Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday May 01, @11:26PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]

11-Sigma Detection of Dark Energy Comes From Measuring Over a Million Extremely Distant Galaxies - Universe Today:

After galaxies began to form in the early universe, the universe continued to expand. The gravitational attraction between galaxies worked to pull galaxies together into superclusters, while dark energy and its resulting cosmic expansion worked to drive these clusters apart. As a result, the universe is filled with tight clusters of galaxies separated by vast voids of mostly empty space.

The scale of these clusters and voids is based upon the rate at which the universe has expanded over time. The effect is similar to the way air molecules are clustered together by the varying pressure of sound waves, so the effect is known as baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO). Through this effect, astronomers can study dark energy by measuring the position and redshift of more than a million galaxies. Gathering and analyzing galaxies was first done by the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS). It was then extended to eBOSS, which has released its first results.

This new survey analyzed galaxies ranging from 0.7 – 1.8 billion light-years away, studying the BAO effect just as the early BOSS studies did. But eBOSS also looked at an effect known as redshift space distortions (RSD). This allowed the team to take into account the motion of a galaxy within space as well as cosmic expansion.

[...] By combining BAO and RSD, the team confirmed the existence of dark energy to a stunning confidence level of 11-Sigma. Typically, a scientific result to 5-Sigma is taken as confirmation. A result at 11-Sigma is so strong it is about as close to certainty that we can get. Dark energy and the accelerating expansion it drives is definitely real.

Journal Reference:
Zhao, Gong-Bo, Wang, Yuting, Taruya, Atsushi, et al. The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: a multi-tracer analysis in Fourier space for measuring the cosmic structure growth and expansion rate, (DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stab849)


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Article Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @12:35AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @12:35AM (#1145245)

    69-sigma or go home.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @01:46AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @01:46AM (#1145257)

      This will probably put Gaaaark into a Dark Mood.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @02:58AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @02:58AM (#1145275)

      I know you are joking, but I did the calculation out of curiosity anyway:

      11 sigma means there is a 3.821 * 10-26 percent probability of getting that result by chance.

      69 sigma means there would be 1.679 * 10-1034 percent probability of getting that result by chance.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @12:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @12:42PM (#1145359)

        Well they should repeat it just to be sure...

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday May 02, @12:46AM (17 children)

    by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Sunday May 02, @12:46AM (#1145247)

    "11-Sigma Detection of proof that there is still a lot we don't understand about the Universe."

    --
    "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @01:34AM (15 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @01:34AM (#1145253)

      Well yes, "dark energy/matter" is how we define things we don't understand. It's kinda like miracles and curses. Metaphysics...

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @03:05AM (14 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @03:05AM (#1145277)

        Not really. We know something is out there because we see its effects. Do you not agree that there's a mass density peak in front of the "bullet" in the famous colliding galaxies? What's your explanation for that if "there's something with mass there" isn't good enough for you? Note ~ your answer has to satisfy Ockham's razor.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @03:29AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @03:29AM (#1145286)

          your answer has to satisfy Ockham's razor

            From wikipedia: "Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor, or the principle of parsimony or law of parsimony is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity", or more simply, the simplest explanation is usually the right one."

          Key word: Usually. The universe is under no obligation to be simple. It could be we've figured out all the simple stuff, and most of what's left is fucking complex.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @12:44PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @12:44PM (#1145360)

            Occam would be fucking shocked at how complicated modern physics is. But fortunately we have AI black boxes to give us simple answers. Computer says 42.

            • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday May 03, @02:41PM

              by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 03, @02:41PM (#1145674)

              > modern physics

              Well, the entirety of modern physics can be written down onto the back of an envelope. Many have the entirety of modern physics written on a teeshirt.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @05:52AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @05:52AM (#1145321)

          The only correct answer is *we don't know what it is, we are still investigating and will let you know just as soon as the CIA approves*. For now, it's God's will, and if you don't believe in god, you will rot in hell! Is that what you want?

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Gaaark on Sunday May 02, @04:41PM (9 children)

          by Gaaark (41) on Sunday May 02, @04:41PM (#1145414) Journal

          Okay! Let's go with Occam's Razor:

          1. There is an unknown 'substance' out there that is described as Dark Matter that has all these magical properties that expanded over time as these properties needed to fit more and more problems that were with General Relativity and was supplied JUST as a way of fixing the problems with GR.

