25 years after its discovery, dark energy remains frustratingly elusive

An illustration of deep space, filled with stars and dense orange/brown clouds.
Researchers recently reviewed a quarter century's worth of studies on dark energy. The results are frustrating. (Image credit: agsandrew/Getty Images)

Researchers have compiled all of the available evidence on the mysterious nature of dark energy. Their conclusion? While there are hints that it may be "phantom," its true nature remains frustratingly elusive.

Dark energy was discovered in the late 1990s, when two teams of astronomers independently found that distant space.com/6638-supernova.html" style="text-decoration: underline; box-sizing: border-box;">supernovas were dimmer than they should have been. This led the astronomers to conclude that our universe wasn't just expanding — something that had been known for almost a century — but that it was also accelerating in its expansion. So the universe isn't just getting bigger every day; it's getting bigger faster every day.

Astronomers coined the term "dark energy" to describe the mysterious phenomenon driving this accelerated expansion, but they still do not understand what it is. Although there are dozens, if not hundreds, of theoretical ideas for what dark energy is, we cannot tell any of these theories apart without better measurements.

Related: We have never seen dark matter and dark energy. Why do we think they exist?

Since the late 1990s, astronomers have developed many techniques for measuring the expansion rate of the universe, including expanded versions of the original supernova searches, the cosmic microwave background, and the properties of the large-scale structure of the universe.

One of the key properties of dark energy that these techniques are trying to measure is something called the dark energy equation of state. Even though physicists do not understand the underlying cause or nature of dark energy, they can still model how it manifests in the expansion of the universe. The absolute simplest way to model dark energy is to include it as a "cosmological constant," which makes dark energy a raw fact of the universe, like the electromagnetic force or the strength of gravity. It simply exists as a constant across the universe and throughout time.

If dark energy is due to a cosmological constant, it would appear in our observations as an equation of state parameter equal to -1, indicating that gravity becomes repulsive on large scales, but otherwise does not change with time or in space.

If dark energy is due to some other exotic force or interaction with matter, the equation of state can change in time or space, so we would be able to measure those variations. Generally, these equation-of-state values would be larger than -1 and vary with time.

Perhaps the most curious equation of state would occur at values less than -1. This is a scenario known as phantom dark energy. In this case, the expansion of the universe wouldn't just accelerate mildly; instead, dark energy would become so strong with time that, in only a few billion years, the universe would rip itself apart. The accelerated expansion would be so severe that galaxies would fly away from each other, galaxies themselves would be torn to shreds, planets and stars would separate, and even atomic bonds holding together all matter in the universe would be overwhelmed.

Naturally, this last scenario is a little troubling, and some recent observations have hinted at the possibility that the dark energy equation of state is a little less than -1. To dig into this scenario in more detail, a team of cosmologists summarized all of the available evidence and used the combined data to calculate the value of the equation of state. They published their findings to the preprint database arXiv in July.

They reported good news and bad news. When they combined all dark energy probes, the possibility that we live in a phantom universe diminished. That means our cosmos will not tear itself apart anytime soon. But their results are also entirely consistent with a plain cosmological constant.

Cosmologists would love to find literally anything other than a cosmological constant, even a phantom value. The reason for this is that, while the cosmological constant solution technically solves the problem of dark energy (by stating that it simply exists), it doesn't offer any deeper insights into the workings of nature. A cosmological constant does not explain its own existence or cause, so it only moves the goal posts.

The puzzle of dark energy represents one of the greatest mysteries in modern science. Even if it's simply due to a fact of nature, then we have a new mystery: Why does the universe have this property, with this acceleration rate, and nothing else? For the time being, the only thing we can do is prepare future surveys, like the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and hope that some new observation will reveal something interesting.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Paul Sutter
Space.com Contributor

Paul M. Sutter is an astrophysicist at SUNY Stony Brook and the Flatiron Institute in New York City. Paul received his PhD in Physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2011, and spent three years at the Paris Institute of Astrophysics, followed by a research fellowship in Trieste, Italy, His research focuses on many diverse topics, from the emptiest regions of the universe to the earliest moments of the Big Bang to the hunt for the first stars. As an "Agent to the Stars," Paul has passionately engaged the public in science outreach for several years. He is the host of the popular "Ask a Spaceman!" podcast, author of "Your Place in the Universe" and "How to Die in Space" and he frequently appears on TV — including on The Weather Channel, for which he serves as Official Space Specialist.

  • Atlan0001
    I'll give you my opinion:

    The Universe is already "ripped apart" into infinities; countless horizon universes (universe horizons), galaxies, stars, "many worlds", many dimensions, and so on.... Already "ripped apart"! As Arnie and Hawking were wont to say, "No problemo!"

    1) White Hole (E=MC^2)
    2) Black Hole (M=E/C^2)
    Reply
  • rod
    An interesting close to the space.com article.

