Physics World - the member magazine of the Institute of Physics
At all stages of your career – whether you're an undergraduate, graduate, researcher or industry professional – brightrecruits.com can help find the job for you.
Are you looking for a supplier? Physics Connect lists thousands of scientific companies, businesses, non-profit organizations, institutions and experts worldwide.
Electronic contacts with a single molecule
Sponsored by Oxford Instruments
View this free webinar
Rolls-Royce employer showcase event
Learn more – view video
Contact us for advertising information
Dec 06, 2013
The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
Nov 28, 2013
Dec 04, 2013
Aug 23, 2012
In less than 100 seconds, Luke Davies explains how we know dark energy exists.
Comments on this article are now closed.
Ironically, the caption says the explanation will be about dark matter (it isn't) and in his first few words we are admonished not to confuse dark energy with dark matter. A typo that should be corrected.
Without going into the basis of beginning, I did a paper several years ago. Theory is as such but when able to be combined with described happenings beforehand, new levels of understanding are brought forth...... There should be some now, that realize dark matter (the whole of all), is actually very active......Some may identify dark energy as being a simple happening-reactant within, though if so, they don't understand............. A humble thought, much as when young we had to learn the basics of happenings/calculation (mathematics, etc.)I would suggest to learn of "psychotronics" and the many applications; it will take time........ Then afterwards literally look up into the night sky....relax and observe... "once you have allowed time for all your everyday thoughts to exit your mind"... If versed in Physics much will begin to come forth for you without trying, of dark matter............ I'll explain in detail at a later time of what was gained of dark matter and dark energy.
This has now been corrected.
It is somewhat misleading to say that Red Shift is a measure of distance when it is only a measure of velocity from which distance can be inferred
Here is what I don't get - we look at distant objects, measure their redshift and conclude the further away things are the faster they are moving away from us BUT, the further away they are the further in the past these things emitted the light that we are looking at now, so isn't the correct conclusion that the the universe was accelerating more in the past and less now? What am I missing?