No “Big Rip” in our Future: Chandra Provides Insights Into Dark Energy

by Nancy Atkinson on December 16, 2008

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

Galaxy cluster Abell 85, seen by Chandra, left, and a model of the growth of cosmic structure when the Universe was 0.9 billion, 3.2 billion and 13.7 billion years old (now).  Credit:  Chandra

Galaxy cluster Abell 85, seen by Chandra, left, and a model of the growth of cosmic structure when the Universe was 0.9 billion, 3.2 billion and 13.7 billion years old (now). Credit: Chandra


When you throw a ball up into the air, you expect gravity will eventually slow the ball, and it will come back down again. But what if you threw a ball up into the air and instead of coming back down, it accelerated away from you? That’s basically what is happening with our universe: everything is accelerating away from everything else. This acceleration was discovered in 1998, and scientists believe “dark energy” is responsible, a form of repulsive gravity, and it composes a majority of the universe, about 72%. We don’t know what it is yet, but now, for the first time, astronomers have clearly seen the effects of dark energy. Using the Chandra X-ray Observatory, scientists have tracked how dark energy has stifled the growth of galaxy clusters. Combining this new data with previous studies, scientists have obtained the best clues yet about what dark energy is, confirming its existence. And there’s good news, too: the expanding Universe won’t rip itself apart.

Previous methods of dark energy research measured Type Ia supernovae. The new X-ray results provide a crucial independent test of dark energy, long sought by scientists, which depends on how gravity competes with accelerated expansion in the growth of cosmic structures.

“This result could be described as ‘arrested development of the universe’,” said Alexey Vikhlinin of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Mass., who led the research. “Whatever is forcing the expansion of the universe to speed up is also forcing its development to slow down.”

Vikhlinin and his colleagues used Chandra to observe the hot gas in dozens of galaxy clusters, which are the largest collapsed objects in the universe. Some of these clusters are relatively close and others are more than halfway across the universe.

The results show the increase in mass of the galaxy clusters over time aligns with a universe dominated by dark energy. It is more difficult for objects like galaxy clusters to grow when space is stretched, as caused by dark energy. Vikhlinin and his team see this effect clearly in their data. The results are remarkably consistent with those from the distance measurements, revealing general relativity applies, as expected, on large scales.

Previously, it wasn’t known for sure if dark energy was a constant across space, with a strength that never changes with distance or time, or if it is a function of space itself and as space expands dark energy would expand and get stronger. In other words, it wasn’t known if Einstein’s theory of general relativity and his cosmological constant was correct or if the theory would have to be modified for large scales.

But the Chandra study strengthens the evidence that dark energy is the cosmological constant, and is not growing in strength with time, which would cause the Universe to eventually rip itself apart.

“Putting all of this data together gives us the strongest evidence yet that dark energy is the cosmological constant, or in other words, that ‘nothing weighs something’,” said Vikhlinin. “A lot more testing is needed, but so far Einstein’s theory is looking as good as ever.”

These results have consequences for predicting the ultimate fate of the universe. If dark energy is explained by the cosmological constant, the expansion of the universe will continue to accelerate, and everything will disappear from sight of the Milky Way and its gravitationally bound neighbor galaxy, Andromeda. This won’t happen soon, but Vikhlinin said, “Double the age of Universe from today, and you will see strong affect. An astronomer would say this may be a good time to fund cosmological research because further down the road there will be nothing to observe!”

Vikhlinin’s paper can be found here.

Source: Chandra Press Release, press conference

About

Nancy Atkinson is Universe Today's Senior Editor. She also is the host of the NASA Lunar Science Institute podcast and works with the Astronomy Cast and 365 Days of Astronomy podcasts. Nancy is also a NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador.

  • pmf71

    What if ( i have no scientific basis for this, so it’s just a thought) that even though the expansion keeps on going “forever” there might still be a big crunch after all?

    It may be possible, if dark energy causes a velocity(v) tangent. As matter is pushed more and more towards c you see an asymptotic curve forming in a graph. If you then also picture the universe as a globe in which our 3 dimension represent the surface of the globe, any matter passing the other side of the globe relative to the point you are standing, v would immediately negate itself, ie from 10^7 to -10^7 or 10^5 to -10^and the matter would also be coming towards you then. Dark energy would start slowing it down again, until gravity takes over and pull everything back into a big crunch.

    My 2c

  • http://www.culturalconscience.com Farcall

    Reading more physics is always a good idea. But so is learning the liminations of “modern” science. I, too, like R Kirk says, have a feeling scientist are taking a “Cosmic Map”, and so to speak, are writing “Here there be monsters” each time a new unknown pops up.

    Imagine reading what would pass for a physics textbook a thousand years ago. Now imagine reading one from a thousand years from now. The difference could be as greater or greater.

    Dark Matter, Dark Energy, the Multiverse, clashing “Branes”, respected cosmologist speaking of alternate worlds, and mirror worlds like our own, but different. I have a hunch – oh, I know, not very scientific – but none the less a hunch we are standing on the edge of a revolution in our understanding of the universe that may dwarf everything that has gone before.

