More In This Article
The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded today to Saul Perlmutter at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Brian Schmidt at the Australian National Lab and Adam Reiss at Johns Hopkins University for their discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe.
“In a universe which is dominated by matter, one would expect gravity eventually should make the expansion slow down, the Royal Swedish Academy’s Olga Botner said this morning at the announcement event in Stockholm. "Imagine then the utter astonishment when two groups of scientists headed by this year’s Nobel Laureates in 1998 discovered that the expansion was not slowing down, it was actually accelerating."
"By comparing the brightness of distant, far-away supernovae with the brightness of nearby supernovae," Botner continued, "the scientists discovered that the far-away supernovae were about 25 percent too faint. They were too far away. The universe was accelerating. And so this discovery is fundamental and a milestone for cosmology. And a challenge for generations of scientists to come.”
For a 2004 article in Scientific American by Riess about the use of distant supernovae to reveal the acceleration of the universe, click here.
And click here for a profile of Perlmutter and his work on dark energy.
See what we're tweeting about
57 Comments
Add CommentI read the following paragraph in Yahoo! on the same subject: "He said galaxies that are 3 million light years away from Earth move at a speed of around 44 miles per second (70 kilometers per second). Galaxies that are 6 million light years away move twice as fast."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't understand. Doesn't it mean that 6 million years ago stars were moving away from each other at twice the speed as the stars 3 million years ago? How is that acceleration when things moved faster in earlier times?
Please help! Or maybe Yahoo reported wrongly?
I read the following paragraph in Yahoo! on the same subject: "He said galaxies that are 3 million light years away from Earth move at a speed of around 44 miles per second (70 kilometers per second). Galaxies that are 6 million light years away move twice as fast."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't understand. Doesn't it mean that 6 million years ago stars were moving away from each other at twice the speed as the stars 3 million years ago? How is that acceleration when things moved faster in earlier times?
Please help! Or maybe Yahoo reported wrongly?
Hi Sanny,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisplease see :
http://curiuos.astro.cornell.edu:question.php?number=575
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
I agree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave Nobel prizes ever been retracted before?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are still several uncertainties presumed in the analysis of type Ia supernovae luminosities. One uncertainty is the effect of metalicity on peak emission luminosity, used to precisely derive distance in the studies that concluded the uiniverse is accelerating. It is currently presumed to have no effect, but the metalicity of more distant type Ia SNe would be different from that of nearer type Ia SNe and its effect has not yet been determined. Please see: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/08/bright_supernova_one_of_the_ne.html#more
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you don't like the reporting on this site very much. It seems to me that you are angry that people are not producing science that is up to your usual standard of truth. If that is the case, wouldn't it be more beneficial for everyone if you were to pursue the scientific avenues that interest you and let others go about their merry way? If there is in fact science that backs up your claims, why not challenge the actual scientists that developed the theory? If you harness the power of Google, I'm sure you could find contact information for any of these researchers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am only writing this because you seem to have a great deal of interest in proving these stories wrong. I just want to make sure you understand that ranting here is not going to get you very far.
Best of luck.
How many times have we seen this same nonsense? "Well our theory must be right so we'll just have to add this fudge factor to make it all come out right!" I just read an article two weeks ago saying dark matter had been shown to be false. Can dark energy be far behind?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee an alternative theory: http://metrocosmos.blogspot.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDark Energy which causes the accelerating expansion is now a well authenticated and accepted fact in Cosmology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo study the subject.
I'm keen to see more about "why" and less about "what" is happening as the universe expands.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscongratulation to winner.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI ever said the dark energy is one mater uncharted.
Yesterday i ask the one scientist if the dark energy is one kind "plastic" mater! He don t know! he Haven t scientific facts to prove this.
I give one example: When we have one "elastic rope" and i stretch this she follow the move. She come one limit and turn to first moment. If this happen to universe?
My theory is, if the universe expand this dark mater he have to one "plastic" mater unknown.
This expand have limit?
In your composition have many neutrinos, the particles more fast that the light.
The neutrinos have limit? The light haven t limit...
Maybe im wrong,maybe is my imagination but when i see the sky in the night i have one feel that the stars are more far away that usual.
I dont know if anyone agree!
Congratulations to Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt, for the nobel prize.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree to the accelerating expansion of the Universe. In recent times comes to light theories, which reverse the current model of physics. In my book “From the inside of quarks and up to beyond the universe”, page 125, I describe an interesting, new proposal on the cause, of the accelerating expansion of the Universe as follows:
"In the beginning, along with matter, antimatter is created. Then the matter and the antimatter, creates sets of masses of matter and sets of masses of antimatter, which are formed in, solar systems and galaxies of matter and sets of solar systems and galaxies of antimatter. Between the systems of matter and antimatter there is developed a repulsion. This repulsion is dynamically creates the accelerating expansion of the universe, -or better the acceleration of the universes and anti universes-". More details there are in my book.
Ι’am writing these few lines, to highlight the case that besides ‘dark matter’, there are many other reasons, for which, we can attribute the phenomenon, of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. There is no, any particular reasons, after the award ceremony, we all start, to look for ‘dark matter’ or ‘dark energy’.
I think I have read on several cosmology blogs that dark matter and dark energy are just names given to account for the missing mass which which the current theory says must be there, but which is yet to be detected or proven to exist. Has there been a recent major discovery in this field which I missed? Wikipedia seems to verify this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHope all is well down under in NZ.
"He said galaxies that are 3 million light years away from Earth move at a speed of around 44 miles per second (70 kilometers per second). Galaxies that are 6 million light years away move twice as fast."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSanny: Light year is a measure of distance. Assuming 3 million light years is 1 unit of distance, then 6 milion light years is 2 units of distance. The above statement means that galaxies further away (2 units of distance from us) are moving faster away from us (at twice the speed) than the galaxies closer to us (1 unit of distance from us) are moving. That means the universe is expanding, not contracting.
Now, if 3 million years ago is 1 unit of time, then 6 million years ago is 2 units of time. Your question "Doesn't it mean that 6 million years ago stars were moving away from each other at twice the speed as the stars 3 million years ago?" will be equivalent to asking "Doesn't it mean that at 2 time units ago stars were moving away from each other at twice the speed as the stars at 1 time unit ago?", which is similar to asking if the stars were moving slower yesterday than the day before, which in turn is asking whether the universe is moving slower and slower. To me, this slower-and-slower movement of galaxies relative to each other seems to contracdict to the meaning given in the first paragraph above --- the universe is expanding faster and faster. [Please correct me if I am wrong.]
Congratulations to the Nobel Prize winners. BUT they didn't prove that the universe is expanding, all they proved was the galaxies are accelerating. I say they are simply falling toward the outer boundary of a finite universe powered by gravity-like 5th force located at the boundary. novan.com/5th-forc.htm .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you, Donzzz. Don't know if the galaxies are accelerating away from us or accelerating towards us, but both galazies and 'us' are moving...It is interesting. Also at time = 0, was that when big bang occurred? or when big bang occurs again, will time = 0 again? If so, how many "times" are there?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for the timely story. In the interest of scientific ethics, I would like to point out that one year before the supernovae observation -- in1997 -- my theoretical model predicted exactly this : a dark energy driven accelarating universe with a small cosmological constant. Besides the model also deduced from theory several inexplicable empirical relations, known for nearly a century. All this is well documented in the literature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations on winning the Nobel Prize for discovering the galaxies are actually accelerating BUT you only proved that the galaxies are accelerating not that the whole universe is expanding (really big assumption!). I feel the galaxies are really just falling toward the outer boundary of a finite universe powered by a 5th force located at the boundary of a finite universe. (novan.com/5th-forc.htm)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongrats to the discoverer. I wonder, will the whole world realize that we live now much better thanks to that discovery?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been waiting since 1967 for the Nobel Prize for my discovery of Gravity Control. If Nasa had used it, the USA would have stayed on top in the Space endeavours. The Propulsion Engineers rejected it. It woud make the Rocket Industry obsolete. You also would have by now electric power at 1 cent per Kilowatt or less. No pollution, no fuel after easy start-up from outside source. Can be built in Micro-, Mega- or Gigawatt size. You would also have had an Industrial Revolution, creating thousands of jobs, thanks to the many applications.
Look at > One Terminal Capacitor <
Quote:“In a universe which is dominated by matter, one would expect gravity eventually should make the expansion slow down," Olga Botner..in Stockholm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA universe dominated by matter? Nobel winner Hannes Alfven suggested 99.99% is plasma; leaving 0.01% for 'matter', NASA states we meet plasma at 200km and nobody knows where it ends.
