Dark Matter and Dark Energy: What We Actually Know vs. What We Assume

In 1998, two teams of astronomers were trying to measure how fast the universe was decelerating. That's not a typo. They assumed it was decelerating — that gravity was gradually slowing the expansion that began with the Big Bang. Their job was to measure how much.

They both got the wrong answer. Or rather, they got the same unexpected answer: the expansion of the universe isn't slowing down. It's speeding up.

This was not what anyone was looking for, and not what any existing theory predicted. The announcement — the discovery of cosmic acceleration — won the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt, and Adam Riess. But the mechanism behind it remains unknown twenty-five years later, which is a somewhat uncomfortable footnote to the Nobel Prize part.

The method used was Type Ia supernovae as "standard candles." These are a specific type of stellar explosion with a known intrinsic brightness. Because you know how bright they actually are, you can calculate their distance from how bright they appear — dimmer means farther away. By measuring the redshift of their host galaxies (which tells you how fast they're receding) and comparing that to the distance, you can plot how the universe's expansion rate has changed over time.

What the data showed: distant supernovae were fainter than expected. They were farther away than the then-standard cosmological models predicted. The universe had been expanding faster in the past than the deceleration models said it should have been, which implies that something is providing an outward push — an energy that drives acceleration rather than the gravitational deceleration that matter produces.

Einstein's equations already have a place for this. When he first applied general relativity to cosmology in 1917, Einstein included a "cosmological constant" — a term representing an energy density of empty space — because without it, his equations predicted a dynamic universe that was either expanding or contracting, and he (incorrectly, at the time) wanted a static universe. When Hubble confirmed expansion in the 1920s, Einstein removed the constant, reportedly calling it his "biggest blunder." In 1998, it was back.

The cosmological constant fits the acceleration data well. In this interpretation, dark energy is the energy density of the vacuum — empty space has a small but nonzero energy that pushes the fabric of spacetime apart. The problem is that when quantum field theory tries to calculate what this energy density should be, it gets an answer that's somewhere between 10⁶⁰ and 10¹²⁰ times larger than what we observe. This is sometimes called the "worst prediction in physics" — a ninety-order-of-magnitude discrepancy between calculation and measurement.

Other possibilities include a dynamic field called "quintessence" that changes over time, or modifications to general relativity at cosmological scales. So far, none of these alternatives fits the data better than the cosmological constant, and none of them provide a satisfying physical explanation.

Dark energy constitutes roughly 68 percent of the universe's energy budget. We don't know what it is. We can describe its effects precisely with a number in Einstein's equations, but that number has no physical interpretation anyone's satisfied with. The universe is mostly something we don't understand, driving it to expand in a direction that, given long enough, will leave local galaxies stranded in an ever-emptier void.

Dark Energy — The Discovery That Changed How Physicists See the Universe

// COMMENTS

ON THIS PAGE