    I think more people should read more science fiction. We’re going to need a lot of imagination to replace the sea serpents and “monsters” on the new Cosmic map with facts. And prepare for the possibility these new “facts” may sound like science fiction…

  • Xenia Savoskul

    Thank you for this great piece of news!
    Though I missed somehow one important point. You say the dark matter has features of a cosmological constant which implies that the expansion of the universe will continue to accelerate. On the other hand, at the very beginning of your article you claim that the Universe is not going to rip itself apart. Is not one of those two statements excluding the other one? It reads somehow confusing and contradictive

  • Hiker 9965

    Last week I posted as Steve, but decided to be more creative…

    Last week it was Black Holes. This week, Dark Energy. I am glad these scientists are keeping busy ‘discovering’ thing that don’t exist.

    When the Standard Model fails again and we need a new force, they will contact George Lucas and ask what he would like us to call it.

    I refuse to believe we live in a universe where 96% of everything is undetectable.

    There is no way any of this is real. the EU theory explains all this with no mysterious and unexplained forces. EU theories are sound and based on things that can be replicated in a lab.

  • Peter

    Hiker,
    Refusing is the essence of your perception.
    Ostriches refuse as well, to see what might frighten or confuse them. (I know they don’t really, just using a metaphor).
    I too, thought the article lacked for layman english that would explain the difference between “creating gulfs between us and the known universe” and “the big rip”. Is it saying that gravity will keep local things together so that subatomic particles never have to worry about losing their neighbours?

  • ShadowDancer

    Peter Says:
    December 17th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
    Hiker,
    Refusing is the essence of your perception.
    Ostriches refuse as well, to see what might frighten or confuse them. (I know they don’t really, just using a metaphor).
    I too, thought the article lacked for layman english that would explain the difference between “creating gulfs between us and the known universe” and “the big rip”. Is it saying that gravity will keep local things together so that subatomic particles never have to worry about losing their neighbours?
    ~~~~~
    The concept of the big rip boils down to the concept that eventually space would be stretched so much that the laws of physics would no longer apply and matter would start to break down. Essentially with the removal of all of the forces, noting remains to keep molecules and even atoms together and everything gets ripped apart. The difference between that and what the article describes is that we would no longer be able to see anything that isn’t local – it would still exist, but we would have no way to look at it or measure it.

  • Odisea Cósmica Blog

    I’m sorry but I see a strong contradiction between article statement: “there’s good news, too: the expanding Universe won’t rip itself apart.”

    And the words of Vikhlinin :

    “Double the age of Universe from today, and you will see strong affect. An astronomer would say this may be a good time to fund cosmological research because further down the road there will be nothing to observe!”

    This a strong confirmation of the Big Rip scenario, then it is therefore confirmed not refuted.

    Please clear it up

  • Emission Nebula

    Hiker 9965 Says: When the Standard Model fails again and we need a new force, they will contact George Lucas and ask what he would like us to call it.

    Are you implying the standard model fails?
    If you ever take a class, or even watch enough lectures about particle physics, you would know that the standard model doesnt “fail”, it grows.

    If String Theory was ever proven correct (a long shot), it would jst be added to the Standard Model.

    If thats not what your implying, then my apologies.

  • Spoodle

    Well said James

  • http://www.nancyatkinson.com Nancy Atkinson

    Odisea- As stated in the article, everything in the universe will move so far away from everything else that nothing will be visible. It won’t rip apart, but will just keep expanding. It won’t rip because dark energy is a constant across space, with a strength that never changes with distance or time. Since dark energy’s strength doesn’t grow over time, it won’t rip the universe apart.

  • Odisea Cósmica Blog

    I understand your explanation, you’re right. Sometimes it is not easy too understand topics about cosmology.

    Keep it up your good work!

    Thanks Nancy

  • Hiker 9965

    The only reason the Standard Model does not ‘fail’ is that cosmologists keep adding patches when a new bit of information comes along that contradicts it.

    When a patch can not be added, the data is swept under the carpet. Like Halton Arp’s work.

    The Standard Model is also self contradictory. Like…. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light… unless of course we need it to go faster than the speed of light to patch our model.

    Why are we looking for Dark Energy? Because without it the model fails. Lets stop putting patches on a dead theory and take a new, fresh look at the universe.

  • troy

    more jargen:

    all galaxies flying away from each other. except andromida & the milkey way (and all other colliding galaxies) Dark matter/energy? Lets call it what it is-cosmological constant (unkown). Must be their for theory to be correct, its not possible we’ve error’ed

  • Rod Beaton

    If the Universe is expanding at a faster rate,
    maybe at 13.7 billion years old the universe hasn’t started to slow down yet. And will start slowing sometime in the future..
    Or maybe the Universe has already stopped expanding and is now speeding up returning to the ‘beginning” of time.

  • Baseline359

    Can we take from this that galaxies will become further apart from each other, but that individual galaxies themselves will remain unchanged, i.e. stars will not drift apart eventually dissipating the milky way into nothing? I’m not sure if i’ve phrased that well enough- will galaxies be undamaged, but isolated?

Previous post:

Next post: