NASA to Reveal Information About Dark Energy This Thursday

NASA will hold a media teleconference at 2 p.m. EDT on Thursday, Nov. 1, to discuss new measurements using gamma rays to investigate ancient starlight with the agency's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. Read more here: www.sacbee.com...=cpy

Jennifer Siegal-Gaskins from California Institute of Technology is an Affiliated Scientist in the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope collaboration. Her research focuses on revealing the properties of dark matter using observational probes such as gamma rays and other high-energy particles. She has stated that this NASA "revelation" on Thursday will be exciting in that we have discovered some very important details (finally) about the 70% of Dark Matter that exists in our universe by looking at our own Milky Way Galaxy. Considering we are still in our infancy regarding the understanding of Dark Matter & Energy, I for one look forward to hearing what NASA has to say.

This is great. Dark matter/energy are two of the big astronomical mysteries. I look forward to the news.

The only thing they will say is that it's "dark".

Screw NASA.

I am hoping for something monumental to be revealed.
I have a feeling it will be nothing more than a "new evidence suggests that yes, dark energy does exist, but we still don't understand why" But I guess we need to accept the baby steps it takes to finding the truth about the Universe.

I hope its something interesting and full of facts instead of stupid theories they pawn off as scientific facts.

I think I've written and studied more about the dark or hidden energies of this universe than any other scientist of this century.

I don't see anything about dark matter or energy in the article (which, by the way, are two different things, even though the title says one and the quote the other).

But considering it's a result from Fermi the results announced would almost certainly be the best fit to parameters in the Lambda-CDM model. This includes parameters corresponding to the abundances of dark matter and the dark energy density.

Seeing as how its NASA, it probably won't be anything insanely important.

More sensationalizing maybe?

blog.brainiyak.com...

It's like trying to walk up an escalator at the same speed as it moves down, i would like to see an alternate theory talked about in mainstream science for a change (many know what theory i speak of) instead of it being called psuedoscience all the time.

If they think that dribbling out a lil bit of knowledge that was never their possession anyway?
I make a prediction.
They are sitting #ting themselves because they have just noticed the signs and the times and while many men have being playing the role of God at everybodys expense they failed to see the day.
Knowledge should never be at a price. The sharing of knowledge is whats will sort out what we have created.
The only thing stopping us are those who are not allowing things to happen. Relief efforts? Why have Armies used to destroy when they can be used to help in relief and rebuilding efforts.
The countless trillions spent on war to profit from war with the only important thing you risk losing is your life? How many leaders look like they have lost any sleep over the lives lost?

Its all changing dont be fooled into thinking its for the worst. Its changing in the sense that everything is gonna be put to how it should be
Another thing, We all share the same planet yet they label those whom the rich nations wont help as 3rd world countries? eventhough we are of the same, third world,..........

Originally posted by cruddas
It's like trying to walk up an escalator at the same speed as it moves down, i would like to see an alternate theory talked about in mainstream science for a change (many know what theory i speak of) instead of it being called psuedoscience all the time.

If there was one that fit our current known data as well or better, then they would.

reply to post by jazz10


Err, what does the actions of nations and their armies have to do with what a scientist does, or more specifically, how does this pertain to the topic of the information due to be presented?

Originally posted by cruddas
It's like trying to walk up an escalator at the same speed as it moves down, i would like to see an alternate theory talked about in mainstream science for a change (many know what theory i speak of) instead of it being called psuedoscience all the time.

You misunderstand how science works: theories are models constructed from the data. Theories explain the data. The data determines the theory. If the theory doesn't fit the data, it is either tweaked or the model is replaced with something better.

Hypothesis are "works in progress" if you like, of which there are many and more kicking about. They haven't been road tested yet and are largely speculative (but again, drawn from the data) as usually they require more data to come in in order to be validated. Many people work hard to get the new data to test hypothesis and to give people a better picture to adjust the models to (or simply to validate predictions made by existing theories and hypotheses, an important part of science).

The data reflects objective reality (as that is of course where it is sampled from) and the data does not give one fig about anyone's ideas, speculations, beliefs, pet theories, wants or desires. Science thus has to draw information impassionately from the data and will systematically shoot down any theories or hypotheses that do not fit the data. This is the essence of science and what differentiates it from pseudo-science. Pseudo-science starts with the answer and ignores the data that contradicts it. So you are wrong to imply that "mainstream science" ignores alternative ideas. In order to finish your training as a scientist you have to have new ideas. Science is all about new ideas as the entire research and publication process is built entirely on contributing novel ideas.

