Researchers at the Cosmic Dawn Center at the University of Copenhagen have found that the velocity measurements used to determine the expansion rate of the universe may not be reliable. As stated in the publication, this does not resolve the inconsistency, but rather hints at another inconsistency in the composition of the universe
The expansion of the universe over time. Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team/ Graphics by Dana Berry
Ever since astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that the farther away two galaxies are from each other, the faster they move away from each other, researchers have measured the expansion rate of the universe (Hubble's constant) and the history of that expansion. Recently a new problem has arisen, because there seems to be a discrepancy between measurements of this expansion through radiation in the early universe and through nearby objects. Researchers from the Cosmic Dawn Center at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, have now contributed to this debate by focusing on velocity measurements. The result was published in the Astrophysical Journal.
The researchers at the Cosmic Dawn Center found that the velocity measurements used to determine the expansion rate of the universe may not be reliable. As stated in the publication, this does not resolve the inconsistency, but rather hints at another inconsistency in the composition of the universe.
In both observations the redshift is measured from the brightness of the supernova. But in observation 2 (galaxy 2) the measurement is made on the output of the explosion. The measurements on Galaxy 2 become more uncertain because we do not know exactly in each case how fast the explosion ejects the material. Nevertheless it is still done to obtain as much data as possible. Credit: Peter Lorsen
Measuring the expansion rate of the universe
Astronomers today measure the expansion of the universe using two very different techniques. One is based on measuring the relationship between the distance and speed of nearby galaxies, while the other stems from the study of the background radiation from the very early universe. Surprisingly, these two approaches are currently finding different rates of spread. If this discrepancy is real, the result would be a new and quite dramatic reinterpretation of the evolution of the universe. But it is also possible that the difference in Hubble's constant could be due to incorrect measurements. Measuring distances in the universe is difficult, so many studies have focused on improving and recalibrating distance measurements. But despite this, in the last four years the disagreement has not been settled.
Measuring the speed of distant galaxies is easy - or so we thought
In the said scientific paper, the researchers from the Cosmic Dawn Center are now trying to shed light on a related problem: the measurement of speed. Depending on the speed with which a distant object is moving away from us, its light is shifted to redder colors. Using this redshift it is possible to measure the velocity from the spectrum of a distant galaxy. Unlike measurements of distance, speeds have so far been assumed to be relatively easy to measure.
However, when researchers recently looked at measurements of distances and velocities from more than a thousand supernovae (exploding stars) collected over the past 25 years, they found a surprising discrepancy in their results. Albert Senfen, a graduate student at the Niels Bohr Institute, explains: "We have always believed that measuring speeds is direct and quite accurate, but it turns out that we are actually interested in two types of redshifts."
The first type, measuring the speed at which the host galaxy is moving away from us, is considered the most reliable. The second type of redshift instead measures the speed of material ejected from the exploding star within the galaxy. Or more precisely, the material from the supernova moving towards us at a speed of a few percent of the speed of light (Figure 1). After offsetting this additional motion, the redshift - and velocity - of the host galaxy can be determined. But this offset requires an accurate model of the explosion. The researchers were able to determine that the results of these two different techniques lead to two different histories of the expansion of the universe, and therefore also to two different compositions.
All things "interestingly broken"?
So does this mean that the measurements of the early universe and newer measurements are ultimately a problem of inaccurate velocity measurements? Probably not, says Bidisha Sen, one of the authors of the article. "Even if we only use the more reliable redshifts, not only do the measurements of supernovae continue to be inconsistent with the Hubble constant measured from the early universe—they also hint at a more general discrepancy regarding the composition of the universe," she says.
These new results intrigue Charles Steinhart, associate professor at the Niels Bohr Institute. "If we're actually dealing with two mismatches, that means our current model will 'break down in an interesting way,'" he says. "To solve two problems, one about the composition of the universe and one about the expansion rate of the universe, completely different physical explanations are necessary than if we want to explain only one discrepancy in the expansion rate."
Scientific work continues at the Nordic Optical Telescope
Using the Nordic Optical Telescope in Gran Canaria, researchers are now obtaining new redshifts from the host galaxies. When they compare these results to redshifts based on supernovae, they will be able to see if the two techniques are still different. "We learned that these sensitive measurements require precise measurements of velocity, and these will be possible to obtain through new observations," explains Steinhart.