          OR

          2. We don't understand physics enough and there DOES seem to be a problem with GR.

          GO! USE OCCAM'S RAZOR! Start...................................NOW!

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channelling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 03, @08:32AM (8 children)

            by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday May 03, @08:32AM (#1145617) Homepage
            One of those has told us a hell of a lot more than the other one, so that's an A2O comparison.

            Using your logic, "we don't know" would be the ultimate solution to every problem even if we *did* know, because the things we do know take a lot longer to explain. That's not what Ockham's razor is.

            Scratch that. "Dunno" would win. Or "uh?".
            --
            I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
            • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday May 03, @10:32AM (7 children)

              by Gaaark (41) on Monday May 03, @10:32AM (#1145626) Journal

              No, the DM solution is just telling us what we want to hear; that GR is correct and that DM is why. It is not telling us anything else.

              The moon circles the Earth because unicorns ferry it around makes as much sense.

              --
              --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channelling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 03, @03:09PM (6 children)

                by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday May 03, @03:09PM (#1145680) Homepage
                I notice you've still not answered the remarkable simple question that was in the post that you responded to. You got into a flap rather than answering it, which is a terrible way of starting an argument. At this point we still don't know what evidence you believe is true. How about trying to work out where the common ground is, and then it will be easier to know at what point your navel-gazing becomes more insightful to you than the astronomers' telescopes.
                --
                I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
                • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday May 03, @08:58PM (5 children)

                  by Gaaark (41) on Monday May 03, @08:58PM (#1145814) Journal

                  One explanation:
                  "Mordehai Milgrom, the original proposer of Modified Newtonian dynamics, has posted an online rebuttal[16] of claims that the Bullet Cluster proves the existence of dark matter.

                  Another study in 2006[17] cautions against "simple interpretations of the analysis of weak lensing in the bullet cluster", leaving it open that even in the non-symmetrical case of the Bullet Cluster, MOND, or rather its relativistic version TeVeS (tensor–vector–scalar gravity), could account for the observed gravitational lensing. "
                  ---From the wikipedia entry on the Bullet Cluster

                  Second explanation:
                  "Our understanding of physics isn't complete enough!"

                  Now answer this: Dark Matter CANNOT in ANY WAY explain wide binaries, but they exist.
                  Answer: Our understanding of physics is not complete, but Dark Matter is not the answer, or not a complete answer in itself...unless, of course, a new magical property is added to it, like creating new epicycles and new epicycles and new epicycles to explain why the universe revolves around the Earth.

                  --
                  --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channelling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @08:34AM (4 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @08:34AM (#1146054)

                    DM and GR can explain wide binaries just fine. At that scale, the galactic tidal forces interacting with the local gravitational waves result in a much slower separation speed at those scales. In fact, DM and GR predicted the observed distribution of separation between wide binaries in simulations published in MNRAS and those observations have been confirmed in multiple studies since, despite what McCulloch's 2019 paper (the one you are probably relying on to make this claim) would have you believe.

                    • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday May 04, @03:39PM (3 children)

                      by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday May 04, @03:39PM (#1146184) Journal

                      DM and GR can explain wide binaries just fine.

                      Citation needed.

                      In fact, DM and GR predicted the observed distribution of separation between wide binaries in simulations published in MNRAS and those observations have been confirmed in multiple studies since

                      My magical banana can drive cars and shine shoes, given enough properties that just magically appear every time a new property is needed to explain why it can't. Epicycles over epicycles over epicycles.........ad NAUSEUM....

