Debate -
New scientific accounts of the universe are expected to fit with observation and predicted results from established theories. But at the heart of modern physics, there's reason to think this is not the case. Thirty years ago, we observed that the universe was not only expanding but accelerating away from us, which led to the invention of a force called 'dark energy,' seen as the energy of empty space or vacuum energy, pushing the universe apart. But there was a problem well before this. The "cosmological constant," corresponding to the vacuum energy, which many physicists now use as an explanation for dark energy and the expanding universe, had a major flaw. The predicted value of this energy, according to the Standard Model, was 120 orders of magnitude out. That's worse than predicting an atom is the size of the universe. Unsurprisingly, it has been described as the 'worst prediction in the history of physics'. Yet, the majority of physicists use this as an explanation for dark energy and accept the Standard Model as a credible theory.
Is there something necessarily wrong with dark energy and our current cosmological story? Or can we fix the problem and find the right answer, or is science a model and not a description of reality at all?
Theoretical physicist and former student of Stephen Hawking Raphael Bousso, theoretical physicist Claudia de Rham, and philosopher of science Bj酶rn Ekeberg debate the worst prediction in the history of science.
Claudia de Rham is professor of theoretical physics at Imperial College London and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The recipient of numerous prizes and awards, she is ranked among the most influential researchers in fundamental physics of the past decade.