Dark Energy – the most mysterious matter in the Universe

[David Levy]

Why dark energy is needed?

By: http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-what_is_dark_energy.php

"Most of the universe seems to consist of nothing we can see. Dark energy and dark matter, detectable only because of their effect on the visible matter around them, make up most of the Universe."

By: http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-fate_of_the_universe.php

"When the word first got out that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, many astronomers questioned the results. They felt that the observations must be wrong, or the interpretation must be flawed. The whole concept was so difficult to believe because it requires significant changes in our understanding of the way the universe works

Astronomers found that the universe is moving faster today than it was a billion years ago, meaning something must be working to speed it up.

This result seems crazy because gravity always pulls and slows it never pushes. Yet some force appears to be pushing the universe apart. Astronomers, concluding that we just don't know what this force is, have attributed it to a mysterious dark energy"

 

So, what is dark energy?

By: http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-what_is_dark_energy.php

"Well, the simple answer is that we don't know. It seems to contradict many of our understandings about the way the universe works.

Einstein's famous equation, E = mc2, teaches us that matter and energy are interchangeable,

Dark energy now makes up over 2/3 of all the energy in the universe.

It sounds rather strange that we have no firm idea about what makes up 74% of the universe. It's as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean. But now that we've caught sight of the waves, we want to know what this huge, strange, powerful entity really is"

 

Dark energy Is it real?

By: http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-what_is_dark_energy.php

"It sounds rather strange that we have no firm idea about what makes up 74% of the universe. It's as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean.

But now that we've caught sight of the waves, we want to know what this huge, strange, powerful entity really is."

Dark energy as Einstein's cosmological constant.

By: http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-did_einstein_predict.php

"In 1917, Einstein was applying his new theory of general relativity to the structure of space and time. General relativity says that mass affects the shape of space and the flow of time. Gravity results because space is warped by mass. The greater the mass, the greater the warp

Today astronomers refer to one theory of dark energy as Einstein's cosmological constant. The theory says that dark energy has been steady and constant throughout time and will remain that way"

 

What was Einstein conclusion about the cosmological constant?

By: http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-did_einstein_predict.php

"Then, in the 1920s, astronomer Edwin Hubble, using a type of star called a Cepheid variable as a "standard candle" to measure distances to other galaxies, discovered that the universe was expanding. The idea of the expanding universe revolutionized astronomy. If the universe was expanding, it must at one time have been smaller. That concept led to the Big Bang theory, that the universe began as a tiny point that suddenly and swiftly expanded to create everything we know today.

Once Einstein knew the universe was expanding, he discarded the cosmological constant as an unnecessary fudge factor. He later called it the "biggest blunder of his life," according to his fellow physicist George Gamow.

If the cosmological constant is correct, Einstein will once again have been proven right about something even he thought was a mistake."

 

My personal conclusions about the Dark energy

- Well, Einstein claimed that the cosmological constant is the biggest mistake of his life. Therefore, it is forbidden to use it in his theory of general relativity. And if we do so, we shouldn't call it Einstein' theory anymore!

-It sounds rather strange for me that some sight of the waves could be a proof for 74% of the universe. Please remember: " It's as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean."

-It is claimed that: "Most of the universe seems to consist of nothing we can see".I disagree with this statement. We should say: Most of the universe seems to contradict with our current theories. Therefore, the science should look for better alternative theories for what we see. Dark energy and dark matter is needed to close the gap between our current theories and what we see. Hence, Dark energy and dark matter might not be needed if we can find a real explanation for what we see.

I would mostly appreciate to get your feedback.

Edited March 7, 2015 by David Levy

[Strange]

- Well, Einstein claimed that the cosmological constant is the biggest mistake of his life. Therefore, it is forbidden to use it in his theory of general relativity. And if we do so, we shouldn't call it Einstein' theory anymore!

 

You are taking that quote out of context. Einstein added a constant to his equations to try and "balance" the equation because it described a universe that would expand, but he thought the universe was static. Later it was found that the universe is expanding after all.

 

It is not "forbidden" to add a non-zero cosmological constant. It is not as if Einstein was a prophet. He was wrong about the expanding universe and he was wrong about other things as well.

 

-It sounds rather strange for me that some sight of the waves could be a proof for 74% of the universe.

 

We are constantly discovering new things and changing our theories, or creating new theories. That is what science does. We can't just ignore the evidence.

