Is Dark Energy Creating Infinite Universes?

Dark energy is the deus ex machina of cosmology, able to save even the most inflation-prone calculations from destruction or - worse - being provably wrong.  But while we've been busy watching the X-energy apparently accelerating all of creation while hiding in plain sight, some believe it's responsible for much more than that.  It didn't just save the universe - no, no, that's far too small scale - it saved INFINITE universes.

Scientists at Princeton and Cambridge say that most of the universe is regularly destroyed.  It's space-time-twisted into black holes, in fact, which is about as utterly destroyed as you can get without pissing off Zeus.  In each destruction cycle only a small seed of habitable space survives, which grows phoenix-like to provide a new universe due to the apparently all-powerful dark matter.

The model is based on M-Theory - an expanded limit of string theory with an extra dimension, making it only slightly less esoteric than studying the symbolism of Chopin's work in a universe where the Nazis won the war.  I'm not saying that M-theory is poorly understood or developed, but they can't even agree on what the 'M' actually stands for.  Seriously.

In this model, the universe is a region on a multidimensional membrane called a "brane", and it's only one of many.  When these branes collide huge regions of our brane get bunched into extremely uninhabitable black holes, with only a small region of space left for us.  Without dark energy to inflate these gaps, a few cycles of this would annihilate everything.

As with all string-theory siblings, it's an extremely interesting idea with less proof than the "Hitler shot JFK" theory, and the reasons for including dark energy sound suspiciously like "because our math doesn't work without it."  Plus, since it deals in six hundred billion year timescales and the End of Almost Everything, it's slightly less measurable than a unicorn horn diameter.

Posted by Luke McKinney.

Dark Energy Phoenix Factor

Comments

[Bill Withers]

I have noticed that the tenor of scepticism is extremely high with Luke McKinney's postings. Has there been a change in the editorial policy of the site. Admittedly, much of the theoretical work on such items as dark matter, dark energy, branes and the like have no substantive evidence behind them but does that excuse the snarking that the items are now generating?

Thank-you

[nepharous]

Hey Luke I like your articles but the snarkiness is becoming a little too much. Humor in the defense of truth is great but obnoxiousness only sully's your intent at info dispersal.

[TNT2073]

I like it. luke makes me laugh. The maths might be nice but as Michio says, "If a theory can provide no measurable facts, no one should believe it".

[Roshi Diameter]

I'm with napharous.

String theory and it's associated brane/omni-versal/multi-meta-dimensionality is no more than pretty math that exists for no other reason but for the sake of it's own convenience.

As far as any actual, practical use... hell, you might as well be reading the bible.

Rock on, Luke.

[TNT2073]

LOL

[Roshi Diameter]

No, wait...

Sorry, napharous. I read the WhoPostedIt incorrectly.

I'm with TNT.

Factionalism can be so confounding.

[mmfiore]

Great! All we need know is the Cat from Alice in Wonderland. A probable non-existant object Dark Energy creating a totally unprovable non-existant amount of infinite Universes. Hey but thats ok as it is just speculation and its interesting to think about.

As an alternative to Quantum Theory there is a new theory that describes and explains the mysteries of physical reality. While not disrespecting the value of Quantum Mechanics as a tool to explain the role of quanta in our universe. This theory states that there is also a classical explanation for the paradoxes such as EPR and the Wave-Particle Duality. The Theory is called the Theory of Super Relativityand is located at: www.SuperRelativity.org
This theory is a philosophical attempt to reconnect the physical universe to realism and deterministic concepts. It explains the mysterious.

[Sharron Field]

I so love the means of expression used in this article: extremely dry witticism, and excellently put. :) If this theory were to go on to postulate that each uinhabitable region associated with black holes separates off and undergoes its own big-bang; forming a sub-universe of our own, then that would seem to make sense on the face of it; although without a supercomputer I'm unable to say whether or not such a postualtion is a viable proposition in the face of previously-computed data-sets.

[Jay]

I think that we're at such an embryonic phase of understanding the universe that dark energy as well as unicorns and M theory are worth believing in. What evidence we do have points to at least one undeniable fact: Things are really weird and we just don't know much about them. Historically, just about every theory we've had about the physical universe has turned out incorrect. So, form the induction. We do "seem" to advance. Snarky or not, there's nothing better to do out here on our rock.

[Narendra Nath]

We are all running amuck with our imaginations about the dark mater and enrgy. We only see some effects that we have decided to explain using bthese two terms. The truth may well be very different. Only fresh thinking can help us unravel the mysteries of the universe we have not been able to decipher yet.

[Amuro Ray]

interesting the string theory of this math-guys, ten dimensions (ten directions) and time (three existences, past, present, future)... I've heard that before in a 3000 years old book.

So universes born, reproduce, sick and die... just life forms, pretty interesting.

[Jeffery]

I think it has to be! I am a firm believer in the multiverse theory. electronic cigarette

[Mitchell]

So, personally I have always felt like the expansion of the universe is from the local gravity well creating a space-time distortion where everything outside of our local gravity seems to be rushing away.

And/or we're on the inside of an event horizon, and the EH and the core of the singularity are rushing away from eachother with us in between.

[CGS]

I was reading the comments and noticed the criticism of McKinney's skepticism. I party agree but, really, the whole direction that physics has taken in regards to the various string theories and now M-Theory seriously seems to be verging on either the brilliant and insightful...or the self-deluding. I think the field is better for people like Ed Whitten but comments like TNT2073's strike an uneasy note in me- because he has a point.

The level of current speculation to explain prior speculation which was possibly based on even earlier speculation should be construed, even to the supporters of that speculation, as an alarming situation in regards to the state of the scientific method within certain circles.

Science is rarely able to divorce itself from the harsh realities of funding and so on. Maybe it's time to pause this speculation for a moment while the influence of THOSE strong forces of the scientific universe are studied in regards to the current situation.

[sun]

@Bill Withers:

Humor can only be used in a positive, affirmative context? Skepticism is to be discouraged? An unproven theory that pretty much stretches the concept of suspension of disbelief to its limits should never be criticized or challenged? An editor (not a reporter, not a research scientist) who posts on a BLOG (not a news organization, not a technical journal) can't express his opinion? Who do you think you are? If you don't like it, then stop reading his posts, no one here owes you anything...

[Howie Felch]

I like to listen to these kinds of ideas, as they are very entertaining, and it is fun to play with the idea of them being accurate in terms of the strings, branes, multiverse, etc. As I am just sort of a science "fanboy" and cannot do the real math of it all, I count on others to dissect and analyze the veracity of the tenets of string theory. In that regard, I enjoyed reading this very short article. I agree with Luke's statement about the theory of dark energy coming about because " our math does not work without it", but I'm hoping over at CERN in geneva, some of this will be sorted out, once the damn aliens stop sabotaging the silly thing. :-)

[Harrrie]

Its very simple. Our universe is surrounded by other universes in different stages of evolution. Matter in all the different universes, including our universe is being pulled together so that eventually the matter will collapse in all these different areas, and there will be big bangs going off all over the place. We don't need universes or branes colliding, the matter from all these different universes are joining. When they collapse and form the singularities, they big bang. I'm not trying to be funny even tho some of you encourage it, but there will be a big bang here and a big bang there, (here a bang, there a bang, everywhere a bang bang). Really, seriously, there are big bangs going on all over the place, right now, way out there, all around us. There is no dark energy, it is gravity, and the matter in our universe is being pulled in all directions by the universes that surround us and vice versus. How can we think any differently?. It is so simple. They say the simple solution is the right solution.

[lucy]

well it's little bit exaggerated,as always,People are scared of things they don't understand. It doesn't make sense to them so they just fear them or hate them depending on the circumstances.This is making them to dream or to make up stories.......

[how to grow taller 4 idiots]

As an alternative to Quantum Theory there is a new theory that describes and explains the mysteries of physical reality. While not disrespecting the value of Quantum Mechanics as a tool to explain the role of quanta in our universe.