The language defining vacuum (dark) energy is revealing: “.. an underlying background energy that exists in space even when the space is devoid of matter (free space). The concept .. has been deduced from the concept of virtual particles, which is itself derived from the energy-time uncertainty principle.” Notice the absurdity of the concept, given a vacuum contains no matter, ‘background’ or otherwise, yet it is supposed to contain energy!!
The accelerating/ expanding universe is an interpretation based on total ignorance of the real nature of stars and ‘standard candle,’ = supernova type 1a. A SN1a is supposedly due to a hypothetical series of incredible events involving a white dwarf star. But as plasma researchers show, a supernova is simply an electrical explosion of a star that draws its energy from a galactic circuit. Supernova brilliance, exceeding its host galaxy for days or weeks, is explained by power transmission line failure, as on Earth. Suddenly opening such a circuit releases stored electromagnetic energy concentrating at a point, producing catastrophic arcing.
The ‘standard candle’ and light curve is simply due to circuit parameters of galactic transmission lines, which power all stars. What of fainter & more short-lived supernovae in highly-redshifted galaxies? Halton Arp shows that faint, highly-redshifted objects, like quasars, are intrinsically faint because of youth, not their distance. Quasars are ‘born’ episodically from active galaxies nucleii. They initially move v fast along spin axis away from their parent. They mature, grow brighter and slow down, as if gaining 'mass'. Finally they evolve into companion galaxies. Decreasing quasar redshift occurs in discrete steps - a process whereby protons/ electrons go through small, quantized (resonant) increases in mass as the electrical stress and power density within the quasar increases. Charge comes via an electrical ‘umbilical cord,’ ie. the parent galaxies’ nuclear jet.
In an electric model, stars and SN1a are naturally dimmer. Supernovae are more short-lived in high-z galaxies than in low-z galaxies because of smaller galactic power density and the lower mass (energy) of all subatomic particles making up the former.
Sorry James, you're fighting a losing battle against dark energy and dark matter. You're up against the scientific consensus of professional physicists and astronomers. The Nobel committee is correct in awarding the physics prize. Your doubt is due to lack of understanding of the subject. Keep learning! Eventually you'll catch up with the pro's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLight years is a measure of distance not time. The farther stars are traveling faster than the nearer stars. It means the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations to Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt, for the nobel prize.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree to the accelerating expansion of the Universe. I though a great call on, to my friends scientists working at this topic. Do not confuse this acceleration, with dark matter. There are many other more simpler ways, to explain this phenomenon. In my book “From the inside of quarks and up to beyond the universe”, page 125, I describe an interesting, new proposal on the theoretical cause, of this acceleration .
It will be very fruitful for science, to consider some new ideas. We have only to try it.
Dark energy is detected by its gravity. is it anti-gravity? How is it being "generated" and why is it causing the expansion of the universe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we see is that thirteen billion years ago galaxies were moving away fast, but ten billion years ago, they weren't moving quite as fast. At eight billion, even slower, and so on until, in the recent past (close objects), they aren't moving away at all. In fact the Andromeda galaxy is moving towards us. This seems totally contradictory to the accelerating expansion theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI totally agree with your observations. In my book "From the inside of quarks and up to beyond the universe", I analyze the theory of "pointal-charges." According to the theory, the motion of galaxies, started from zero, over several billion years ago,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-unknown how many-, separate for each galaxy and has now reached the speed levels we observe. In general we can say that this move is an accelerating, but uneven and turbulent motion.
Greetings all,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestion: Isn't the information we receive in real time is from events that happened 14-15 Billions years ago? If so, wasn't the universe expanding faster at that time?
I believe that the further we look back into the the beginning of the Universe, the faster the Universe would be expanding, until the expansion rate reaches light speed. Going back further than that point will not yield information because the expansion rate would have been faster than the speed of light.
The reason for stating the above is that at the moment of the Big Bang, the rate of expansion, I think, was near infinite, due to the near infinite amount of energy released.
Issam.
Carry on living in cloud-cuckoo-land guys. Until you escape the grip of gravity-based theory, it's a total waste of computer time breath.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe universe is expanding faster than speed of light. We can actually observe galaxies moving away from us faster than light. It does not violate special relativity since it is spacetime itself that's moving faster than light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience will only make sense if we ignore the relativity and constant speed of light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs we trace back to the big bang singularity, time comes to a stand still due to the time dilation absurdity. As Time runs differently for different observers/ planets/ stars and galaxies, The projected time scale of events since big bang must be different for each of these reference frames!!!