 

-It is claimed that: "Most of the universe seems to consist of nothing we can see".I disagree with this statement. We should say: Most of the universe seems to contradict with our current theories.

 

It might be slightly more accurate to say: "most of the universe is not explained by our current theories". This has always been true and probably will always be true. We discover new evidence and find our current theories need to be modified or replaced.

 

Therefore, the science should look for better alternative theories for what we see. Dark energy and dark matter is needed to close the gap between our current theories and what we see. Hence, Dark energy and dark matter might not be needed if we can find a real explanation for what we see.

And people are looking at all sorts of other possible explanations; including modifying the way gravity works, some sort of quantum fluid that explains both dark energy and dark matter, etc.

 

There are currently multiple lines of evidence suggesting dark matter really is matter. But it could still turn out to be something else.

 

And dark energy is completely unknown: there are many possible explanations being considered but without more information there is no way to know.

[David Levy]

You are taking that quote out of context. Einstein added a constant to his equations to try and "balance" the equation because it described a universe that would expand, but he thought the universe was static. Later it was found that the universe is expanding after all.

 

It is not "forbidden" to add a non-zero cosmological constant. It is not as if Einstein was a prophet. He was wrong about the expanding universe and he was wrong about other things as well.

Let's set it clear:

"In 1917, Einstein was applying his new theory of general relativity to the structure of space and time."

"But Einstein, like all scientists at that time, did not know that the universe was expanding. He found that his equations didn't quite work for a static universe, so he threw in a hypothetical repulsive force that would fix the problem by balancing things out, an extra part that he called the "cosmological constant."

"Then, in the 1920s, astronomer Edwin Hubble, using a type of star called a Cepheid variable as a "standard candle" to measure distances to other galaxies, discovered that the universe was expanding."

"Once Einstein knew the universe was expanding, he discarded the cosmological constant as an unnecessary fudge factor. He later called it the "biggest blunder of his life," according to his fellow physicist George Gamow."

Hence, Einstein added the cosmological constant to his general relativity theory before 1920, as it was expecting that the Universe is static.

However, by 1920, when it was discovered that the Universe is expanding, Einstein had eliminated this constant from his Theory.

Therefore, from 1920 Einstein didn't use this constant any more in his theory. He even called the idea of adding the constant (before 1920) as the biggest mistake of his life.

It is quite normal that scientist can adjust his theory during his life time. However, once it had been set, we shouldn't change it forever!

Even if Einstein was wrong at the beginning about the expanding universe by 1917, and he was wrong about other things as well, we must keep his last adjustment of the Theory starting 1920.

Hence, it is forbidden to add back a non-zero cosmological constant to his theory (Which was considered as hypothetical repulsive force).

If you think that he is wrong, than please don't call it Einstein theory anymore!

Actually, if you think that Einstein was wrong, you shouldn't use his theory at all. In this case, other alternative are needed to support our theories.

You mislead yourself by using a wrong Theory of Einstein and you mislead us by calling it "Einstien theory".

Edited March 7, 2015 by David Levy

[Sensei]

Actually, if you think that Einstein was wrong, you shouldn't use his theory at all. In this case, other alternative are needed to support our theories.

 

Different theories have different circumstances when we can use them safely without introducing noticeable error to calculations.

 

You don't need GR to calculate failing apple from tree..

Newton's theory is fine for this case.

Similar is with GR. You can use it where it works the best.

IMHO distances up to solar system size.

Then GR fails again at galaxy scale (therefor need to adding dark matter to explain unexpected high velocity of stars at outer regions of galaxy).

And there is needed more detailed theory (or addition of DM) to handle this case.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Sensei

[swansont]

My personal conclusions about the Dark energy

 

!

Moderator Note

Personal conclusions = moved to speculations. Make sure and back these conclusions up with some sort of support.

[David Levy]

You don't need GR to calculate failing apple from tree..

Newton's theory is fine for this case.

Similar is with GR. You can use it where it works the best.

IMHO distances up to solar system size.

Agree

 

Then GR fails again at galaxy scale (therefor need to adding dark matter to explain unexpected high velocity of stars at outer regions of galaxy).

And there is needed more detailed theory (or addition of DM) to handle this case.

Disagree.

In the last update of his theory of GR (starting 1920), Einstein had removed the Cosmological constant.