                      The gravitational anomaly discovered by Fritz Zwicky almost a century ago has presently an unquestioned importance in our current understanding of the Universe [1,5,15]. A different issue concerns the explanation and role of this anomaly in astrophysics and cosmology. Most researchers adhere to Zwicky’s initial hunch that the failure of the virial theorem in clusters was caused by a large mass of dark matter that was not taken into account in the calculations. The scientific community kept faithful to Zwicky’s idea when a similar anomaly was discovered in galaxies by Rubin et al. [3]and Faber and Gallagher [86]. Since then the concept of DM has been incorporated in theΛCDM model [5–9] where it provides some explanatory power in connection with the age of the Universe,the spectrum of fluctuations of the Cosmic Microwave Background and the formation of structure.Despite this success, the DM idea has not convinced all researchers in the field and alternative explanations have been keenly investigated for many years. As early as 1963, Finzi suggested that Newton’s law of gravity could not be valid for galactic scales. In 1983, Milgrom proposed his—much debated—MOND model to explain the onset of the anomaly in galaxies below a critical orbital acceleration [47–49]. Later on, Moffat and collaborators produced a whole relativistic theory of modified gravity that could address many problems in cosmology [57–60].The interest in these modified gravity theories is not merely academic but is encouraged by the fact that dark matter cannot always explain the observations. The most basic problem of the DM idea is the lack of experimental evidence of any of the many possible candidate particles thatcould be the main component of DM [15]. The DAMA/LIBRA and similar experiments are large underground particle detectors formed by sodium iodide scintillation detectors that look for weakly interacting massive particles in the Galactic halo [16,17]. The key signature of WIMPs is expectedto be an annual modulation of the detection signal that has indeed been found, but could have a conventional explanation [18]. On the other hand, other experiments have not been able to reproduce the DAMA/LIBRA and DAMA/NaI results [19,20]. Similarly, for the sterile neutrino proposal the possibility of a decay channel into X-rays has been suggested [41,42] and a recently discovered3.5keVfeature in the X-ray spectra of some galaxies has been associated with this decay. A lot of wishful thinking is connected with this premature identification [43–45]. Other issues with DM that are not satisfactorily solved within the context of the ΛCDM model, are the cuspy-halo problem [21] and the missing satellites problem [23–25]. Equally important is the satellites plane problem [26] consisting on a very unlikely distribution of satellite galaxies in the Milky Way, Andromeda galaxy and other if the ΛCDM were correct.Although neither the DM nor the modified gravity adherents can claim a complete solution to the whole riddle posed by the gravitational anomalies, it would be of great interest if any observation could elucidate the solution by giving strong evidence in favour of one of the two concepts. It seems that such a crucial experiment could have already been done in the form of the highly accurate astrometric catalogues provided by the Hipparcos and Gaia missions [71,72]. By using a careful selection of wide binary stars in these catalogues, Hernández et al. [71,72] have found that the relative orbital velocity of binary stars separated by>7000AU violates Kepler’s third law within the margin of the error bars.This observation fits well in the history of the gravitational anomalies that gave rise to the concept of dark matter: In the first place, Zwicky discovered that galaxies in galactic clusters move too fast for the total luminous matter content [1]. Fifty years later it was found that a similar anomaly is present in galaxies [3,4], and after another forty years the same anomaly emerges in the context of binary stars [71,72]. If this is the case, it seems more natural to attribute the anomalies to a modification of gravity on large scales instead of DM because this breakdown of Kepler ’s law appears to be universal and is found on very different scales.

                        Both cold dark matter (WIMPS) and warm dark matter in the form of sterile neutrinos should not aggregate around stars to explain the wide binaries anomaly.

                      Other forms of DM that have been discussed in the literature, could perhaps help in understanding this new anomaly such as dissipative dark matter [101].
                      However, attributing new properties to DM every time a new observation does not fit into the model is a poor scientific procedure.

                      ----https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/6/11/209/pdf ---Received: 3 September 2020; Accepted: 11 November 2020; Published: 14 November 2020

                      Agree to disagree? NO ONE knows the TRUTH and all is speculation, even General Relativity MUST be questioned*: i just don't like Dark Matters' epicycles, creating new properties every time it's found it fails to explain something.

                      *GR must be questioned, among other reasons, because even Einstein looked at it in other ways: he at first held a Machian view that space and time were separate, but to make the math easier he combined space and time... what errors were introduced JUST by changing that one thing?

                      AGAIN, no one KNOWS, but i hate building a theory with magical, changing properties.

                      --
                      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channelling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @10:35PM (2 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 04, @10:35PM (#1146311)

                        So your rebuttal that DM and GR can't explain wide binaries is to instead cite the only peer-reviewed article, albeit in an MDPI journal, to cite the McCulloch article I inferred you were using earlier. If you weren't, it seems an awful coincidence that it is the one you came up with.

                        Regardless, I find it intersting how you skipped the introductory sentence to your paragraph, "Although neither the DM nor the modified gravity adherents can claim a complete solution to the whole riddle posed by the gravitational anomalies, it would be of great interest if any observation could elucidate the solution by giving strong evidence in favour of one of the two concepts." The problem with that is they later acknowledge experiments and papers, likely added in revision because they are subsequently ignored, that mention key experiments and observations that lean more towards DM/GR than their pet theory and many of the important observations aren't mentioned at all. Nor is the fact that at least some dark matter is known to exist and how that affects his calculations.