@Dr.S - I'll reply to you since you were the latest to reply to sanny...and I think you have all missed his point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, light year is a measure of distance, but the light we see from an object 6 million light years away is, by definition, 6 million years old! We aren't seeing those distant objects as they ARE, but as they WERE millions of years ago.
I think that makes sanny's question quite valid. If objects 6 million light years away were moving away faster 6 million years ago that objects 3 million light years distant were moving 3 million years ago, it would seem that things are slowing down.
This is a very interesting question.
The farther galaxies are moving faster because they have been accelerating for a longer time than nearer and younger galaxies. It is consistent with an accelerating expansion of spacetime. If the expansion is constant, the speed of near and far galaxies would be the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat sounds logical at first blush, but the fact is that we don't know how fast nor in what direction any of those galaxies are moving right now. If we look at a galaxy one million light years away, we see it as it was one million years ago, not as it is now. If it is ten billion light years away, we see it as it was ten billion years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo a galaxy six million light years away WAS moving twice as fast six million years ago as a galaxy three million light years away WAS moving three million years ago.
We often hear astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists talk about looking back in time when we look into deep space, because the further away the object is the longer time the light we see from it has travelled. In terms of cosmological time, the few decades we have been making these passive observations is nearly instantaneous, so our view of any object is dated by the distance of the object.
So, to say that more distant objects are travelling faster is to say that older views of objects show faster moving objects...objects seen in more recent views are moving slower.
This would seem to mesh will with the concept of expansion during the big bang. Was there a rush of expansion, only to slow down and then begin to accelerate again? Or are those galaxies we see 14 billion light years away moving faster because our view of them is 14 billion years old...a cosmologically significant amount of time closer to the end of expansion, when, perhaps, those galaxies were just starting to decelerate?
Sorry, meant to say inflation in the last paragraph. Rephrased :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis would seem to mesh will with the concept of inflation early in the big bang. Was there a rush of inflation, only to slow down and then begin to expand again? Or are those galaxies we see 14 billion light years away moving faster because our view of them is 14 billion years old...a cosmologically significant amount of time closer to the end of inflation, when, perhaps, those galaxies were just starting to decelerate?
"but the fact is that we don't know how fast nor in what direction any of those galaxies are moving right now."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe do know. The redshift tells us the speed of recession which is the sum of two speeds: the speed of the moving galaxy plus the speed of spacetime expansion. The direction is away from earth and parallel to the radius of curvature of the universe. Assuming the universe is not flat.
Your explanation makes perfect sense, except that this information tells us how fast those objects WERE moving millions of years ago, not how fast they are moving NOW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf a galaxy six million light years away is accellerating away from us, then the light it is emitting NOW will have way more red shift when it gets here (six million years from now) than the light we are currently observing, which was emitted six million years ago.
Our observations and measurements are a snapshot taken during a VERY brief time, in cosmological terms, but that snapshot shows a broad range of time, with some information dating almost all the way back to the big bang, and other information more recent...minutes or hours old for objects viewed in our own solar system. Yet, we seem to treat all the information in this snapshot as though it is current, not a range from incredibly ancient to very recent.
So, NONE of our information about space is gathered in real time, but the idea that the expansion of the universe is accelerating seems to depend on the idea that it is ALL real time. Does the math they use to support this claim take the age of the data into account?
How long would we have to wait between measurements of a single galaxy to see a change in its speed through a discernable change in red shift? Thousands, if not millions of years I'd guess!
My dear friends.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStudying, - for many years-, the issue, of acceleration of the motion of Galaxies, I reached to some conclusions, as follows:
-According to the theory of «pointal charges», which I describe in my book, "From the Inside of Quarks and up to Beyond the Universe", I proved that in fact, the motion of galaxies, are indeed accelerated motion.
- However, the acceptance of the accelerated motion of galaxies, completely removes the theory of «big bang», since the model of the theory of «big bang», provides only a constant or decelerating motion of galaxies.
-Science to save, the theory of «big bang», was conceived, the possible existence of "dark matter", provided of course that some day, will confirms experimentally or theoretically, its very existence.
-For the existence however of "dark matter", there was no other experimental or theoretical confirmation.
- How then, the question that introduced "dark matter", turned now, as the answer for the existence of "dark matter"?