Actually, at his time, no one really even consider the idea of having dark energy or dark mass. If the science wants to prove the existence of dark mass, then a different formula is needed.

Further your example for Newton. We all know, that currently the science consider that it doesn't fit to what we see in spiral galaxy. Hence, technically, the science can add some constant to his law and reclaim that it suddenly works O.K for spiral galaxy. Would you agree for that? Is it ethical?

Therefore, it is forbidden to set any change in a formula which had been developed by a scientist and still call it under his name.

If the science needs to make a change in the GR (By adding back the cosmological constant), then it is needed to eliminate Einstein name from the updated GR.

However, it is expected that the science will look for other theories to prove the concept for dark energy or dark mass.

Edited March 7, 2015 by David Levy

[Sensei]

Therefore, it is forbidden to set any change in a formula which had been developed by a scientist and still call it under his name.

If the science needs to make a change in the GR (By adding back the cosmological constant), then it is needed to eliminate Einstein name from the updated GR.

 

Do you realize that mass of Earth, nor Gravitational constant were unknown in the time when Newton's gravity laws were formulated.. ? Nobody is removing Newton's name from equations just because constants were not yet calculated.

 

Removing scalar constant is simply setting it to 1.0. Multiplication by 1.0 will give the same formula as without it.

[David Levy]

Removing scalar constant is simply setting it to 1.0. Multiplication by 1.0 will give the same formula as without it.

What do you think about Einstein?

Is there any chance that his knowledge in his GR theory is quite minimal?

Do you think that he is a foolish scientist?

Einstein by himself claimed that this constant is the biggest mistake of his life. So, how can we add it back to his formula?

I doמ't have the tools to address your following message:

""Removing scalar constant is simply setting it to 1.0. Multiplication by 1.0 will give the same formula as without it"

But what do you consider should be Einstein reply if he was living today?

Do you think that he will agree with you?

If so, why did he claim that the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life?

Edited March 7, 2015 by David Levy

[Strange]

It is quite normal that scientist can adjust his theory during his life time. However, once it had been set, we shouldn't change it forever!

 

It is quite normal that any theory will be changed over time as new evidence is gathered.

 

Even if Einstein was wrong at the beginning about the expanding universe by 1917, and he was wrong about other things as well, we must keep his last adjustment of the Theory starting 1920.

 

Why? New evidence has come to light since then.

 

If you think that he is wrong, than please don't call it Einstein theory anymore!

 

Fine. Don't call it Einstein's theory. No one cares. His role now is of purely historical interest. Just call it the theory of general relativity. Oh, hang on: that is what it is called.

 

Actually, if you think that Einstein was wrong, you shouldn't use his theory at all. In this case, other alternative are needed to support our theories.

You mislead yourself by using a wrong Theory of Einstein and you mislead us by calling it "Einstien theory".

 

That is one of the most idiotic things I have heard on a science forum for a long time.

However, it is expected that the science will look for other theories to prove the concept for dark energy or dark mass.

 

This is one of those rare occasions when you are correct.

What do you think about Einstein?

 

It seems to be only crackpot pseudoscientists who obsess over the individuals involved in developing a theory. Forget Einstein. He is irrelevant.

[David Levy]

 

It is quite normal that any theory will be changed over time as new evidence is gathered.

Sure. It is quite normal to change theory, but it is not accepted to change formulas.

Hence, t is perfectly O.K. to change any current irrelevant theory, but it is forbidden to make any change in Einstein GR formula. In any case, you shouldn't make a change in this GR just in order to prove some other theory.

 

Why? New evidence has come to light since then

Sorry, this is a severe mistake. No one has the authority to set even a bit of change in Einstein formula - whatever it is.

If there is new evidence, then you need to develop new theory. If you fail to support this new theory by any current knowledge, or formulas, then you should reconsider your theory.

It's better for you to abandon this unrealistic theory and look for better alternative.

There is no confirmation for dark energy. It had been pop up in order to close the gap between the current mainstream theory and the new evidence (High acceleration of far end galaxies). No one has the authority to make any change in Einstein GR just in order to meet this unrealistic theory.

In one hand it is stated by the science that:

"Most of the universe seems to consist of nothing we can see. Dark energy and dark matter, detectable only because of their effect on the visible matter around them, make up most of the Universe."

