A discrepancy in the cosmic background radiation proves that our universe is huge
How big is the universe? This is one of the oldest questions in science. The answer could be anything from "slightly larger than the visible universe" to "infinite".
Up to now. Cosmologists, who examined patterns in the cosmic background radiation, known as the "big bang glow", reduced this uncertainty. They calculated that the minimum size of the universe is 78 billion light years.
Their result dismisses previous proposals, according to which the universe is relatively small and contained within itself. For example, a recently proposed theory claims that the universe is shaped like a football. In this theory, the size of the universe cannot exceed about 60 billion light years.
"There is no room left for the small universe theory," says Neil Cornish, a physicist at the University of Montana in Bozeman who headed the study, which will be published in the journal Physical Review Letters.
If the universe is relatively small, it won't necessarily be so obvious, since it won't have a limit. The space may be contained within itself, similar to how characters in a video game disappear on one side of the screen and immediately appear on the other.
If this is the case, the light from a distant object could reach us through more than one path, just as we can get from the North Pole to the South Pole through an infinite number of paths over the curved space of our planet. If so, we would be able to see light from one source, which comes to us from different directions.
"In principle, it was possible to see light from Earth when, say, life began on it 4 billion years ago," says Cornish.
To check whether light is indeed bent in this way, Cornish and his team analyzed data from NASA's WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) satellite, which detects microwave radiation from the time when the universe was only about 379,000 years old.
The researchers calculated that if light from a certain source really came from different directions, circular patterns of hot and cold areas would form in the cosmic background radiation.
"We didn't find suitable circulars," says Cornish. He concludes that the universe must be larger than 78 billion light years, much larger than the 28 billion light years that we can see with our telescopes.
Cornish believes that further observations of the WMAP will increase the size of the minimum to about 90 billion light years. The WMAP lies at a distance of about 1.5 million kilometers from the Earth, where it can detect temperature differences of about twenty millionths of a degree in the cosmic background radiation.
Translation: Dikla Oren
The article in Nature
They knew astrophysics - the universe
24 תגובות
I don't understand one essential thing, in the big bang theory, for this method before the bang there was some substance that exploded, and it was also in some space. Where did that material or space come from?
outside..
You are right in a way.
But it is important that you understand that the difference is that the scientific theories provide predictions that are closer to the reality revealed to us.
You can see it as a kind of 'upgrading of religion'. First there was religion and then came science... Maybe in the future we will use other ways to understand the universe beyond.... 🙂
Out of the box,
One of the main differences is the degree of conformity to observations.
Look, you started your response with some statements that do not reflect the cosmological theories and you ask questions (which stem from a lack of knowledge) and in the same breath "answer" them (in a wrong way of course) according to what feels right to you about what the answers to those questions must be. Then you compare the not-even-scarecrow you built and the religious belief in God and say - look, it's almost the same thing. So that's it, no. not even close. I really have a hard time understanding why you flaunt your ignorance about science and try to use that ignorance to make an argument. Maybe you really don't see it, but the way it looks from this side, you're giving the religious a bad name, and that's a shame, because there are other options, and I know quite a few smart and knowledgeable religious people who understand how stupid it is to compare religious belief and scientific theories in light of the knowledge we have today . This is why God became in most currents an increasingly abstract entity and the Holy Scriptures increasingly allegorical.
It is indeed interesting in my opinion, why do you even assume that there is infinite power with infinite energy... After all, in your private belief, you did not rely on the findings of science to establish your belief. So what are you actually basing it on?
Ok, so let's understand.. we don't know the size of the universe at all.. so we don't know at all when the big bang started.. because the assumption is based on what was observed.. and what with what I spent can be observed? .. also in Thales there is probably a reality within the process that there is a speed greater than the speed of light .. so all of Einstein's laws change .. at some point then something from the known laws of physics will not be processed .. ok and if the universe is infinite? So it must contain energy that cannot be measured or estimated.. So probably what you are thinking now about the big bang theory.. This estimate is imaginary. Completely..