Please help me!
And a logical very small query to above question. Why should we be "de facto" sure, that the only solution for the cause of the acceleration of galaxies is the "dark matter" and why we "de facto", block other more reasonable solutions, such as the repulsion of masses of matter and antimatter?
If the current theories about the “make-up” of what we assume is the totality of the Universe is true, then from a purely “statistical inference” perspective of an independent observer everything we think we know is insignificant in the extreme.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust think about it for a minute. Who in their right logical mind, be they Physicist, Mathematician, or Cosmologist etc., would give any, universally predictive, weight to the results of a set of theories that are founded on multiple sets of observation and experimentation carried out on a sample of less than 5% of something. I would think that the margin for error from doing so is so large as preclude any Scientist from putting much faith in the results obtained. Just imagine that someone took a sample of your intestines and without any knowledge about the makeup of the balance of you drew conclusions about what you were and how you worked. What do you suppose would be the chances of them reconstructing an anatomically correct image of you? This would not preclude them being able to make verifiable predictions based on their observations on a “local” level about how your intestines worked, but you could be worm or a great white shark for all they would know.
So lets, for arguments sake, imagine that the force that is driving the accelerating expansion of Space is not a “push” but a “pull” which would imply that there is something doing the “pulling”? Lets call it, for want of a better description, Negative Space. Now stop your giggling. If it is true that every particle of Matter has an equal and opposite “anti self” then why would it be so outrageous to assume that Space itself also has an equal and opposite Twin which is capable of exerting an attractive force on what we call “Normal Space” or what I will refer to as Positive Space. Lets remember now that everyone is throwing the word “Space” around like they know it exists and what it is. As far as I know what we all call “Space” is more of a concept then an established reality that you can reach out and touch or verify its existence by direct or indirect observation. We assume Space exists and that it “contains” everything else because we are unable to comprehend the alternative. So if we assume that Space exists and that because of this it is subject to the same “rules of existence” as everything thing else that exists then the assumption of both Negative and Positive regions of Space is not only possible but very likely. If anyone wants me to elaborate on the implications of this I will, if requested.
Nobel Prize in Physics
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI warmly applaud the accurate observatonal work of the prize winners - on supernovae. However, the Prize was awarded on the grounds of the work showing that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate but this is merely conjectue based on the prior guess that the Universe is actually expanding. It seems reasonable to expect the elimination of prior guesswork before handing out prestigious Prizes.
All the facts relied on for an expanding Universe have alternatie explanations. For example we know the redshift is not due to the Doppler effect. or we would have to be at the centre of the Universe. Problematically, the Doppler effect is the only proved redshift effect caused by motion, others are guesswork. However, a model called the cosmological redshift, has been fabricated, to make the redshift be a measure of a notional expansion. This relies on the expansion being produced by space itself stretching and pushing galaxies apart. The redshift is then said to be caused by the expanding space, stretching thr wavelength of light as it passes through it. There is no known method for either space to stretch and expand or for it to stretch light as it passes through it. This model is pure metaphysical speculation.
Secondly,notwithstanding that the cosmological redshift model is made up, it does not manage to do the job it was made up for. Back in 1929 Hubble discovered the coefficient of proportionality between the distance the light has travelled and the amount of redshift. Double the distance gives double the redshift, three times the distance gives three times the redshift and so on. However, the cosmological redshift model does not give this essential result. It gives the correct notional recessional velocity for the galaxies, but the light we rely on would not show this. Remember we are not dealing with the Doppler effect. The stretching of the light would compound as it passed through space.
I will explain this below in a follow-up Comment.
Frank Atkinson, www.tempofieldtheory.co.uk
Nobel Prize in Physics
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFollow-up explanation for previous Comment
To show this, consider four galaxies all equidistant in a straight line, ABCD. Now send out a pulse of light from A towards D, and let its wavelength start at 1 cm. Let the expansion be such that the wavelength is doubled by the time it gets to B giving a redshift of 1. When the pulse of light passes B let a second pulse be sent off from B towards D, with the same wavelength of 1 cm. Now we have the situation that when the two pulses of light arrive at C, we find A to have its wavelength stretched to 4 cm, and B to 2 cm. Finally, as the two pulses of light pass C, let a third pulse be sent out from C towards D, with the same wavelength of 1 cm. When the three pulses of light arrive at D the light from C will have the correct redshift of 1, but that from B will have a redshift of 3 and not 2 as it should: and the light from A will have a redshift of 7 instead of 3. So instead of a progression 1,2,3 we have 1,3,7,15,31,63.