While in the other hand it is stated:

"It sounds rather strange that we have no firm idea about what makes up 74% of the universe. It's as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean.

Einstein formula for GR (as is from 1920) can't give any justification for Dark energy. It is a severe mistake to change this formula just in order to meet our needs, and it is a supper arrogant approach to use Einstein name after this significant change.

 

Fine. Don't call it Einstein's theory. No one cares. His role now is of purely historical interest. Just call it the theory of general relativity. Oh, hang on: that is what it is called.

Thanks.

In this occasion you are correct.

 

That is one of the most idiotic things I have heard on a science forum for a long time.

Why?

You have just claimed that: " It is not as if Einstein was a prophet. He was wrong about the expanding universe and he was wrong about other things as well."

So how can we thrust someone which is making so many mistakes (based on your message?)

This is one of those rare occasions when you are correct.

Thanks

I do appreciate that we agree that "it is expected that the science will look for other theories to prove the concept for dark energy or dark mass."

It seems to be only crackpot pseudoscientists who obsess over the individuals involved in developing a theory. Forget Einstein. He is irrelevant.

Why? You have just informed that you agree with me and I'm correct… Edited March 7, 2015 by David Levy

[Sensei]

 

You have just claimed that: " It is not as if Einstein was a prophet. He was wrong about the expanding universe and he was wrong about other things as well."

So how can we thrust someone which is making so many mistakes (based on your message?)

 

In science nobody trust other word. We're making experiments to check claim, hypothesis, theory. And if it's repeatable in lab, it's good sign about claim, hypothesis, theory.

[Mordred]

Actually formulas get changed all the time. One example is the FLRW metric. PS its also a good way to tell if the textbook is older. Prior to roughly year 1990, the FLRW metric didn't have the cosmological constant, The observable universe was the Hubbles sphere. Course the year I'm not positive on, I'm basing that figure on some of the textbooks I own.

 

When the need for dark energy became apparent the cosmological constant was re'added to The FLRW metric.

 

Prior to DM, there were numerous alternative models and variations of the Hot big bang. We didn't know of DM was hot, warm, cold etc. (Non relativistic, vs relativistic.). This information was vital to determine DM equation of state (thermodynamic)

 

Prior to WMAP we didn't know the curvature constant k so we had 3 variations to the FLRW metric ( though all three curvatures are derived from the FLRW metric, the the three possibilities resulted in numerous other variants of other related formulas.

 

 

The key point is, one can change a formula when there is repeatable experiments to support a new formula.

Though the changes must be mathematically correct

In terms of GR, well you have the minkowskii coordinate system, this is roughly at the time of Einstein, since then numerous (more accurate coordinate systems have developed)

 

This. 980 page article covers a wide variety and the subsequent problems and misinterpretations in each

 

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

 

As smart and accurate as Einstein was, science keeps developing, GR included

In terms of dark energy most of the formulas in this article are no longer used, the article covers some though not all the later variants and evolutions.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.1498" The Waters I am Entering No One yet Has Crossed: Alexander Friedman and the Origins of Modern Cosmology" written by Ari Belenkiy

 

side note prior to Freidmann cosmology was described by formula 1, which looks nothing like the formulas we use today

The article also shows the evolution of the redshift formula

[swansont]

Sure. It is quite normal to change theory, but it is not accepted to change formulas.

Hence, t is perfectly O.K. to change any current irrelevant theory, but it is forbidden to make any change in Einstein GR formula.

 

…

Sorry, this is a severe mistake. No one has the authority to set even a bit of change in Einstein formula - whatever it is.

 

I'm curious as to where such a misconception originates. Scientists don't "own" formulas. There is no authority required to write down a version of an equation that fits the data better.

 

Eponymous formulas are generally recognized after the fact, by general use among the scientific community. Not by the one who comes up with it. (Contrast this with the crackpot community, where the latter is commonplace)

 

All of which is separate from your tortured interpretation of "biggest blunder"

[Bignose]

Sure. It is quite normal to change theory, but it is not accepted to change formulas.

Hence, t is perfectly O.K. to change any current irrelevant theory, but it is forbidden to make any change in Einstein GR formula.

The only way I can see that the above is ok is if this means that we shouldn't go back to the papers in 1917 and change them. Then I agree. And I don't think anyone is being all Orwell's 1984 on scientific papers.

