h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Black hole expert Marek Abramowicz at Gothenburg University in Sweden agrees that the idea of dark energy stars is worth pursuing. "We really don't have proof that black holes exist," he says. "This is a very interesting alternative."

The most intriguing fallout from this idea has to do with the strength of the vacuum energy inside the dark energy star. This energy is related to the star's size, and for a star as big as our universe the calculated vacuum energy inside its shell matches the value of dark energy seen in the universe today. "It's like we are living inside a giant dark energy star," Chapline says. There is, of course, no explanation yet for how a universe-sized star could come into being.

At the other end of the size scale, small versions of these stars could explain dark matter. "The big bang would have created zillions of tiny dark energy stars out of the vacuum," says Chapline, who worked on this idea with Mazur. "Our universe is pervaded by dark energy, with tiny dark energy stars peppered across it." These small dark energy stars would behave just like dark matter particles: their gravity would tug on the matter around them, but they would otherwise be invisible.

Abramowicz says we know too little about dark energy and dark matter to judge Chapline and Laughlin's idea, but he is not dismissing it out of hand. "At the very least we can say the idea isn't impossible."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/ns-tce030806.php



A 'universe-sized star'

'"We really don't have proof that black holes exist,"'

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he wrong?

Never mind all those x-ray sources that seem only explainable by the presence of black holes, but there's that whole mathematical relativity thingy and gravity and stuff.

okay, now I've skimmed the peace and

'Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.'

seems somehow germain to me.

It seems 'nighthooveresque' to me

All those teensy-weensy little dark energy stars....

Then again, who knows. Maybe in a few years more supportive evidence will be discovered

Fascinating, nonetheless

'Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.'

Yes, this is quite important if we are to get a balanced view. I have commented many times on how science can't prove things, especially the objective nature of reality. But it is vital to remember that, although there is no proof (to a human with non-objective perception) of the objectivity of the reality we perceive, there is no significant contradictory evidence at all, that I know of! Being uncertain or unproven is *very* different from being wrong.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

If we are inside a universe sized black energy star, wouldn't that mean that we couldn't be expanding as we are?

Currently my favourite scientific logic goes as follows:
If something changes when crossing a boundary, the universe must be infinite since if it had boundaries there would be something on the other side of them. If there was something on the other side, it would have to be part of the universe by definition therefore the universe is infinite.

A nice way to describe it, I think.