To sum up, the main planks in the argument for the expansion of the Universe as presently argued, are not viable. A fundamental rethink is required as to whether there is expansion at all. I have submitted an alternative model (see Paper on the Big Bang on the open access website www.tempofieldtheory.co.uk and the Book "Time - The Hidden Dimensions Of The Missing Physics",) suggesting that the Universe is static on the large scale, by virtue of the variation in time dilation throughout the Universe, which is a fundamental property of the Tempo field model.
Frank Atkinson
Nobel Prize in Physics
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFollow-up explanation for previous Comment
To show this, consider four galaxies all equidistant in a straight line, ABCD. Now send out a pulse of light from A towards D, and let its wavelength start at 1 cm. Let the expansion be such that the wavelength is doubled by the time it gets to B giving a redshift of 1. When the pulse of light passes B let a second pulse be sent off from B towards D, with the same wavelength of 1 cm. Now we have the situation that when the two pulses of light arrive at C, we find A to have its wavelength stretched to 4 cm, and B to 2 cm. Finally, as the two pulses of light pass C, let a third pulse be sent out from C towards D, with the same wavelength of 1 cm. When the three pulses of light arrive at D the light from C will have the correct redshift of 1, but that from B will have a redshift of 3 and not 2 as it should: and the light from A will have a redshift of 7 instead of 3. So instead of a progression 1,2,3 we have 1,3,7,15,31,63.
To sum up, the main planks in the argument for the expansion of the Universe as presently argued, are not viable. A fundamental rethink is required as to whether there is expansion at all. I have submitted an alternative model (see Paper on the Big Bang on the open access website www.tempofieldtheory.co.uk and the Book "Time - The Hidden Dimensions Of The Missing Physics",) suggesting that the Universe is static on the large scale, by virtue of the variation in time dilation throughout the Universe, which is a fundamental property of the Tempo field model.
Frank Atkinson
Your ideas are wrong. Study this cosmology link before you post again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
Your post is full of errors. It contradicts general relativity and astronomical observations. I suggest you study physics and astronomy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not dark matter that accelerates the expansion of the universe. It's dark energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMatter and antimatter do not repulse. They annihilate each other in a burst of gamma rays.
Not knowing the 95% dark matter does not mean we do not know the 5% ordinary matter that we observe all the time. I'm sure people can tell the difference between the intestine of a worm and the intestine of a great white shark. (can the worm swallow a man?) Particles have anti-particles. Space does not have an "anti-self" because it is not a particle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry. But by verbiage, to the previous comment, I forgot to mention, that after the introduction, of "dark matter" and the theory of «big bang», science, in addition to theoretical answer for the accelerated expansion of the Universe, is committed, to give clear answers, to the following questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Dark matter".
-What is dark matter?
-Where is it?
-How created?
-When was it created?
-How does it work?
-Have we found specific places, where can find, this material?
-Apart from that, the dark matter creates the acceleration of the motion of galaxies, is there even another theoretical or logical evidence, certifying the existence of this matter?
«Big bang»
-Where and what was the “cosmic egg”, with the infinite energy, the infinite density and the infinite temperature, from the explosion of which the whole Universe was created found, and how was it formed?
-When and how were this infinite energy, infinite density and infinite temperature contained within the “cosmic egg” manifested?
-How was the energy of the cosmic egg transformed into matter? Specifically, how was this energy transformed to quarks and then how the other particles of matter formed?
-Are the quarks elementary particles, i.e., are they indivisible particles or does the division of matter proceed even further than the quark?
For all the above questions, the theory of "pointal charges", gives sufficiently clear theoretical answers.
I apologize. I never imagined that someone could read what I had written and so completely miss the point I was trying to make. Probably explains why I never took up teaching as a profession. The only thing I can say to you at this point is what one of my old University Physics professors told me one time when I was grappling with a problem the night before exams.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Go to the tavern with your buddies and have a good time I know when you think it about it you will get an A like you always do”.
@Doc S - I looked at the link you posted and saw nothing that touched on the question I am asking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo the math and the theories take into account the fact that all of our "speed data" for how fast galaxies are moving is dated by its distance?
I see where time dilation is discussed, but nowhere have I ever seen anything that takes into account that the light we observe from the most distant objects is billions of years older than the light we observe from closer objects.