                        And here is how your much vaunted author discusses your own pet theory, "However, these claimed successes rely on major mathematical flaws in calculation conducted within the framework of this theory, fixing which would lead to very substantial corrections to the numerical results."

                        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 05, @02:05AM (1 child)

                          by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday May 05, @02:05AM (#1146358) Journal

                          I also find it interesting that you can't cite DM as THE ANSWER any better than any other theory.

                          Seems DM ISN'T the droid we've been looking for either.

                          As i said, we're better off agreeing to disagree.

                          --
                          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channelling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 05, @04:24AM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 05, @04:24AM (#1146381)

                            As i said, we're better off agreeing to disagree.

                            I missed that in the previous giant quote block. Apologies.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @01:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @01:48PM (#1145661)

      At least we are certain about our uncertainty!

  • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @01:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @01:23AM (#1145252)

    You just pile it higher and deeper.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @04:15AM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @04:15AM (#1145301)

    And as usual, whenever there's an article about dark mater or dark energy on this board, a bunch of clueless basement-dwelling know-it-alls who think they are smarter than actual astrophycisists will proudly display their ignorance and cluelessness to the entire Internet.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @02:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 02, @02:42PM (#1145396)

      I am an actual astrophysicist and I approve of the above comments.

    • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday May 02, @03:57PM (6 children)

      by Gaaark (41) on Sunday May 02, @03:57PM (#1145409) Journal

      The ones who know used to see a Heliocentric universe and proclaimed it is the truth and put real astroscience back by hundreds of years.

      The ones who know used to see the body guided by the four humours and proclaimed it is the truth and put real medical science back by hundreds of years.

      The ones who are seeing a door being pulled open are proclaiming it is the truth, but maybe....JUST MAYBE... the door is being pushed open.

      But yeah...proclaim the pull is the truth all you want and keep putting REAL SCIENCE back by decades and millions/billions of pogey science dollars: i'll wait for REAL evidence.

      By the way, how is string theory working out for you guys 'who know'?

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channelling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @02:55AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @02:55AM (#1145572)

        How many epicycles are you up to now?

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 03, @03:23PM (4 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday May 03, @03:23PM (#1145682) Homepage
        The problem is that you are complaining that scientists are building a model that describes what they see in the real world.

        The reason that's a problem is because that is scientists' sole raison d'etre, that's what they do. That's science.
        --
        I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday May 03, @09:06PM (3 children)

          by Gaaark (41) on Monday May 03, @09:06PM (#1145818) Journal

          No, i'm complaining that scientists are fabricating epicycles on epicycles to explain why GR doesn't work instead of saying "Hey, there are problems with GR, so we need to reexamine GR and see where we've went wrong", they're saying "GR is sacrosanct and Einstein had it right from the very first and there is NOTHING wrong with GR and so we need more unicorns!"

          There IS something wrong with GR, and supporting it with turtles all the way down is not science.

          What they are seeing in the real world isn't what they are seeing: they are seeing "GR is flawless and so we need to support it with magic".

          Not science.

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channelling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: 1, Troll) by FatPhil on Monday May 03, @10:44PM (1 child)

            by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday May 03, @10:44PM (#1145840) Homepage
            > they are seeing "GR is flawless and so we need to support it with magic"

            Citation needed.

            > Not science.

            Indeed, it's called "straw man".
            --
            I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 05, @01:42PM

              by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Wednesday May 05, @01:42PM (#1146457) Homepage
              Troll mod? Is that all you've got, Gaaark - an attempt to bury the posts of someone who points out the invalidity of your arguments?
              --
              I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
          • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday May 04, @03:58AM

            by dry (223) on Tuesday May 04, @03:58AM (#1145968) Journal

            Huh? It is well understood that GR is incomplete. Like Newtonian physics, it is still quite useful, especially without anything better currently.
            Did you know they used Newtonian physics to send a spacecraft to Neptune, via Uranus, Saturn and Jupiter? Meanwhile it can't even explain Mercury's orbit, and yet is useful.

  • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Sunday May 02, @10:00PM

    We now know for pretty darn sure that there's something going on, but we still don't know what.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:17AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:17AM (#1145584)

    You can't say "dark matter" or "dark energy" anymore. Those terms are only used by cryptoracists.

    "Black physicist rethinks the 'dark' in dark matter"
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/02/world/black-scientists-structural-racism-scn-wellness/index.html [cnn.com]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:36AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 03, @05:36AM (#1145586)

    So let us assume that matter and space/time are one in the same; a sort of material/space/time. Take Oxygen for example. At a certain temperature (energy state) it is gaseous; it's a bit excited. In another state it takes on a liquid form; it's still quite excited; but, not as much. In another extreme form, it is a solid (extreme relative to average norms that humans have historically encountered.) If it was extremely, really really excited, it would be a plasma.

    So you see we have these varying states of matter. What they all have in common, is excitation, varying levels of energetic-ness. Now, if I'm not incorrect, a plasma, under the right conditions, undergoes fusion; and a new form of matter (energy state) comes into being. The new matter will be of a greater density than the matter it was composed from. We could say this new matter is of a lower energetic, 'frequency.' Hydrogen would be a very high frequency. Oxygen would be significantly lower; and so on.

    So, in my limited understanding, I suppose I'd ask; what would the energy state below a solid be? Something like a Bose Einstein Condensate? What happens, though, when matter ceases to be, 'energetic?' Suppose that it returns to the (or a), '(relative) base state,' of matter/space/time. Rather than it being a participant in the whole affair, it functions as the medium, more primarily (relatively)? If we consider time to be an illusion of the interaction between matter and the space it is in; we can consider space to be an illusion of the interaction between matter and time; matter in this sense could be viewed as everything between the interval between it's flat-line/base state and it's energetic state. Then, could matter be the illusion of the interaction between space and time?

    Space and time wouldn't really seem to have any interaction, or any existence at all, without matter; just like something you can't sense, isn't quite, 'there.' Matter and time wouldn't really make sense to think about interacting without there being some space for them to dance around in. And space and matter would be imperceptible as well without some time to experience/perceive them.

    So a lot of useless looping thoughts; but, imagine then if you will, that it's possible for matter to return/transform into space/time. Imagine space/time as being quantifiable in some sense. If this is so, imagine then, that space/time, can be excited and sort of dissociated/tangled up into a form of matter. Perhaps that's what the string theorists are on about...

    There may exist parts of the universe that are not perceivable by us. Just as I look out over the horizon, I can not perceive the opposite side of the earth; there are limitations due to my line of sight. I theorize that those limitations in our, 'line of sight,' as it pertains to measuring, quantifying, and actually simply perceiving (space/time/matter), could be that which is very far from us, and ALSO, that which is relatively close, on the cosmic scale. Just as my visual line of sight would be limited by the curvature of the earth; it would also be limited by something like a cave, tunnel, or other such thing.

    So dark energy and dark matter, all of that... When you see the sun at high noon, it is small, when you see it over the horizon, it red shifts and becomes larger. Why can't the universe simply appear to be, 'expanding,' relative to our, 'point of view.' As far as time is concerned, there may be a non-local coordinate, very near or very far, for which the, 'observable,' seems to be shrinking. *chuckles*

    Imagine a very large explosion, the atoms at the very far out most edge of that explosion, will receive light from the particles on the opposite farthest edge of the explosion, much later (at a specific (small) time scale), than all of the other atoms involved. If the explosion was violent enough, and space/time was, 'expanding,' between two particularly distant points; would it not mean there is light that would still be yet to reach us (or perhaps wouldn't ever)? Aren't there parts of the universe that we literally can not interact with? Think of a message you put in a bottle. You send it out. You die before the message reaches anyone. And later, finally the message is received by some one who was born one hundred years after you died.

    So would not dark energy/dark matter, simply be confirmation that there are matter/space/time interactions occurring in places we can not interact with causally (yet?)? Is that not any different than my knowing the earth is round; but, not being able to send a radio message to the opposite side until the line-of-sight problem has been established?

    The idea of cause and effect and causality has always irritated me. It's necessary, yes, for anything to exist at all, as we know it; but, really, how DOES anything exist at all? The trick is how did something, come from nothing? And that's a philosophical question that perhaps might not ever be answered; but it sort of lends credence to the idea of there being something, 'alive,' about the universe...

(1)