[watsisname]

Here is the finest baby picture of the universe we can possibly get:



Results show that the universe has less dark energy than previously thought (68-69%), more dark matter (26%), and slightly more baryonic matter (4.9%).  The Hubble Constant is now put at 67.3 ± 1.2 km/s/Mpc, which is on the extreme low end of the WMAP estimates.  These factors in turn mean that the age of the universe is slightly older than previously estimated, at 13.81 billion years.  (Previously ~13.74).

Other finds:
No spatial curvature.
No extra types of neutrinos.
Strong evidence of inflation, but details on constraining the different possible types remains to be seen from polarization data.

More discussion may be found here.

[General Battuta]

still flat baby. still full of tegmark Is :getin:

[BloodEagle]

I thought it was (currently) impossible to measure dark energy, let alone prove (in any fashion) that it existed. 

Did I miss something big or do all news organizations REALLY suck that much?

[General Battuta]

I thought it was (currently) impossible to measure dark energy, let alone prove (in any fashion) that it existed. 

Did I miss something big or do all news organizations REALLY suck that much?

You're - not wrong, but in a way you've also been wrong all along. Dark energy cannot yet be directly observed. The reason we believe in its existence, however, is because we can observe its effects on the universe. By updating our knowledge of the early universe (and I use the Bayesian 'updating' very purposefully here), we can also update our mathematical projections as to the exact mix of baryonic matter, dark matter, and dark energy.

Dark energy is in sort of the same place the Higgs boson has been for a long time: the math predicts it, but we don't have the means to actually observe it directly (or even secondhand) yet. This might sound kind of roundabout and sketchy, but it's currently the best and simplest hypothesis we have to explain our observations.

[General Battuta]

I feel like I should expand: in an isotropic and homogenous universe with no dark matter, we can predict the curvature of the universe purely from the density of matter in space. To the extent that this curvature seems to depart from that suggested by the density of (baryonic) matter in space, we know we need additional factors. Dark energy comes into play not only in this domain but in explaining the observed Hubble constant. We need to introduce inflation as well to explain the timeline of the early universe.

[watsisname]

Correct, the existence of dark energy has observable consequences on the evolution of the universe.  Practically speaking, we can measure the relative abundances of matter / dark matter / dark energy because they affect the CMB angular power spectrum, i.e. the relative sizes of the fluctuations in the CMB.  The power-spectrum is amazingly rich in information, and is a huge reason why we have spent so much effort on getting increasingly high-resolution maps of this radiation field.  The Planck data is about as good as we can possibly hope for.

Edit:  I'm curious to find out if this puts better constraints on the future evolution of the universe.  Will there be a Big Rip? 

[Mika]

I was wondering when this would show up here!

I need to have a chat with the guys who did the receiver, there's surely some meaty stuff there...

[Lorric]

Correct, the existence of dark energy has observable consequences on the evolution of the universe.  Practically speaking, we can measure the relative abundances of matter / dark matter / dark energy because they affect the CMB angular power spectrum, i.e. the relative sizes of the fluctuations in the CMB.  The power-spectrum is amazingly rich in information, and is a huge reason why we have spent so much effort on getting increasingly high-resolution maps of this radiation field.  The Planck data is about as good as we can possibly hope for.

Edit:  I'm curious to find out if this puts better constraints on the future evolution of the universe.  Will there be a Big Rip? 

There is nothing that fills me with more dread than the concept of the eternal end of all life.

[Mongoose]

Why?  It'll be almost infinitely long after any of us cease to exist, at least from our own limited perspectives.

D'awww, the universe was so cute at that age!

[An4ximandros]

Am I the only one that see the thing bulging?

[watsisname]

There is nothing that fills me with more dread than the concept of the eternal end of all life.

This is a very fun philosophical topic.

Am I the only one that see the thing bulging?

Congratulations, it's a girl.  No wait, it's a universe?  How did that get in there?  Get out, you don't even fit!

[General Battuta]

Correct, the existence of dark energy has observable consequences on the evolution of the universe.  Practically speaking, we can measure the relative abundances of matter / dark matter / dark energy because they affect the CMB angular power spectrum, i.e. the relative sizes of the fluctuations in the CMB.  The power-spectrum is amazingly rich in information, and is a huge reason why we have spent so much effort on getting increasingly high-resolution maps of this radiation field.  The Planck data is about as good as we can possibly hope for.

Edit:  I'm curious to find out if this puts better constraints on the future evolution of the universe.  Will there be a Big Rip? 

There is nothing that fills me with more dread than the concept of the eternal end of all life.

Amateurs are scared of end state scenarios. Pros are scared of vacuum metastability events

[An4ximandros]

 Thanks man, I was totally looking for a new cosmic fear.

[perihelion]

Amateurs are scared of end state scenarios. Pros are scared of vacuum metastability events

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.     

Seriously, though.  If we existed inside the expanding bubble of a metastatic vacuum collapse event, what would it look like?  I don't know enough math or physics to do much more than wild speculation, but is it even remotely possible that the expanding bubble of a metastatic vacuum event would look like our expanding universe, if observed from inside the bubble?

[General Battuta]

Amateurs are scared of end state scenarios. Pros are scared of vacuum metastability events

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.     

Seriously, though.  If we existed inside the expanding bubble of a metastatic vacuum collapse event, what would it look like?  I don't know enough math or physics to do much more than wild speculation, but is it even remotely possible that the expanding bubble of a metastatic vacuum event would look like our expanding universe, if observed from inside the bubble?

Someone did a depressing paper a while back demonstrating that no life (of any conceivable sort) would be possible after a VME.

The universe at the macro scale is actually nicely proofed against these events, since it expands at speeds faster than light given sufficient distance, and the expansion of the true vacuum bubble is restricted to C.

[Lorric]

Amateurs are scared of end state scenarios. Pros are scared of vacuum metastability events

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.     

Seriously, though.  If we existed inside the expanding bubble of a metastatic vacuum collapse event, what would it look like?  I don't know enough math or physics to do much more than wild speculation, but is it even remotely possible that the expanding bubble of a metastatic vacuum event would look like our expanding universe, if observed from inside the bubble?

Someone did a depressing paper a while back demonstrating that no life (of any conceivable sort) would be possible after a VME.

The universe at the macro scale is actually nicely proofed against these events, since it expands at speeds faster than light given sufficient distance, and the expansion of the true vacuum bubble is restricted to C.

What difference does it make? Everything dies forever either way.

Why?  It'll be almost infinitely long after any of us cease to exist, at least from our own limited perspectives.

D'awww, the universe was so cute at that age!

I like to hold out hope that in some way, whatever came together to give me consciousness and control of this collection of living cells that is me could somehow form again after my inevitable end.

Even if I knew for certain that I am finished forever after I die, I would still like to know life will continue to grow and flourish after I am gone. Even if it has to start over (I am aware of entropy) and keep starting over. Otherwise, it's just profoundly wrong to me.

[Ghostavo]

The part of the article that makes me awe is this one:

In the early 1990s, the COBE satellite gave us the first precision, all-sky map of the cosmic microwave background, down to a resolution of about 7 degrees. About a decade ago, WMAP managed to get that down to about half-a-degree resolution.

But Planck? Planck is so sensitive that the limits to what it can see aren’t set by instruments, but by the fundamental astrophysics of the Universe itself! In other words, it will be impossible to ever take better pictures of this stage of the Universe than Planck has already taken.

So we've reached an endgame scenario regarding these images?

[General Battuta]

Amateurs are scared of end state scenarios. Pros are scared of vacuum metastability events

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.     

Seriously, though.  If we existed inside the expanding bubble of a metastatic vacuum collapse event, what would it look like?  I don't know enough math or physics to do much more than wild speculation, but is it even remotely possible that the expanding bubble of a metastatic vacuum event would look like our expanding universe, if observed from inside the bubble?

Someone did a depressing paper a while back demonstrating that no life (of any conceivable sort) would be possible after a VME.

The universe at the macro scale is actually nicely proofed against these events, since it expands at speeds faster than light given sufficient distance, and the expansion of the true vacuum bubble is restricted to C.

What difference does it make? Everything dies forever either way.

Incorrect! You've rather missed the point.

[Lorric]

Amateurs are scared of end state scenarios. Pros are scared of vacuum metastability events

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.     

Seriously, though.  If we existed inside the expanding bubble of a metastatic vacuum collapse event, what would it look like?  I don't know enough math or physics to do much more than wild speculation, but is it even remotely possible that the expanding bubble of a metastatic vacuum event would look like our expanding universe, if observed from inside the bubble?

Someone did a depressing paper a while back demonstrating that no life (of any conceivable sort) would be possible after a VME.

The universe at the macro scale is actually nicely proofed against these events, since it expands at speeds faster than light given sufficient distance, and the expansion of the true vacuum bubble is restricted to C.

What difference does it make? Everything dies forever either way.

Incorrect! You've rather missed the point.

Which is? Was it just a joke?

[General Battuta]

Nope