The problem is that in order to usurp a popular theory in science it has to be shown to be incomplete or unable to accommodate new data that has been obtained and is unexplainable by the theory. The new idea must explain this new data and existing data in a logically consistent manner as well as be both testable (falsifiable) and make useful predictions as well as being given the once over by scientific peers of pertinent professional training to ensure the idea is both logical sound and doesn't rely on data that is either fabricated or unreproducible by independent laboratories. These are the cornerstones of scientific method and are sorely lacking by pseudo-science.

The reason why most of the "theories" touted by self-proclaimed experts on this website to be the be-all and end-all of science (as well as the obligatory "all science is a lie/conspiracy/made up/wrong") are not accepted by "mainstream" science is because:

1) These "theories" are unfalsifiable as the proponents often are completely shut off to any information or data that contradicts their "theory" or simply because no practical way of testing and falsifiying the "theory" is ever presented.

2) They are unsupported or directly refuted by existing data (i.e. they are not a true reflection of reality). This kills them dead in the water. There is no coming back from here. To paraphrase the late Richard Feynman, "It could be the most beautiful, elegant, intuitive explanation of them all, but if it doesn't fit the data... it's wrong".

3) Not only are they untestable but make no useful predictions (other than "well it must be right because mainstream science is wrong!"). Sure, they might explain the existing data but so does the existing theory. What predictions does it make that can be tested to validate that this new idea is in fact a more accurate reflection of reality?

4) They are not logically consistent (for any of the reasons above and more).

Science doesn't care what the theory is, so long as it is useful in explaining the known data. They are models, not reality itself hence why they often involve unintuitive and abstract concepts. Spacetime could very well not be curved, it could be a giant disco ball for all that it matters so long as the curved model explains all the known data. Likewise, a theory of gravity could involve magic unicorns for all science could care, so long as that model explains the known data and makes useful predictions. Could gravity really be caused by tiny unicorns? It doesn't matter, it is a model, not reality itself. So long as it is the the explanation that makes the least assumption that is logically consistent and useful for explaining and interpreting reality then it will be accepted.

This is what the proponents of pseudo-science don't grasp. They don't understand that science doesn't cling to models or have prejudice against certain explanations. Science doesn't care, science just wants answers. To paraphrase Bob Geldolf, it says "Just give us you effing explanation!". The reason why pseudo-scientific explanations don't get accepted is not because they're too "far out", it's not because science is threatened by new ideas (on the contrary, in fact), it's not because of a cover up or conspiracy, it's simply because the pseudo-scienific ideas are unscientific and wrong. It's no more complicated than that.

Thanks for the info OP.
Iam only at a basic lvel of understanding the importance of the dark matter theory.
If I understand it approx correctly the universe is expanding at an increasing rate as time goes by.
This shouldn't happen so they say there is this thing called dark matter that must account for the result of the big bang not slowing down?
Anyway thanks for the tip.

I'll be listening at 2:00 pm to find out what it's about, if I can.

One thing I know is that I could use a cup of "dark energy" right about now.

reply to post by davcwebb


It doesn't make you look smart to the people who matter when you paraphrase someones Description off of their website only changing a few words here and there. Come on, source it or its plagiarism.

As for the announcement. If it has to do with fermi and high energy gamma rays plus Dark Energy, then Im thinking they found evidence for Dark energy stars!
en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe not. Ha. But it is intriguing.

What a bust.
www.nasa.gov...

Nothing that I was expecting.

could someone explain to me the difference between the higgs field and dark matter? apparentlyt he h.f. gives us our mass yet so does dark matter? or does the higgs give dark matter it's mass yet is something different from it? Is dark matter less important now that they need to find the missing ENERGY and not he missing MASS due tothe acceleration of the expansion of the universe?
I was under the impression that dark matter was predicted and not actually able to be observed unless it's the h.f. i could and probably am wrong in that assumption.

reply to post by fooderatah


Ok. Three Different things mentioned.

Dark Energy.
Dark Matter.
Higgs Field.

Dark Energy is just a term used for our observed accelerated expansion. Scientists still hold to conservation of energy laws pretty religiously, so if the universe is expanding away from us in all directions, AND its not slowing down, its accelerating.....Were is the energy coming from? This is dark energy, we dont understand it yet. Dont get it twisted as they would say.

