Reflection on Dr. Riess' "Supernovae Reveal An Accelerating Universe"

"Universe looks static…but it’s not".

And this was the beginning of the conference “Supernovae Reveal An Accelerating Universe” by the Dr. Adam Riess. 

The Universe expands after the Big Bang and this could be measured. He starts explaining the ways of measuring how far away the Universe is. How? Well, there are two ways:

1. IN EARTH:

Parallax                                              Lighthouses

Fog Horns (as sound)                               Objects of known size

2. IN SPACE:

Telescope and what nature provides.

Oh, but wait. “What nature provides”… this is interesting. It’s curious how even scientists have thoughts and perceptions of what’s supposed to be known, but than again have to understand their external journey as it causes the realization of other realities. Scientists who depend on what they already know -taught by others in a pragmatic education, if I may say- have to confront their external journey, in this case what the “nature provides”, while it gives them other explanations refuting the already known. This got me thinking that everyone everywhere is in a constant interaction with his or her internal and external journey. NO ONE is excluded.

As the conference continues, he explains Einstein’s theory of the “Expanding Universe”. It is said that Einstein developed his theory of gravity in the General Theory of Relativity. He thought he ran into the same problem that Newton did: his equations said that the universe should be either expanding or collapsing, yet he assumed that the universe was static. His original solution contained a constant term, called the cosmological constant, which cancelled the effects of gravity on very large scales, and led to a static universe. After Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant his "greatest blunder".

Einstein's Theory of the Universe

And why is the Universe accelerating now? There are three possible reasons stated by Dr. Riess:

1. Vacuum Energy; cosmological constant
2. Dynamical Dark Energy
3. Modified gravity (Einstein was wrong)

See, again this is what I meant about the pragmatic education, there are things taught and then untaught. Now all these scientists that have this known perception of the Universe are wrong because what they thought they knew isn't really how it goes. I can imagine all of them in a constant fight with their minds not believing what their external journey is providing them. Maybe as a scientist they are used to this type of changes in their perspectives, but imagine a person who is not used to change and is told that the Universe is, I don’t know, non-existent. It would be really difficult to believe and acknowledge how that is possible if all our lives we have heard and been taught that the Universe does exist and we are part of it. There would be a real big fight between what you think, that is your internal journey, and what’s being discovered in our external journey. Although we really do not know much WHY the existence of the Universe, what is really known is WHAT the Universe is made of -planets %5, stars 5%, gas 4%, dark matter 25% and dark energy 70%-. 

So finally, why should we study Dark Energy? Dr. Riess states, “It would study the fate of the Universe”. So the battle between the internal and external journey continues...(For more information on Dr. Riess, click here).