The New Fireball on Jupiter --"So Large and Bright that Amateur Astronomers on Earth Spotted the Flash"
Spectacular Cloud of a Doomed Planet Found Plunging Toward Milky Way's Supermassive Black Hole

"Dark Energy is Real: There's Now Clear Evidence" -- International Team of Astronomers




"Dark energy is one of the great scientific mysteries of our time, so it isn't surprising that so many researchers question its existence. But now, according to a team of astronomers at the University of Portsmouth and LMU University Munich, led by Tommaso Giannantonio and Robert Crittenden, the scientists the likelihood of the existence of dark matter stands at 99.996 per cent.

"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," said Bob Nichol, a member of the Portsmouth team.

Over a decade ago, astronomers observing the brightness of distant supernovae realised 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 per cent 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, counter-intuitive effect where the cosmic microwave background photons would gain energy as they travelled through large lumps of mass.

The Integrated Sachs Wolfe effect was first detected in 2003 and was immediately seen as corroborative evidence for dark energy, featuring in the 'Discovery of the year' in Science magazine. But the signal is weak as the expected correlation between maps is small and 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. In the new paper, the product of nearly two years of work, the team have 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 per cent 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", notes Tommaso Giannantonio, lead author of the present study. "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."

For more information: The new work appears in "The significance of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect revisited", T. Ginnantonio, R. Crittenden, R. Nichol, A. Ross, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in press. A preprint of the paper is available from Journal reference: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Berkeley Lab scientists are the leaders of BOSS, the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey. They and their colleagues in the third Sloan Digital Sky Survey have developed the most precise measurements ever made of the era when dark energy turned on.

In the image at the top of the page, BOSS measures the three-dimensional clustering of galaxies at various redshifts, revealing their precise distance, the age of the universe at that redshift, and how fast the universe has expanded. The measurement uses a "standard ruler" based on the regular variations of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), which reveal variations in the density of matter in the early universe that gave rise to the later clustering of galaxies and large-scale structure of the universe today. (Credit: Eric Huff, the SDSS-III team, and the South Pole Telescope team. Graphic by Zosia Rostomian)

The image belwo is 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 colour-coded to show denser clumps of galaxies as red and under-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 have detected (at 99.996% significance) very small correlations between these foreground maps (on the left) and the cosmic microwave background (on the right).




The Daily Galaxy via the Royal Astronomical Society

Image credits: Earth: NASA/BlueEarth; Milky Way: ESO/S. Brunier; CMB: NASA/WMAP. 


"Dark energy" is real - 73% of all matter and energy in the cosmos per WMAP. It is the repulsive force behind the continuing and accelerating expansion of the universe. What is this force? Dark energy is a force external to the physical universe which acts upon it, such that the total pie of all matter and energy is steadily increasing. In other words, each instant of time, the universe is becoming "heavier."

'If', 'maybe' and 'likely' :-) This is a blatant display of ignorance. Granted, there are a lot of things we don't know. To pin the lot of them on 'dark whatever' is a busybody trick to allow them yapping and publishing. I publish, therefore I exist :-) It is the background noise of science.

"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," said Bob Nichol, a member of the Portsmouth team.

Waves transform into hydrogen atoms.

That is Wavevolution.

The Universe continues to expand because the waves traveling at the border of the Universe have never encountered, nor will ever encounter, any interference from the Void. These waves will forever expand the Space of the Universe they create and leave behind.

Wave-behavior relates to the medium in which the waves travel.

Thus, wave-behavior at the border of the Universe is different than wave-behavior within the Universe.

Inside the Universe, waves change their frequencies by colliding with other energy during their travel. These waves, because of the encountered interference, continue to transform part of their original energy in other forms. Waves travel gradually releasing heat, or amounts of energy, and their original short wavelengths become longer and longer as they carry less and less energy than they did when they first started to travel. These waves lose energy releasing it in form of other waves with wavelengths longer than their own.

For example, the gamma rays, over time, diminish their energy level (and their frequency) to become X rays, from X rays they will become ultraviolet and so on. The original quantum is not lost but distributed into other forms of energy through "spontaneous symmetry breaking".

Once reached an almost flat longitude (and lower critical energy level) these waves solidify into hydrogen atoms breaking up their energy in opposite elements, like the split ends of a broken hair.

When the hydrogen atoms are reached by the heat of other incoming waves they fuse together to create more complex forms of energy.

this is not gonna make ivar very happy

Yet again assumptions based upon assumptions... They should examine core assumptions and raw data before writing science fiction papers.

Could the combined electromagnetic spectrum and atomic forces contribute to a push? Omni present in space, and dispersed as a remnant of all historical forces since the beginning of time.
It seams like the simplest solution.
To be used for post- and pre-dictions.


This article contains all the usual amount of modern cosmological assumptions.

Quote 1: "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," said Bob Nichol, a member of the Portsmouth team”.

AD: Consistence of something means that one can analyze the properties and the interactive formations – therefore they really have no idea at all what they are talking about.

Quote 2: “But now, according to a team of astronomers at the University of Portsmouth and LMU University Munich, led by Tommaso Giannantonio and Robert Crittenden, the scientists the likelihood of the existence of dark matter stands at 99.996 per cent”.

AD: It is more likely that the modern “gravity-cosmologists” are 99.996 per cent unaware what really is going on in the Universe.

- Linear thinking cannot grasp the swirling and rotational formation that goes in eternal dynamic circuits in the Universe.


hmmm... there are some pretty stiff comments relating to assumptions and ideas here. i wonder if the internet was around during the days of every other science pioneer the same you're-a-mad-scientist-with-unusual-assumptions allegations would have been posted... no wait, i think they just wrote down their comments and sent them in the post and were burnt upon reading.
just relax people... and enjoy the skyshow. the people who are studying this stuff likely know more than you do on the subject.
i say.... GO SCIENCE!

If space was already there before the big bang, which is very likely, it would invalidate entirely their proof. It is based on many unproven assumptions.

Thank you Murray... It is obvious that the people commenting have no understanding of the laws governing the universe (or at least our best model thus far). Had the internet been around when Einstein changed Newtonian Physics, the same type of clueless people would be commenting saying its based on assumptions. Most new science starts when something strange is noticed (expansion of the universe). Then believe it or not an assumption is made or more accurately a hypothesis. This hypothesis if good makes predictions (Sachs-Wolfe effects). Then scientist test for this prediction and if it fits, they consider it evidence that they are on the right path. Lets be clear physics is still very fragmented but still the current theories and laws make extremely accurate and helpful predictions. If you want to critique the work of scientist, should you not read their work first? How many of you read the actual paper written? Probably none of you as the only issues with the work you have are the out of context dumbed down quotes and still confuses most readers on this site. Also Ivar, Einstein called his view of a steady state universe, more specifically the cosmological constant, his biggest blunder. But you can continue to believe in an always existing universe if the truth gives you nightmares...

A universe born from a singularity is a hypothesis, a very weak one. Lee Smolin, among many others, have theorized cyclic big bangs with no singularities. Is it possible that these cyclic big bangs leak photons? So space may have been there before our big bang. And yes, i read the article and i understand the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. You should open your mind and look closer to the cosmological problems and stop invoking Einstein's GR, because the theory invoked here is not from Einstein. It has been stretched by many people since its foundation with many unproven hypothesis!

If you read Einstein, you will find that he said that GR is not a completed theory.

Science really damages its credibility when they make statements like this. If it's not 100%, you haven't proven ANYTHING. Assumption, based on assumption, to plug holes in inconsistent theory.

-- James Ph. Kotsybar

If you travel at near the speed of light,
the Universe before you seems to shrink,
but as you slow down, then what you see might
appear to expand, so that’s what you’d think.

And if this actually is the case –
that what we see is truly expanding –
as we view its rate from sluggish Earth base,
it appears much faster notwithstanding.

We judge this to be acceleration,
as relative to our much-decreased speed
as well as our Earth’s own gravitation.
Such equivalency one must concede.

The farther we focus into the rift,
the more the light seems to stretch and red shift.

Sun is one bloodcell only if compare the known part of unknown to human body.The universe has no beginning no endas has been proved time nd again by Hindu saints since million years.we r still not even near to the tip of the iceberg what Hindu science books(vedas) contain.Be pretty sure to tell only those things abt which we r sure like the Hindu books.These books contain evidences too of each n every theory nd conclude that universe has no beginning no end ...we need to replace the speed of light concept with speed of mind to reach those facts, which Hindus hv established millions of years ago.speed of light is too slow to reach any conclusion in next billion years.speed of mind is the correct measurement to describe anything.To know speed of mind,only meditation is needed.

Let us return to Le Sages theory of gravitation and start again?

In the opening Paragraph:

"Dark energy is one of the great scientific mysteries of our time, so it isn't surprising that so many researchers question its existence. But now, according to a team of astronomers at the University of Portsmouth and LMU University Munich, led by Tommaso Giannantonio and Robert Crittenden, the scientists the likelihood of the existence of dark matter stands at 99.996 per cent."

You seem to identify Dark Energy and Dark Matter as one and the same, they are two separate things which is a very common misconception... Am I missing something here or has nobody commenting picked up on this?

Magnetism is the "dark force" you are looking for. Primer Fields has the greatest theory of all time. check this out:

THis seems to suport the dark energy but not dark matters gravitinal pull

Yes we in India believed it long back. There is Dark energy. It was later proved today by the scientists. Every living being has some fate to live and exist. We should be thankful to god for giving us Life to live.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)