A friend of mine, a brilliant scientist, used to be fond of the phrase, “If the math is right.” He used the phrase once to explain the concept of Dark Energy. “If the math is right,” he said, “there is a force that drives the Universe's expansion that we call Dark Energy.” No one knows what it is, but we know it exists because of what we have observed in the movement of distant galaxies. I loved the caveat he attached to much of his speculation. “If the math is right” hinted at the possibility that the math might be wrong. It was as if he was looking and perhaps hoping to find an error in the mathematical calculations of his colleagues.

It doesn’t matter how many times any number of people check the math. It is impossible to remove mystery from the universe. A quarter of a century ago, in 1998, the discovery of Dark Energy was dramatic. US and Australian scientists have been observing and measuring the relationship between distant galaxies in search of information about the universe's origins. The predominant theory of how the universe began at the time was the theory of the Big Bang. The view was that the Big Bang had created the universe, which was still expanding from that initial blast. In time, the expansion of the Universe would slow. It would then eventually start to contract as gravity pulled the various objects of the universe together. At that point, the Universe would cease to expand and begin to contract until the objects of the universe were so tightly packed together that another Big Bang would eventually ensue.

What the scientists discovered, however, was that the slowing of the expansion of the Universe was not occurring. They measured acceleration in the rate of expansion. Scientists had no idea what the force driving the acceleration was. The name Dark Energy was given to this force. Subsequent observations have included Dark Energy in the explanation of the motion of objects in the Universe. Several experiments have been conducted to learn more about the nature of dark energy. One of those experiments is the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument at the Kitt Peak National Observatory in Arizona. The instrument consists of 5,000 optical fibers, each one of which is robotically controlled. The fibers serve as telescopes to scan distant galaxies at high speed. The observations of this instrument have further baffled scientists.

If the math is correct, the force exerted by Dark Energy has changed over time. Initially, scientists thought that the changes in Dark Energy came from mistakes in the data, but subsequent observations have not eliminated those changes but rather shown more significant variation.

A new theory of the origin of the Universe will be needed to explain the observations made.

As someone who is not a scientist and who struggles to understand even the most basic concepts of physics, I have asked my friends, who are scientists and physicists, “What if the rules of mathematics are not fixed? What if the systems of mathematics are fundamentally flawed.” As near as I can figure, that kind of thinking is heresy to scientists. My friends all quickly rush to defend mathematics as absolute. To a theologian, it certainly appears their attachment to mathematics is religious. There are some fundamental assumptions about the nature of the Universe that they have accepted as absolute truth.

Recent discoveries, however, raise questions about many previously held convictions about the nature of the Universe. Scientists may be on the verge of disproving some of Einstein's theories, but they do not have comprehensive new theories to explain their observations.

I used to tease a physicist friend by saying, “Physics is far too speculative of an undertaking for me. I prefer to think in terms of less speculation, so I limit myself to theology.” He would quickly point out logical errors present in mainstream systematic theologies.

However, I am not a systematic thinker. In graduate school, I struggled with systematic theology, and my ideas were not always organized into consistent patterns. Any regular reader of this journal understands how random my thoughts can be. The topics that appear are wide-ranging, and I rarely follow any train of thought to conclusions. I am content with speculation and questions. I don’t need to have all the answers.

Living with the questions is as meaningful as learning the answers. This does not mean that I do not engage in the search for truth. I do. I enjoy seeking answers to big questions. I am intrigued by the search for Dark Energy. I never expected to discover a single unifying theory that explains the Universe. It is far more complex than can be fully understood.

Humans can wrestle with problems too big to be solved in a single lifetime, whether in theology or physics. We can pass our understandings and discoveries from one generation to the next. We can access the theories and discoveries of previous generations and use them to advance our knowledge without coming to comprehensive conclusions. Then, we pass our understanding on to another generation. Some ideas have taken many generations to form.

One of the attractions of cosmology is that as we look at the vast distances of the universe, we also look back in time. Because it takes time for light to travel through space, what we see of the Universe is how it used to be when we look to the farthest distances. Many things can have changed in the time it took for light to travel the vast distances of the Universe.

Despite my limited mathematical skills, I will continue to seek to learn more about the study of physics and the theories of the origins of the Universe. I expect that there will still be more surprises in store. We live in mystery.