How is this accounted for? If it is not, on what grounds is it dismissed?
Please stop treating current theories as dogma when I am asking logical questions about the foundation of those theories.
Time and time again I have read about this subject and been told that when I look into deep space I am looking back in time. When I see an object 10 billion light years away, I see it as it was 10 billion years ago, not as it is now.
Are you now telling me that the data relating to speed is instantaneous, while every other aspect of the information is 10 billion years old? Or are you saying that cosmologists and astrophysicists have been lying to me all these years and that all our observations are in real time regardless of the distance of the observed object?
I doubt that seriously. The question stands as valid and deserving of an answer : How is the relative age of the various data used to calculate the expansion of the universe factored into the calculation? If not, why not?
Ι am sure that after reading my reviews, you would have graduated my knowledge, with a score. close to zero. For this, I believe that you are absolutely right, because I would do the same too, if someone told me that the matter repels antimatter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I want to spend a few minutes of your time and read carefully the following:
- Is there even a clear theoretical or experimental evidence that matter attracts antimatter?
-Has science, describe theoretically, what is matter and what is antimatter?
-In my book, «From the Inside of Quarks and up to Beyond the Universe», just describe the characteristics of matter and antimatter and I quote some data on the repulsion of matter and antimatter. In my new book, concerning the unification of fundamental forces, which will be released in 2012, will describe and proof that the matter repels antimatter.
I believe that if the discovery that the universe has an accelerated expansion is the discovery of the past decade, the repulsion of matter with antimatter would be the discovery of this decade.
-At the moment, very briefly I would note that:
At the level of elementary particles
"We know that: positively charged particles attract the negatively and repel positively charged particles'
At the level of atoms, molecules and matter
"We know that: matter attracts matter"
"It's coming that: antimatter attracts antimatter"
"Something that will result: matter to repel antimatter"
I believe that the above will soon be understood by science.
You doubt the theories because you don't understand them. When you look up in the sky and see a star, you are seeing the past but the light photons are entering your eyes in real time and their properties are observed in real time. It gives you information about the star in real time though the light photons are billions of years old. Now I don't expect you understand it. You wouldn't be asking all those questions if you did.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Is there even a clear theoretical or experimental evidence that matter attracts antimatter?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYup. Matter and antimatter have mass and attract by gravitational force.
"Has science, describe theoretically, what is matter and what is antimatter?"
Yup. Matter is made up of atoms with nucleus of protons and neutrons, and electrons outside the nucleus. Antimatter is made up of antiatoms with nucleus of antiprotons and antineutrons, and antielectrons outside the nucleus.
Your book is not physics.
I followed the advice of your old Prof and I always got A in physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell now maybe we both had the same Prof. Wouldn’t that be strange. Mine was a German gentleman who spent the first week of class teaching us his method of shorthand to speed up his lectures. Any way I digress. Now with regard to what you said about what I said. I don’t believe I said that our Universe consisted of 95% Dark Matter and 5% ordinary Matter, but I will not debate you about the literary license you exercised there, but if you look carefully you will see that I specifically said “a sample of your intestines” so this sample could be microscopic in size and hence there would be no way for you, or anyone else for that matter, to determine the “size” or shape of the overall intestine, or for that matter even if there “was” and overall intestine, let alone what it was a part of, and whether or not is was large enough to “swallow a man”, but all of that is just petty hair splitting not worthy of serious debate. What is important is that you seem to allude to a personal and, surprisingly detailed, knowledge of the make-up of Space itself and I find this intriguing. I would be really interested in what you could tell me about the make-up of Space since you definitively stated its is not Particulate in Nature and because of this cannot have an anti-self, although I am pretty sure I never said that Space was particulate in nature. That said, I was unaware that being particulate in nature was a prerequisite to having an “anti-self”. What I did say was it could be possible that what we call Space could have a Twin, which was its Polar opposite and which for arguments sake I called Negative Space.
There is a basic “disconnect” in all I have read about the make-up of our Universe and all that is known and theorized surrounding Matter and Energy in all of its forms and how it interacts with itself such that when we reach the level of the Cosmic we start to talk about Space does this, and Space does that, without defining what Space actually is, and how it can exert its influence over Matter and Energy. I have some thoughts regarding this, but if you could enlighten me in this regard I would greatly appreciate it. I guess what I am saying is that to simply say, “Space simply is” is an inadequate Scientific description of anything. You have my undivided attention.