 

What does happen, however, is that new papers are published all the time, and they contain references back to the original papers. That is, if someone wanted to publish a new formula based on the old ones, they tell everyone reading that paper where to read a copy of the original paper. Then, they present the new formula which hopefully makes even better predictions than the old one did. That's kind of pretty much how science goes. We continuously improve the models over time. We don't just stop when someone 'famous' makes a formula and end it all right there.

[ajb]

Hence, it is perfectly O.K. to change any current irrelevant theory, but it is forbidden to make any change in Einstein GR formula. In any case, you shouldn't make a change in this GR just in order to prove some other theory.

Not that I am sure exactly what you mean by 'change in Einstein's GR formula' (the action or the field equations maybe?), but there are many different ways to formulate GR. For example we have the self-dual Palatini action, the Newman–Penrose formalism and the Geroch–Held–Penrose formalism. I am sure there are also other formalisms in the literature.

[Strange]

Eponymous formulas are generally recognized after the fact, by general use among the scientific community. Not by the one who comes up with it. (Contrast this with the crackpot community, where the latter is commonplace)

 

And usually named after the wrong person!

 

Stigler's law of eponymy is a process proposed by University of Chicago statistics professor Stephen Stigler in his 1980 publication "Stigler’s law of eponymy".^[1] In its simplest and strongest form it says: "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy

[David Levy]

Actually formulas get changed all the time. One example is the FLRW metric. PS its also a good way to tell if the textbook is older. Prior to roughly year 1990, the FLRW metric didn't have the cosmological constant, The observable universe was the Hubbles sphere..

When the need for dark energy became apparent the cosmological constant was re'added to The FLRW metric.

Thanks

O.K – as long as we don't use the name of the scientist which develop this formula.

For example, if Einstein has deleted the constant from his formula, then it is O.K. to add this cosmologic constant as long as we do not connect Einstein name to the updated formula.

 

 

I'm curious as to where such a misconception originates. Scientists don't "own" formulas. There is no authority required to write down a version of an equation that fits the data better.

 

Eponymous formulas are generally recognized after the fact, by general use among the scientific community. Not by the one who comes up with it. (Contrast this with the crackpot community, where the latter is commonplace)

Thanks

I would like to ask you the following hypothetical question:

Let's assume that we are at a stage that the theory of the dark energy had not yet been emerging. Under this condition, let's assume that I'm so cleaver that I found the great idea of the Dark energy. I will introduce at this forum all the current scientific available info on the dark energy and highlight that 74% from all the mass in the universe must be dark energy.

The question is – What might be the feedback from this forum with regards to my great idea?

Well, let me guess;

I assume that I will be requested to offer some evidences for the existence of this dark energy.

However, we all know that there is no evidence at all. Not even 0.001%. So, I assume that my great idea will be moved automatically to trash. (I'm not even consider an option for speculation)

So, why there is no one roll to everybody?

If you trash it as my personal idea, than you might consider similar approach even if it comes from the elite of our scientists.

Please advice.

[StringJunky]

Thanks

O.K – as long as we don't use the name of the scientist which develop this formula.

For example, if Einstein has deleted the constant from his formula, then it is O.K. to add this cosmologic constant as long as we do not connect Einstein name to the updated formula.

 

 

Thanks

I would like to ask you the following hypothetical question:

Let's assume that we are at a stage that the theory of the dark energy had not yet been emerging. Under this condition, let's assume that I'm so cleaver that I found the great idea of the Dark energy. I will introduce at this forum all the current scientific available info on the dark energy and highlight that 74% from all the mass in the universe must be dark energy.

The question is – What might be the feedback from this forum with regards to my great idea?

Well, let me guess;

I assume that I will be requested to offer some evidences for the existence of this dark energy.

However, we all know that there is no evidence at all. Not even 0.001%. So, I assume that my great idea will be moved automatically to trash. (I'm not even consider an option for speculation)

So, why there is no one roll to everybody?

If you trash it as my personal idea, than you might consider similar approach even if it comes from the elite of our scientists.

Please advice.

What you aren't seeing is the underlying maths that underpins those ideas, If Stephen Hawking thought up and presented a DE and DM hypothesis without the maths he'd get treated just the same as anyone else and it would end up in the proverbial trash. That's how science works

[Bignose]

However, we all know that there is no evidence at all.

