Do u have an idea about ‘dark energy’?
113546
Dont listen to miligfgdf... ohh that name has no sence for god sake wat does it mean.\nWell there are to types of dark energy scientifical or religional. I know a bit of it, dark magic is sometimes known as the makings of the deamons or the gods shadow.(note it doesnt mean that god is evil just his shadow preduced this evil magic) i for info am a meterome, i can control the dark magic a bit but i work with good magic more if u need any mor advice send an e-mail to tigi_the_shamn@yahoo.com.\nSo evil(dark) magic is sometimes a power that brakes your spirit shield, that is produced by your own soul(if anyone thinks it is nonsence then your wrong you science freaks i know more then you as i talk to the spirit world and get the info i need) SOmetimes it called Auraa but i can make my spirit sheild stronger then your meteromes trew the centruies do this called "Gods Sheild" by the way wich i do when in crysis. Magic is not something we can always control in this world, sometimes it gets away but normal humans cant even hold it , i can but i had 2 expiriences with dark creatures i had one in my power but it broke frew my sheild it might seem nothing but it really hurts when your spirit sheild is broken especially for meteromes.\nWell thats all for coclusion dark energy is something we can control sometimes and it came from the day when god appeard, it sometimes breaks your spirit sheild and can take your life away.
572071
Stephen Hawking addressed this issue in his famous book " A Brief History of Time" .\n\nHe stated that if the universe continued to expand the density of matter will continue to decrease with a resulting drop in the average temperature of the universe.\n\nHe feels that eventually, ( as in billions of years ), the only things left in such a large and cold universe will be black holes which will "gobbled up" nearly every atom of matter and energy so that it will be a very dark place.\n\nin fact the real endpoint of the universe is unknown, and it may eventually contract as well if there is enough gravity to pull it back together !
1081007
Fun stuff, this gravity question. One of the leading hypotheses of the past was that the expansion of the universe would eventually slow, and gravity would then pull all mass back together, resulting in another singularity, and a recurrence of the big bang. \n\nRecent evidence says that this isn't happening. Instead, as the universe expands, the gravitational pull will approach zero. The consequence of this new hypothesis is that the universe will eventually spread itself into nothingness, and as the stars fade and run out of fuel, the universe itself will fade away into cold and darkness. Not that it's something we have to worry about anytime soon.
561306
you should read more into string theroy and the M theory.  they are both very interesting.  it is hard to wrap your mind around but  this is just one universe that goes along a membrane of universes that goes on infinetely.  the science channel often has show that explin all this much better and they make it pretty easy to understand.
1067957
No matter how many 'experts' around here claim that there are alternate universes or other dimensions or a brick wall, nobody--repeat NOBODY--really knows. Tons of theories, but not one single shred of evidence to support any of them.\n\nScientific research has repeatedly indicated that our universe is infinite in scope, and that it will expand forever although its contents (mass and energy) will very, very gradually fade away to nothing.\n\nBefore our universe began, and right now, there's probably nothing else but an absolute and infinite void totally without energy, mass, spacetime, dimensions or anything else.
486183
I find it to be quite fascinating.  Although mind-bending as well (11 dimensions - my brain hurts just thinking about it).  I don't know if it is correct or not (well, no one knows for sure), but it seems to have potential, particularly with resolving the Relativity/Quantum Physics battle.
47001
Other pages in this Astrophysics/Cosmology section are: \n\nGravitational Entropy (June '98) \nA Debate on Open Inflation (November '98). The lecture is saved as a postscript document. \nQuantum Cosmology, M-theory and the Anthropic Principle (January '99). \nRotation, Nut Charge and Anti de Sitter Space (February '99). \nLinks \n\nHome \n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nPhysics Colloquiums - Inflation: An Open and Shut Case (April '98).\nSlides and audio for this talk can be downloaded from the ITP at UCSB.\n\nThis talk will be based on joint work with Neil Turok, at Cambridge. Neil has always been interested in what might be called, alternative cosmology. He pushed the idea that topological defects like cosmic strings or textures, were the origin of the large scale structure of the universe. And he was a proponent of what is called, open inflation. This is the idea that the universe is infinitely large, and of low density, despite having been through a period of exponential expansion, in the very early stages. My opinion was, that these were all nice ideas, but that nature probably hadn't chosen the use any of them. I included open inflation in that list, because I believed strongly that the universe came into being, at a finite size, and I felt that implied that the universe now, was still of finite size, or closed. However, after Neil gave a seminar on open inflation in Cambridge, we got talking. We realized it was possible for the universe to come into existence, at a finite size, but nevertheless, be either a finite, or an infinitely large universe now. My talk will be about this idea, and new developments that have occur since then. One of these, which is so recent that it is not yet fully worked out, is that it seems there is an observational signature, of the kind of inflation Neil and I are proposing. The present measurements are not sensitive enough to see this effect, but it should be possible to test for it, in the observations the Planck satellite will make.\n\nAnother recent development, is that observations of supernovas, have suggested that the universe may have a small cosmological constant, at the present time. Even before these observations, Neil and I had realized that if there was a four form gauge field, one could invoke anthropic arguments to make it cancel the cosmological constant, that one would expect from symmetry breaking. But the anthropic argument would not require it to cancel exactly. So there could be a small residual cosmological constant. This is exciting. I shall describe the observational evidence later.\n\nAs you probably know, the universe is remarkably isotropic on a large scale. That is to say, it looks the same in all directions, if one goes beyond such local irregularities as the Milky Way, and the Local Group of galaxies. By far the most accurate measurement of the isotropy of the universe, is the faint background of microwave radiation, first discovered in 1965. At the present time at least, the universe is transparant to microwaves, in directions out of the plane of our galaxy. Thus the microwave background, must have propagated to us, from distances of the order of the Hubble radius, or greater. It should therefore give a sensitive measurement, of any anisotropy in the universe.\n\nThe remarkable fact is, that the microwave background is the same in every direction, to a high degree of accuracy. It wasn't until 1982, that differences between different directions were detected, at the level of one part in a thousand, with a dipole pattern on the sky. However, this could be interpreted as a consequence of our galaxy's motion through the universe, which blue shifted the microwave radiation in one direction, and red shifted it in the opposite direction. It need not represent any intrinsic anisotropy in the universe.\n\nIt was not until 1992, that tiny fluctuations on angular scales of 10 degrees, were
312883
Yes.\n\nThere is so much of this universe that we do not know.