More on the subject on the science website:
19 תגובות
And here is the actual scope experiment
This is the experiment of the 21st century, and mathematics chose to ignore it.
This experiment discovered a mathematical truth, which mathematics cannot discover at all.
Was mathematics offended by the scope experiment? Probably so.
The scope experiment removed from science the famous mathematical constant "pi" - which is not a constant at all.
What mathematician would agree to admit 2000 years of mathematical error handed down from generation to generation.
Since the days of Archimedes, mathematicians have taught that Pi is constant in all circles, which is not true.
The concept of "mathematical proof" received a shower of cold water, after the scope experiment.
If Wikipedia has a mathematical proof for a constant pi - then a mathematical proof is a meaningless word.
The experiment is the final arbiter in science, and the scope experiment determined that.
Pie varies according to the actual size of the circle, and the smaller the circle, the bigger its pie.
The field of change of pi is tiny, between 3.1416 for a circle with an infinite diameter, and 3.164 for a circle with a diameter of zero mm
Mathematics cannot discover this result at all.
https://youtu.be/HY7GQxU1HLk
The scope experiment gives you an answer
http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/3/117720bb-ade0-427e-96f8-1d8fa47cc07b.pdf
to upset
I have a question to you:
How does the perimeter experiment prove that every circle has its own pie? The last time I checked, the circuits you used are actually memerets (consisting of atoms arranged in a pattern), so your experiment only proves that each memeret has its own pie. Looks like you need to do some thinking with your theory because something doesn't add up there.
Peace and blessing to my friends Israel Shapira!
How are you and how are you feeling?
I had a "juicy" debate with our friend Nissim in a debate about an article in Science:
"For the first time, a neutrino particle has been detected that came to us from the vicinity of a supermassive black hole"
And I wondered where you are in my difficult hours...
So welcome to these dark corona days.
All the best
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The neural universe is also the beaten for the existence of God? For the stars that move in the neural universe must have infinite energy, which originates from the Creator? After all, a creator of the world is a singular point of bursting energy, and can he explain the movement of the stars and the passive time, as well as the paradox of the circular pie?
Asbar is right.
The circumference experiment shows: the smaller the circle, the smaller its circular pie value.
And it can be analyzed in a different way
As you look back into the past, the galaxies move away from each other faster, and the speed decreases the closer you look to the present.
This means that the speed of expansion of the universe is decreasing with time
The neural universe is not disconnected from neural geometry, where pi changes and is not constant.
On the occasion of Pie Day 14/3/2021
The tragic end of a circular pie, and the appearance of a pie from Mertz
There are two types of pie, mamartsi and round. (mmarts = multi-sided elaborate polygon)
The perimeter of the MRC is the cumulative length of identical straight segments, which are the sides of the MRC.
The pie of a square expresses the ratio between the circumference of a square, along a straight diameter of a blocking circle.
Mathematics is able to calculate the pi from the Mertz, because it is straight line segments.
Its exact value is unknown, but it is between 3.1415927 and 3.1415928
The calculated result of a pie from maretz, is suitable for all large or small maretz.
Circular pie expresses the ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter.
The circumference of a circle is the length of a closed circular line, and its diameter is a segment of a straight line.
Mathematics has never been able to calculate the value of a circular pie, because the mathematical calculation is only suitable for straight line segments.
Everything that mathematics has been able to achieve about a circular pie is based on the knowledge that the length of a closed circular line that blocks a square is (slightly greater) than the cumulative length of the sides of the square.
That's why...a circular pie (will always be slightly larger) than a pie.
It is emphasized that mathematics, which boasts of its extreme precision, has never been able to find a formula that allows a transition from a square pie to a circular pie. To find such a formula, one must first find a formula that allows a transition from the length of a string to the length of its circular arc.
Such a formula requires the use of an actual length of string, since for a string of 1 cm length,
There may be many circular arcs of different lengths. The longest arc will appear in a circle with a diameter of 1 cm, and the shortest arc will appear in a circle with a diameter of infinite mm.
And since mathematics does not have a formula for going from the actual length of a string to the length of a circular arc
It was necessary to state that mathematics does not have a passing formula from the length of the largest chord of a circle, to the length of the circular arc of this chord. (Therefore, there is no conversion formula between the diameter of a circle and its circumference)
Mathematics has never been able to calculate the value of a circular pie.
Mathematics has never claimed to be incapable of calculating circular pie.
No mathematician has ever stood up and declared: I am unable to calculate circular pie.
