Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Is Time Travel (going backwards) Possible?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="freyar" data-source="post: 6040461" data-attributes="member: 40227"><p>This is actually one of the things I've done some (research) work on. It's not entirely true that experts can't "unify description and explanation" on dark energy. It's I think more that there are some different possible explanations. Let me explain the situation, and then you can decide if I'm splitting hairs. </p><p></p><p>Within the context of general relativity, expanding space does not necessarily require work or reduce the total amount of energy. For example, normal matter scattered through space causes space to expand (in a way that slows down as the expansion of space spreads the matter out). In this case, if you were to define a region bounded by some set of galaxies, you'd find that the total energy in that region stays the same over time but gets less dense because that region has more volume.</p><p></p><p>What we see in our universe is that it is expanding and that expansion is actually speeding up. What that requires is that our universe be filled with something that does not dilute as fast as normal matter. The simplest possibility is that it is a constant energy density. What this means is that, as space expands, each cubic centimeter always has the same energy in it, so the "total energy" always increases! (I put that in quotes, though, because the "total energy" of a possibly infinite universe doesn't make a ton of sense in this context.) In any case, that's the usual cosmological constant that Einstein first thought about. But it's also possible that you have something like a cosmological constant that decreases slowly with time. There are lots of models you can make that will do that. I'd say that some make decent physical sense and a few just seem to be made up.</p><p></p><p>The other logical alternative is that Einstein's gravity is incorrect, so there is another theory of gravity. In this case, the universe likes to expand faster and faster even with normal matter (or maybe even nothing) in it.</p><p></p><p>I guess to be fair is that there's one other possibility, too. That possibility is that what we think we see in the measurements isn't correct and that the universe is actually slowing down. So you have to give an argument about how that might happen.</p><p></p><p>So it's not like there aren't explanations beyond description. The problem is more like having too many, and we will need more data to distinguish among them, so right now people just call the right one "dark energy." I think the "mystery" of dark energy gets played up a bit much to the public because people are quite passionate about this. A lot of it goes back to the cosmological constant. From a particle physics point of view, it must have a very tiny value (if it is the dark energy, it is 10^-123 times the naive particle physics value). For a very long time, people believed it must be zero and that the universe's expansion was slowing down. Now that we think the expansion is speeding up, a lot of people still want the cosmological constant to be zero.</p><p></p><p>So there are plenty of explanations. Of course, next we want to ask why does our favorite explanation come out the way it does. For example, if you like the cosmological constant, why does it have such a small but nonzero value? That's a bit trickier, worth a whole lot more than one post, and frankly controversial in a number of ways.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="freyar, post: 6040461, member: 40227"] This is actually one of the things I've done some (research) work on. It's not entirely true that experts can't "unify description and explanation" on dark energy. It's I think more that there are some different possible explanations. Let me explain the situation, and then you can decide if I'm splitting hairs. Within the context of general relativity, expanding space does not necessarily require work or reduce the total amount of energy. For example, normal matter scattered through space causes space to expand (in a way that slows down as the expansion of space spreads the matter out). In this case, if you were to define a region bounded by some set of galaxies, you'd find that the total energy in that region stays the same over time but gets less dense because that region has more volume. What we see in our universe is that it is expanding and that expansion is actually speeding up. What that requires is that our universe be filled with something that does not dilute as fast as normal matter. The simplest possibility is that it is a constant energy density. What this means is that, as space expands, each cubic centimeter always has the same energy in it, so the "total energy" always increases! (I put that in quotes, though, because the "total energy" of a possibly infinite universe doesn't make a ton of sense in this context.) In any case, that's the usual cosmological constant that Einstein first thought about. But it's also possible that you have something like a cosmological constant that decreases slowly with time. There are lots of models you can make that will do that. I'd say that some make decent physical sense and a few just seem to be made up. The other logical alternative is that Einstein's gravity is incorrect, so there is another theory of gravity. In this case, the universe likes to expand faster and faster even with normal matter (or maybe even nothing) in it. I guess to be fair is that there's one other possibility, too. That possibility is that what we think we see in the measurements isn't correct and that the universe is actually slowing down. So you have to give an argument about how that might happen. So it's not like there aren't explanations beyond description. The problem is more like having too many, and we will need more data to distinguish among them, so right now people just call the right one "dark energy." I think the "mystery" of dark energy gets played up a bit much to the public because people are quite passionate about this. A lot of it goes back to the cosmological constant. From a particle physics point of view, it must have a very tiny value (if it is the dark energy, it is 10^-123 times the naive particle physics value). For a very long time, people believed it must be zero and that the universe's expansion was slowing down. Now that we think the expansion is speeding up, a lot of people still want the cosmological constant to be zero. So there are plenty of explanations. Of course, next we want to ask why does our favorite explanation come out the way it does. For example, if you like the cosmological constant, why does it have such a small but nonzero value? That's a bit trickier, worth a whole lot more than one post, and frankly controversial in a number of ways. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Is Time Travel (going backwards) Possible?
Top