@Dr S - You said "When you look up in the sky and see a star, you are seeing the past but the light photons are entering your eyes in real time and their properties are observed in real time. It gives you information about the star in real time though the light photons are billions of years old."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for giving a straight answer instead of another brush-off.
So, since we have the technology to frequency modulate light, then if we were able to establish a constant beam of light from Earth to say, Saturn (rather, a space vehicle near Saturn), then by encoding data into that light via FM, we should be able to have instantaneous communication with that distant satellite.
It seems to me that this technology would have been explored and exploited by now, if in fact a change in the frequency of light at the source could be instantaneously detected at all destinations, regardless of distance. In fact, fiber optics should do away with that annoying few seconds delay in intercontinental communications right here on Earth, right?
You are right, I don't have the patience nor the education required to actually go in and personally critique the math, but I do understand logic, and there is still a problem...either in the theory, in your explanation, elswhere, or some combination of the three.
And yet matter repels antimatter!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed my book belongs to the new physics
Remember me, after a few years
I've considered this further and see the error in my logic. If, indeed, the movement of galaxies is WITH space/time rather than THROUGH it, things would work as you say and render my FM light concept as unworkable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, the only discomfort I have left with the whole idea rests on Occam's Razor. It seems that if matter travelled THROUGH space/time during inflation, and space/time itself were not changing, then dark energy would not be required to explain our observations, and this idea of "age of the data" would then explain to us that everything we observe is slowing down.
Now, I realize that from a logistical viewpoint of the amount of data that would have to be recalculated and number of theories that would have to be revised to even consider this, it becomes one of the least simple questions in a long time. But does the simplicity requested by Occam include such logostic concerns? I don't think so.
Bear in mind, I don't think this affects dark matter, the big bang or any other aspects of cosmology, but rather that it sounds like a plausible, far simpler alternative to dark energy. Further, it also seems to me to mesh much more smoothly with the inflation part of the big bang.
Current theory requires acceptance of two incredibly mind boggling forces, one, the force which created the singularity from which the big bang sprang, and the other, dark energy which continues to drive visible matter at a still accellerating rate.
The very assumption of this second force dramatically increases the difficulty of accepting the first one, doesn't it? I mean, we've already got all the visible matter (plus dark matter) in the known universe squeezed into a singularity so tightly that we violate the Planck dimension, but now we have to squeeze in dark energy, too, which by definition should be a lot harder to compress.
I always found the idea of the big bang and inflation to be fairly easy to swallow, since it seems pretty reasonable that so much matter squeezed into such a singularity would have to expand at a mind blowing rate, and the only explanation for how it became a singularity in the first place seemed to be all that matter collapsing in on itself to create the singularity.
This, of course, begs such questions as "how many times has that happened?" and/or "will that happen again?". But the introduction of dark energy and runaway expansion actually take away from the plausibility of the big bang. The unexplained force which caused the singularity becomes orders of magnitude bigger and more unexplainable. Doesn't it?
Update some basic concepts...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn Light And Dark Mass And Energy
http://universe-life.com/2011/10/03/on-light-and-dark-mass-and-energy/
Most probably wrong common statements :
1) “ …could help solve mysteries such as the nature of the dark energy that is accelerating the expansion of the universe.”
2) “ Light has no resting mass, just energy. Gravity is a bend in space, therefore Gravity does not pull at light but the light 'bends' with space.
Most probably right :
1) The present universe expansion is an accelerating separation of galaxy clusters, fueled by singularity’s mass reconverting to energy since Big Bang. In the present universe nearly all mass formats are destined to reconvert to energy. The attempts to postpone this reconversion are termed evolution/natural selection. The accelerating pace of expansion is Newtonian, as a constant E is acting on a continuously decreasing m.
2) Light has mass. Every object and every process in the universe is a progeny, consequence, derivative of singularity, energy-mass superposition, dualism. Gravity is NOT “a bend in space”. It is the propensity to natural-selection, to delay reconversion to energy, to maintain the energy in mass format. Light bends by gravity when gravity’s pull does not suffice to overcome light’s momentum. However, light’s momentum is no match for black-hole’s gravity…
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
http://universe-life.com/2011/10/14/eotoe-some-implications-2/
http://universe-life.com/2011/10/02/neutrino-velocity-light-velocity/