683506
Wow, what great questions.  Just so you know, we don't know the answer to what was before the big bang.  One idea is that our universe expands, then contracts on itself, over billions of years, and the whole big bang repeats over.  In other words countless universes preceded our own.
1007231
Current information is insufficient to give a correct answer. Once we explore more of the universe, maybe we could have a logical answer.\nst
803363
dark matter and dark energy and debris
468084
Greetings,\n\nKinda outta my league, but perhaps the link I posted can be of some use to you.\n\nDiscover had an article last year about a couple of inflation cosmology theorists who believed the speed of light, while constant now, was not constant in the very early universe, it was in fact slower.  Not sure about all that, but thought you might want to go digging for the article.\n\n-matt
127
Don't know yet, but lots of wild theories and mathematical approaches being tried (some, via\nhttp://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/search?p=4%208%2015%2016%2023%2042):\n\nhttp://www.d.kth.se/~dicander/lost.html\n\nhttp://www.4815162342.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3
831523
When there was nothing there was probably no light. My favourite theory (because I can undestand it) is that "nothing" is actually a "quantum foam" of matter and anti-matter popping in and out of existence continually. So 0=+1-1. There is experimental evidence for the existence of this quantum foam. Before the big bang the universe would have been an infinite "nothing" of quantum foam. However, each of these tiny matter/anti-matter formation/anihilation events would produce a tiny gravitational wave. Over (infinite) time these gravitational waves could grow by constructive interference until a huge gravitational wave (rather like the occasional huge freak waves in our oceans) produced the special conditions required to trigger the big bang and caused a huge separation of matter and anti-matter. So the "spark" was simply a result of random noise eventually building to the point to set things off.\n\nI have a personal theory that the "virtual" gravity caused by the quantum foam might explain the missing dark matter and/or dark energy in our universe.
1078040
IANA Physicist, but....\n\nWe're not really sure.  The assumption that they exist is based on the fact that there isn't enough visible matter to keep the universe in the state that it's in.  That is, in order for the universe to behave in the manner that it is, there should be enough matter to generate the proper amount of gravity, but we can only see about a third(?) of the amount of matter required.  Therefore, the rest of the required gravity must be coming from matter that we can't see, hence - Dark Matter.
317128
Dark energy! Mwahahaha! Honestly, They probably use the same kind of energy as the stores around them (I assume this Hot Topic is in a mall).
597634
Well, you're asking a question that has plague man since we looked up upon the stars and wondered who we are, where we come from, and what is out there?\n\nFirst of all, you're confusing some of the concepts that you've heard. Let's address your questions one at a time:\n\n(1) It is true that as we learn more about the Universe, we're discovering that the world is NOT as it superfically appears to be. A good example is that we used to think the Earth is flat, or that the Sun rotated about the Earth. These are superficially obseravable phenomenons, but the truth is very different. So now we're finding out many more new facts about the Universe that defies our imagination. For example, it turns out that the matter that we can observe through our telescopes, the stars, galaxies, etc. makes up only about 1% of what's out there in the universe, and we currently have no idea really what makes up the rest. We just call them dark matter and dark energy.\n\n(2) The Anthroptic Principle is basically saying that given all that we know about the universe, it can't be just  coincidence that it is capable of supporting life and particularly intelligent life like us. So the principle is suggesting that there must be some Agent (supernatual or otherwise), a designer, behind the contruction of the universe. Whether you believe this or not is up to you.\n\n(3) Here you should not pay too much attention. It is true that Quantum Mechanics (a branch of physics that tells us how microscopic elementary particles behave) saids that the outcome of an event depends both on the Observered and the Observer (hence the term "participatory universe"). But these rules only apply to electrons and photons, not people, stars and the universe. At least we currently don't have any evidence that it does. Also, I think all this is really more of a philosophical position than scientific fact.\n\n(4) I can't tell you whether the universe really exists or not. You will have decide that for yourself. But just remember, before you decide to jump off a building, make sure you are absolutely certain that you won't be falling down and breaking your legs.