So ok let's assume there is an infinite force with infinite energy acting at speed. which has no measurement at all, maybe there is no end.. and on the part of these abilities, this power does everything in a week.. yes, only a week.. and all this began seven thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven years ago..
If Cornish is allowed to believe as it is written at the end of the article and to make a scientific hypothesis also a little spice of faith.. then maybe you can tell me what is the difference.. between faith in truth which has not changed since the giving of the Torah. And belief in a theory that is constantly changing and unstable .. for only a few years?
Yigal
To assume that the universe had a beginning at some point in space, you have to assume that space itself was preceded by something else. And this contradicts what is known to scientists today. The prevailing theory today is that space and time are one entity that began at a singular point. Hence the observations from the earth state that the earth is the center of the universe. But objects that are seen at one end as closer than objects that are seen from the opposite end, leads to theories that claim the curvature of space.
Yigal
First, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light.
Secondly, every point in the universe is a center. What spread was space itself - the objects in the universe basically stayed in place.
If we accept the big bang theory then it can be said that at time zero the universe had a center (the point of the bang) and a size (0).
From there: matter and radiation disperse at the speed of light. Certainly not more (and at the moment 0 probably not less either).
Therefore, the universe has a center and a radius that is as large as the age of the universe.
For several decades it has been claimed that the age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years and hence its size.
The findings presented in the article strengthen the assumption underlying the above calculation that the universe is a Euclidean space without twists or "worms".
I would expect physics to try to find our positions relative to the zero point.
If there is no symmetry in terms of the velocities of the stars around us, then it helps such a calculation.
And if there is symmetry (and I think there is - to the point of statistics) - doesn't this contradict the big bang?
Or is the center close enough to us that there is no significance? (and that's weird too)
I don't understand how it is possible that there is an end to the universe when there is so much outside the universe
Michael Rothschild,
First of all, I was very happy to hear from you…
As I said, everyone had the opportunity to 'learn something from the past' - meaning not to make mistakes and not say nonsense.
I personally did not participate in all the recent ugly demonstrations - it was one of the busy periods at work, which do not allow me to even read the website regularly, let alone comment. - And I'm also not sure I could have influenced her in any way.
I think the editor has the tools to prevent disproportionate and irrelevant comments in the future, and certainly offensive comments. This is the principle of the rule of law and a defensive democracy, and with all due respect to freedom of expression - freedom of contempt must not be allowed - from any side.
In general, I think every response should be measured by two standards: matter-of-factness and minimal respect. A response that does not comply with these two - spoils the line and is subject to disqualification (and be reworded - if the commenter insists on its publication).
In any case, you see that the 'silent majority' is not so silent...
In my opinion, it is not worthwhile at this stage to argue about the past - one should only learn from it.
I very much hope that you will return to participate in the discussions, considering 'what he says is wise' (- and it doesn't matter at all that there are disputes on any issues. This is the nature of any healthy intellectual discourse).
Michael
First of all I want you to know that I do not underestimate you and in my opinion you are an asset to this site and yes I can learn a lot from you and I also learn from your comments. And I hope you will come back to write here at least comments. really.
Regarding what you wrote about my comment in "Snake Bite Snake" I would like to explain:
Whoever defames an ultra-Orthodox because he (the detractor) does not understand religion is like an ultra-Orthodox who is not knowledgeable in science who defames a secularist (I hope the explanation makes sense of what I mean).
I'm not ultra-Orthodox and I wrote it already, therefore I can believe in Spinoza's God and there is no contradiction here, as you say.
And you correctly interpreted that their faith (the ultra-Orthodox) creates a problem because God is not a being and an ultra-Orthodox (nor ultra-Orthodox) who believes in him as such creates a problem with faith and perhaps this is what causes them to behave in a way that bothers you (and I am also bothered by the matter of prayers and Shabbat prohibitions).
And I really hope you will come back to respond because you are one of those who can be understood on this site and sometimes even argued (for the better).
Michael
First of all I want you to know that I do not underestimate you and in my opinion you are an asset to this site and yes I can learn a lot from you and I also learn from your comments. And I hope you will come back to write here at least comments. really.