    "They reported good news and bad news. When they combined all dark energy probes, the possibility that we live in a phantom universe diminished. That means our cosmos will not tear itself apart anytime soon. But their results are also entirely consistent with a plain cosmological constant. Cosmologists would love to find literally anything other than a cosmological constant, even a phantom value. The reason for this is that, while the cosmological constant solution technically solves the problem of dark energy (by stating that it simply exists), it doesn't offer any deeper insights into the workings of nature. A cosmological constant does not explain its own existence or cause, so it only moves the goal posts. The puzzle of dark energy represents one of the greatest mysteries in modern science. Even if it's simply due to a fact of nature, then we have a new mystery: Why does the universe have this property, with this acceleration rate, and nothing else? For the time being, the only thing we can do is prepare future surveys, like the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and hope that some new observation will reveal something interesting."

    My observation. The cosmological constant is a thorn in the side for the expanding universe model and has a long history of struggling over it in FLRW GR metric.

    The Cosmological Constant Is Physics’ Most Embarrassing Problem, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-cosmological-constant-is-physics-most-embarrassing-problem/
    “…The problem with vacuum energy is that there's not enough of it. When scientists first started thinking about the concept, they calculated that this energy should be huge—it should have expanded the universe so forcefully and quickly that no stars and galaxies ever formed. Because that is clearly not the case, the vacuum energy in the universe must be very small—about 120 orders of magnitude smaller than what quantum theory predicts. That's like saying that something weighing five pounds should really weigh five-with-120-extra-zeros-after-it pounds. The discrepancy has prompted some scientists to call vacuum energy “the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics.” “Vacuum energy is thought to be the main ingredient in the “cosmological constant,” a mathematical term in the equations of general relativity..."

    The wrong value(s) for the cosmological constant in GR math for expanding universe, you can expand so fast nothing will form or collapse into a singularity :) There is clearly a fine-tuning problem in origin science teaching in cosmology.
    Reply
  • Icepilot
    Neither Dark Energy or Dark Matter have been "discovered", only their effects. Both are fudge factors attempting to explain our ignorance. Both may well exist & exactly as assumed ... or not.
    Reply
  • Atlan0001
    Horizon universe (universe horizon).

    A horizon universe (+1) and for each and every horizon universe (+1) a parallel equal but opposite horizon universe (-1). And the trojan third horizon universe (0) is...???? Can you guess?
    Reply
  • Classical Motion
    25 yrs. doesn't mean anything, time's relative, right? After declaring time and space are taffy, they still can't explain this. What a gig. I just love that term vacuum energy. And zero point energy. And the quantum foam. Whence all things come. But the best one is spacetime won't allow the measurement of spacetime. Perfect.

    This intellect has always stupefied me. Makes me mumble. And requires self medication.
    Reply
  • Tom Petek
    Due to hydrogen's spherically symmetrical electron shell hydrogen atoms repel each other at distances large compared to atomic radius. It's a 6th order effect. When the main constituent of the universe repels itself then the universe expands. Dark energy is an inherent characteristic of hydrogen. Have been trying to get a paper on this published for some time.
    Reply
  • Atlan0001
    Tom Petek said:
    Due to hydrogen's spherically symmetrical electron shell hydrogen atoms repel each other at distances large compared to atomic radius. It's a 6th order effect. When the main constituent of the universe repels itself then the universe expands. Dark energy is an inherent characteristic of hydrogen. Have been trying to get a paper on this published for some time.
    I have no knowledge of what you said but the possibility was still agreeable. Keep going forward with it until it proves or proves wrong. Good!
    Reply
  • Tom Petek
    An accidental discovery I finally understood about 5 years ago turned into an evolving paper.
    The link to the most-up-to-date paper:
    https://www.academia.edu/103744135/File_220325_Dark_Energy_Intrinsic_to_Atomic_Hydrogen_pdf Would love to know if the paper is valid. I have had a number of physicists look at it casually. About half of them have said something like: “That can’t be right, - it’s not quantum-mechanical enough”. The other half claimed to not understand it. Any feedback much appreciated.
    Reply
  • billslugg
    From the paper:
    "At standard atmospheric conditions the pressure due to the calculated repulsion is too small to be measured independently since it is more than 4 orders of magnitude smaller than atmospheric pressure."

    That is 1/10,000 of atmospheric pressure, a column of air 3 meters tall. Easily measurable.
    Reply
  • Tom Petek
    Thanks for the feedback! Guess that was perhaps too sweeping a statement? The intent was to say, in effect, that the hydrogen self-pressure would be difficult to see against normal sea-level measurements. . The 6Pa self-pressure is for the atomic spacing at STP of 100kPa. At lower ambient pressures atomic spacing increases and the self-pressure drops with a 6th order dependence on distance, so I can’t think of any clear way to measure or notice the self-pressure independently against that background. Putting it another way (and making the huge assumption that my analysis is correct), if the self-pressure were easy to notice someone would have done so already.

    Another consideration is that my estimate of hydrogen self-pressure is for atomic hydrogen HI, while (I think) pretty much all terrestrial work with hydrogen is with molecular hydrogen H2. Have a vague memory that atomic hydrogen is difficult to work with? I do suspect that H2 also self-repels, with its tendency to leave the atmosphere being supporting evidence. That self-repulsion is more difficult to calculate.

    I’m not familiar with pressure measurement as related to an air column. I know that small pressure changes like the difference in air pressure between say a floor and a desk top can be measured. Is that the kind of air column you’re talking about?
    Reply