Dark matter is similiar but we know a little more about it. I wont go into what the more recent astrophysical experiments are ruling out, but they have a few canidates for Dark Matter. Dark matter is just the stuff we think should be there because of our gravity models, but we can't see it cause it doesn't interact with light or other matter(atleast we think not usually). One example is galaxy clusters. Big groups of galaxys orbit around each other, with our models they should do something else. The only way we can explain the motion is with a bunch of missing stuff. Same goes for galaxy rotations, etc. Now, one of the candidates called MOND(modified newtonian dynamics) is a group of theories that just alter our physics and dont need dark matter. They loose more support every day. Theres alot of other evidence. Tons of info online, just google dark matter haha.

So dark matter and dark energy are two totally different and we think unrelated terms for concepts we don't understand.

The higgs field.....
This is closer to my area of expertize. But also much harder to explain in laymens terms, atleast without invoking more confusion.
I am glad to see someone concerned with the field, and not the god particle. The higgs field is the important concept. But its also harder to describe.
If you understand how we think light propagates as an electromagnetic wave, then what waves? thats like having a water wave with no water. Its a field thats the water. Photons, the 'Boson' for electromagnetic field are the wave-particle dualtiy partner of EM waves. Same with the higgs boson, they are tiny packets or quanta of the higgs field. In theory this creats a kind of Quantum mechanical drag creating mass.

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by fooderatah

 

Ok. Three Different things mentioned.

Dark Energy.
Dark Matter.
Higgs Field.

Dark Energy is just a term used for our observed accelerated expansion. Scientists still hold to conservation of energy laws pretty religiously, so if the universe is expanding away from us in all directions, AND its not slowing down, its accelerating.....Were is the energy coming from? This is dark energy, we dont understand it yet. Dont get it twisted as they would say.

ok so it's just a term for a phenomena and not an object.

Dark matter is similiar but we know a little more about it. I wont go into what the more recent astrophysical experiments are ruling out, but they have a few canidates for Dark Matter. Dark matter is just the stuff we think should be there because of our gravity models, but we can't see it cause it doesn't interact with light or other matter(atleast we think not usually). One example is galaxy clusters. Big groups of galaxys orbit around each other, with our models they should do something else. The only way we can explain the motion is with a bunch of missing stuff. Same goes for galaxy rotations, etc. Now, one of the candidates called MOND(modified newtonian dynamics) is a group of theories that just alter our physics and dont need dark matter. They loose more support every day. Theres alot of other evidence. Tons of info online, just google dark matter haha.

Ok, so it' snot some all encompassing thing or else newtonian physics wouldn't work the way it does in our locale. I wonder if there's pockets out there interacting with matter via gravity that maybe can be seen through some kind of weird doppler efffect. maybe a pocket of it will roll int othe solar system causing some sort of observable abberating and u can be like bazinga! I don't really see how it could be any other way than d.m. being now everywhere but just here and there as they say.
Now what i'm wondering is if dark matter is some sort of antigravity. The antiparticle to gravity's particle, or wave or whatever, yet it doesn't cease to exist as it should. Forgive my simple speculation it's hard to put this into words!

So dark matter and dark energy are two totally different and we think unrelated terms for concepts we don't understand.

The higgs field.....
This is closer to my area of expertize. But also much harder to explain in laymens terms, atleast without invoking more confusion.
I am glad to see someone concerned with the field, and not the god particle. The higgs field is the important concept. But its also harder to describe.
If you understand how we think light propagates as an electromagnetic wave, then what waves? thats like having a water wave with no water. Its a field thats the water. Photons, the 'Boson' for electromagnetic field are the wave-particle dualtiy partner of EM waves. Same with the higgs boson, they are tiny packets or quanta of the higgs field. In theory this creats a kind of Quantum mechanical drag creating mass.

Ya i kind of see it like the hb research is just the logical way to try and observe the hf. If the higgs field exists it must be made out of something right? maybe there's a billion differen types of higgs boson and u got ur work cut out for u lol.
at the moment, i'm wondering if the aberrations detected in your example of galaxies interacting are constant? are they consistantly "less" or "more" than u would predict? seems to me if it that was the case we'd be predicting those interactions, and since it's not it kinda makes me think we're far away from a unified theory.
Now u mention the higgs field(mass) as being an affect with no source, like waves without water, and also that dark energy give the universe an accelerated expansion that can't be accounted for. This reminds me a lot of how matter diffuses in liquid. Maybe our universe is a solid dropped into the liquid-like state of all possible information! egads! Lol i'm just having fun here. it's all very exciting.

Anyways thanks much for your reply, and thanks to the op for this excellent food for thought!

Originally posted by davcwebb[/iI for one look forward to hearing what NASA has to say.

I concur.

I for one, welcome our dark matter shadow-self multidimensional doppelganger invaders.