault.

    (Phillip, as well as overlapping in research interests, namely microlensing, I believe that we have an mutual acquaintance in Elliott Roper)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Falling into a black hole: Just what do you see?

Image
Everyone loves black holes. Immense gravity, a one-way space-time membrane, the possibility of links to other universes. All lovely stuff. A little trawl of the internets reveals an awful lot of web pages discussing black holes, and discussions about spaghettification, firewalls, lost information, and many other things. Actually, a lot of the stuff out there on the web is nonsense, hand-waving, partly informed guesswork. And one of the questions that gets asked is "What would you see looking out into the universe?" Some (incorrectly) say that you would never cross the event horizon, a significant mis-understanding of the coordinates of relativity. Other (incorrectly) conclude from this that you actually see the entire future history of the universe play out in front of your eyes. What we have to remember, of course, is that relativity is a mathematical theory, and instead of hand waving, we can use mathematics to work out what we will see. And that's what I did. ...
Read more

Journey to the Far-Side of the Sun

Image
There was a movie, in the old days, Journey to the Far-Side of the Sun  (also known as Doppleganger) which (spoiler alert) posits that there is a mirror version of the Earth hidden on the other side of the Sun, sharing the orbit with our Earth. The idea is that this planet would always be hidden behind the Sun, and so we would not know it there there. This idea comes up a lot, over and over again. In fact, it came up again last week on twitter. But there's a problem. It assumes the Earth is on a circular orbit. I won't go into the details here, but one of the greatest insights in astronomy was the discovery of Kepler's laws of planetary motion , telling us that planets move on elliptical orbits. With this, there was the realisation that planets can't move at uniform speeds, but travel quickly when closer to the Sun, while slowing down as their orbits carry them to larger distance.  There has been a lot of work examining orbits in the Solar System, and you can  s...
Read more

Moving Charges and Magnetic Fields

Image
Still struggling with grant writing season, so another post which has resulted in my random musings about the Universe (which actually happens quite a lot). In second semester, I am teaching  electricity and magnetism to our First Year Advanced Class . I really enjoy teaching this class as the kids are on the ball and can ask some deep and meaningful questions. But the course is not ideal. Why? Because we teach from a textbook and the problem is that virtually all modern text books are almost the same. Science is trotted out in an almost historical progression. But it does not have to be taught that way. In fact, it would be great if we could start with  Hamiltonian and Lagrangian  approaches, and derive physics from a top down approach. We're told that it's mathematically too challenging, but it really isn't. In fact, I would start with a book like  The Theoretical Minimum , not some multicoloured compendium of physics. We have to work with what we have! ...
Read more