So, you're saying you don't want to participate in a scientific process? I don't know exactly what you expected from a science forum, then.

 

The basic tenant of prediction & comparison of that prediction to measurement is what has allowed us to move past the dark ages of believing the moon was made of cheese and accepting whatever the pope, king, baron, richest, or more powerful person said without question. What you've outlined here is stepping back to that. You're going to tell us something, but then not provide any comparison with what is actually observed with what the idea predicts, that is, no evidence at all.

 

So, yeah. No evidence? No predictions? No thank you. I don't want to take many very large steps backward. I'd rather continue moving forward with the highly successful way science is practiced today.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Bignose

[David Levy]

 

What you aren't seeing is the underlying maths that underpins those ideas, If Stephen Hawking thought up and presented a DE and DM hypothesis without the maths he'd get treated just the same as anyone else and it would end up in the proverbial trash. That's how science works

Please see roll no. 1

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/31045-why-has-my-post-been-moved-to-speculations/

It is stated:

"No maths. Science requires specific predictions to be made so that a theory may be tested and falsified if it is wrong. Work that needs but lacks a legitimate mathematical framework is almost certain to be moved".

[Mordred]

Not necessarily, I could for example post my hypothesis, that DE is a result of dispersion of a higher energy density to a lower energy density. I even have the math, I've applied the ideal gas laws, the FLRW metric and Einstein field equations.

 

With that math it wouldn't be moved to trash. The reason I never have posted that personal model is that it doesn't work... To this day I cannot keep the cosmological constant, constant, nor can it model a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. So the math itself disproved the model as well as observational evidence.

 

What posters don't realize is math is needed its an essential step, but not the only step.

( The biggest problem with the above is the size of the universe, and the velocity of particles. Nothing moves faster than c)

Edited March 8, 2015 by Mordred

[Strange]

However, we all know that there is no evidence at all. Not even 0.001%.

 

Do you think people made it up for no reason? Of course there is evidence; they got a bloody Nobel Prize for the discovery.

[swansont]

However, we all know that there is no evidence at all. Not even 0.001%.

 

I would be very careful with declaring what we all know, when what you are saying is what you think you know. And ignorance can be corrected, if one is so inclined.

I would like to ask you the following hypothetical question:

Let's assume that we are at a stage that the theory of the dark energy had not yet been emerging. Under this condition, let's assume that I'm so cleaver that I found the great idea of the Dark energy. I will introduce at this forum all the current scientific available info on the dark energy and highlight that 74% from all the mass in the universe must be dark energy.

The question is – What might be the feedback from this forum with regards to my great idea?

Well, let me guess;

I assume that I will be requested to offer some evidences for the existence of this dark energy.

 

Sure, we'd ask for evidence. With no evidence given, it would depend on the completeness of the model and the testability of it. We'd want to know how you came up with the value of 74%.

 

This has little resemblance to the actual situation, which was a formulation in response to evidence.

[David Levy]

 

I would be very careful with declaring what we all know, when what you are saying is what you think you know. And ignorance can be corrected, if one is so inclined.

 

 

Sure, we'd ask for evidence. With no evidence given, it would depend on the completeness of the model and the testability of it. We'd want to know how you came up with the value of 74%.

 

This has little resemblance to the actual situation, which was a formulation in response to evidence.

 

In our days, all the information is available at the web.

With regards to the 74% of the dark energy:

Please see again the valuable information from Hubblesite:

By: http://hubblesite.or...dark_energy.php

"It sounds rather strange that we have no firm idea about what makes up 74% of the universe. It's as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean."

Based on this massage, it's quite clear that there is no evidence for the 74% of the dark energy! .

It isn't that I'm saying what I think I know. I'm saying what Hubble site knows. Or maybe I just didn't fully understand their description.

However, if I did understand correctly this description, do you think that there is a severe error at Hubble site? Do we have to believe that they have no clue about what they are saying?

[Mordred]

We don't know what dark energy is aka the cosmological constant. However we can and do measure its influence. From those measurements it is possible to determine its energy density. Taking the energy density we can calculate its total energy.

 

In terms of the ideal gas laws think of the cosmological constant as a positive energy density with a negative pressure (vacuum influence)

 

In the FLRW metric this has an equation of state w=-1.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

 

The equation of state correlates a contributors energy density to pressure relations.

 

A good article to read is

 

"Why all these prejudices against a constant"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966