Regarding what you wrote about my comment in "Snake Bite Snake" I would like to explain:
Whoever defames an ultra-Orthodox because he (the detractor) does not understand religion is like an ultra-Orthodox who is not knowledgeable in science who defames a secularist (I hope the explanation makes sense of what I mean).
I'm not ultra-Orthodox and I wrote it already, therefore I can believe in Spinoza's God and there is no contradiction here, as you say.
And you correctly interpreted that their belief (the ultra-Orthodox) creates a problem because God is not a being, and an ultra-Orthodox (and non-Orthodox) who believes in him as such creates a problem with faith and perhaps this is what causes them to behave in a way that bothers you (and I am also bothered by the matter of prayers and Shabbat prohibitions).
And I really hope you will come back to respond because you are one of those who can be understood on this site and sometimes even argued (for the better).
"The silent majority" and Eddie:
Thanks for your words but I felt I had no choice.
I've never had a problem debating opinions, but as soon as a certain group of people got together to discredit me and make me the subject of every discussion I express myself in, I felt that I was no longer able to contribute to the site because as soon as I express my opinion (and dare to say that it really is my opinion) every discussion turns into an unnecessary quarrel purpose.
As you know - I always substantiate my words and do not throw unsubstantiated slander into the air while maintaining the right to remain silent as soon as substantiation is required.
This is different, for example, from what happened in this response
https://www.hayadan.org.il/earths-atmosphere-came-from-outer-space-2812093/#comment-258233
In which it is written, among other things:
” If you notice this speaking culture of yours, it repeats itself in almost every discussion when someone is not exactly in your opinion, some of them have even been writing on this site for a long time, and therefore probably not completely "delusional".
Besides, out of most of the commenters here on the site, you are probably the last one who can testify to the arrogance of another."
This is not true at all, but when I asked for a single example of what I am claimed to be doing, all kinds of evasions always came while uncompromisingly defending the incorrect and unfounded position.
This is of course only part of a whole treatise.
Although a large part of the shameful comments have been deleted, it is still not difficult to find examples.
How about, for example, this?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/a-prototype-detector-for-dark-matter-in-the-milky-way-2909094/#comment-251362
And what do you think about an implicit conversation like this (after the initiator of the conversation was specifically asked by my father to stop with the nonsense)?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/earths-atmosphere-came-from-outer-space-2812093/#comment-258254
https://www.hayadan.org.il/earths-atmosphere-came-from-outer-space-2812093/#comment-258272
https://www.hayadan.org.il/earths-atmosphere-came-from-outer-space-2812093/#comment-258273
If you thought as you wrote - the place to respond was on these occasions!
It's easy for me to deal with arguments on objective topics and I have no problem pointing out someone's mistake a thousand times if he chooses to be wrong (or misled) a thousand times but as soon as I become the subject of the discussion I need the help of others because even though his lawyer claims that I'm arrogant I can't talk that much A lot about myself and if it is indeed defamation, another person should stand up and point out this fact because no one will suspect me of objectivity when I am the subject (and this even though I am objective).
All my responses were written with one and only motive, which is the desire to increase the rationality and fairness of the respondents.
Yes! The many responses in which I conveyed objective knowledge and original insights (and there were many) were also written with these motives.
I knew that if I stopped responding, senseless discussions would break out on the site, such as this discussion:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/just-dont-believe-it-3012092
where it seems that none of the slanderers read the article.
A serious group of scientists is sitting down and developing tools that will make it possible to discover controversial issues and examine what the controversy is, and here comes a group of glorified knowledgeable commentators and attacks them as if they are coming to dictate the truth to someone (don't get me wrong! I actually think that encyclopedias are also a good and important thing even though they claim to present the The truth is, but here we are talking about a system that does not pretend to do even that, and yet the New Age reflex of the people outweighs any consideration) The only motivation behind the responses is the desire to express disdain for others - especially if they are scientists.
Now - imagine what I would have done if I had pointed out the fact that his attorney had done it again! After all, all his resentment towards me stems from the fact that in the past I pointed out a similar thing he did:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/earth-more-sensitive-to-carbon-dioxide-than-previously-thought-0912095/#comment-256624
In fact, you probably won't have to make too much effort and "imagine" as I suggested because there is a good chance that you will get a demo soon.