And yet, for 2000 years, mathematics has used the result of a pie from a square suitable for all squares, as if it were a circular pie suitable for all circles,
The scope experiment determined the tragic end of a circular pie that fits all circles.
The circumference experiment revealed that each circle has a unique value of circular pie.
This experiment also revealed the area of circular pie change between 3.1416 and 3.164
The guiding rule: the smaller the circle, the greater its circular pie value
A. Asbar 14/3/2021
There is a conceptual error in the elements that make up the neural universe. The most important force in the neural universe is the stupidity of the thinker and founder.
The problem is that the model that is used is not physical, it partially describes reality, another model, by the way Maxwell beacons that use the ether assumption (yes the same substance that carries the radiation) can better explain the physical world, in a simple and elegant way (as our world appears to us) search (Electron Positron Lattice) EPOLA
The neural universe relies on a very simple assumption. "Every star is always moving, and a resting star does not exist in reality."
From this simple assumption a wonderful universe develops, and it is completely different from the Newtonian universe or the Einsteinian universe
For those interested with curiosity and patience, the following article is presented
http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/ac193a50-8b58-4711-89bd-475f16879d2a.pdf
To Shlomo, what is "rewriting all knowledge"? The data exists and is objective (unless it turns out that some of it is fabricated, then we will have to get rid of the fabricated part, and it is a bit difficult to fabricate spectroscopic information that came from a large telescope these days). What may change is its interpretation, and then from the same measurement it will be possible to conclude that the particular observed galaxy is not 3 billion years old as previously thought, but only 2.9 billion years old.
The universe as it appears to humans is moving away from a certain center with an increasing speed of acceleration, but this does not mean anything at all about the true universe which is probably much larger, even if it has other properties, when at the small point observed by humans the universe behaves in a certain way differently than it does in reality. I believe that in the future if we survive we will discover many more things about the universe that will disprove what is known today.
The universe as it appears to humans is moving away from a certain center with an increasing speed of acceleration, but this does not mean anything at all about the true universe which is probably much larger, even if it has other properties, when at the small point observed by humans the universe behaves in a certain way differently than it does in reality. I believe that in the future if we survive we will discover many more things about the universe that will disprove what is known today.
The more we discover, the less we understand. We may have to rewrite all the knowledge that has been "accumulated" for decades.
Without going into scientific descriptions, I say what I said a long time ago. The more we discover, the less we actually understand. We may have to rewrite all the knowledge accumulated over decades.
the neural universe
The two main innovations in the neural universe are "the perception of matter as a physical form" and passive time.
The passive tense cancels the emptiness in infinite space.
Passive time is absolute rest and absolute cold, and is the medium in which passive time waves move at speed C in all directions.
The universe moves at a speed of 12C through passive time, and there is no delay to the movement of the universe.
Passive time is measured from a state of movement towards a clock.
Active time is measured from a state of rest against the clock.
In contrast to the active time known to all of us - and it exists only in the human mind - the passive time exists in physical reality, but we do not feel it
Matter is not a quantitative thing, and is in the nature of a physical form.
Just as the geometrical shape of a lump of dough is created by combining quantities of the volume of the dough and its surface area, so a physical form called matter is created by combining quantities of passive time and energy.
A. Asbar
Upset: More details? What is here is more than enough.
The two fundamental concepts in the Newtonian universe are gravity and matter
The two fundamental concepts in the Einsteinian universe are energy and matter
The two basic concepts in the neural universe are energy and passive time (matter is a physical form)
What is a universe? It is a finite cluster of stars moving in a straight line in infinite space full of energy and passive time.
The universe has the shape of a disk, and the direction of its movement is in the direction of the axis of rotation of the disk.
Each star in this cluster is a central star and a surrounding star at the same time.
The Earth orbits a Sun-centered star, and the Moon orbits an Earth-centered star.
The trajectory of the movement of the stars of the universe is not circular in a plane, but a spatial screw.
The movement of stars in a spatial Borgian orbit is natural and eternal. Every star in the universe moves in its own natural motion, and all together - as one dynamic division, moving in a straight line at a speed of 12C,
The universe moves in infinite space that is not empty, and is full of energy and passive time.
Passive time is the medium that transmits light and what are known as electromagnetic waves, these waves are waves of passive time.
More details in the attached article
http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/ac193a50-8b58-4711-89bd-475f16879d2a.pdf