In fact, the first swallow in the decline was probably this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/earths-atmosphere-came-from-outer-space-2812093/#comment-258330
Instead of answering this "Misho" that if he sees fit to discredit the researchers without studying their words, then he really deserves to be punished, "Rach" tells him one thing that is true (that if it interests him - he should read the original study) but apart from that he says He is right (that is, his grievance that they would have discredited the investigators without checking is justified) and adds and advises him not to comment on the comments (an especially interesting suggestion from a person who wrote a comment and expects it to be addressed)
With Rah's response, the discussion in the article ends.
So the monster dipped her foot in the water to feel its warmth.
And if I'm already responding then I'll add the following:
In the discussion surrounding "Snake Bite Snake" "Ghost" writes, among other things:
"He who defames ultra-Orthodox is like an ultra-Orthodox who defames a secularist.
I believe in God but in a way that is more similar to Spinoza's description, and whoever thinks of God as a 'being' then this is where the problem arises."
Does he not notice the inherent contradiction in his words?
The ultra-orthodox see God as a being and not just as a being but as one who created the world and whose command is to cut the...
That's why their faith creates, as he says, a problem (and that's why he finds himself "discrediting" the ultra-Orthodox - although I'm sure he only meant to be an ultra-Orthodox who discredits seculars).
I don't know if I will respond again.
The gist of the reason is that the position expressed by the "silent majority" was indeed silent and when I was attacked without any justification, no one stood up to stand by my side (apart from "common sense", but he only referred to my reactions, and he also did not express the revolt I observed against the attempts to discredit me)
Here is another excellent explanation of 'time'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCyTB7KyR3Q
Dr. Aharonov's idea that the future influences the past makes the most sense because this is how he sustains the present.
That is, our future is the past of the future (the beginning of the "future") and the future of the future (the end of the future) is our past (the beginning of the universe), hence we can say that when the future ends the past begins, hence time is infinite or rather like a wheel that rotates And in my opinion it sustains being.
Dr. Aharonov's idea that the future influences the past makes the most sense because this is how he sustains the present.
That is, our future is the past of the future (the beginning of the "future") and the future of the future (the end of the future) is our past (the beginning of the universe), hence we can say that when the future ends the past begins, hence time is infinite or rather like a wheel that rotates And in my opinion it sustains being.
post Scriptum
Where did dear Michael Rothschild really go? He is really speechless and I don't underestimate him, on the contrary, he is one of the most educated people who wrote on this site and you can learn a lot from him.
Michael come back at least say something about religious people or refute my claims with my life. We missed you
Eddy, the 'time' in my opinion is bullshit. It's another concept like 'laser cooling' (there is room for technology to be perfected) or 'distance' (what is the longest distance in the universe? You can't answer that, it's constantly changing) or something similar to that...
In physics, time refers to/is calculated according to the speed of light in a vacuum. And not in physics? It can be interpreted in all kinds of ways.
In your comments in the link you provided you wrote 'over time', I don't know how to formulate the formula(s) mathematically and I'm sure there will be those who will succeed (even if not in our lifetime), but I proposed an idea that 'over time' (as you read) does exist and it works on particles that are not visible in the color range of human vision and this is because they move above the speed of light and consist of energy that works at different frequencies than those of the colors visible to the human eye.
These are the same particles that already exist in nature as particles that make up dark energy or dark matter.
Time as it works today refers to matter, and the energy calculated in 'time' is not always accurate, nor are the astronomical calculations accurate. The very high energy particles complicate calculations related to 'time' as it is today but can still give a close answer.
I am sure that there are particles with much higher energy than those discovered so far and they are the ones for which the time in relation to them will be calculated differently than it is calculated today because in my opinion they are particles that move above the speed of light in a vacuum. It is possible that this would also indicate that those particles travel a huge distance in space (perhaps beyond 13 billion light years) and thus they already exist here but we are not able to see them because they are a type of energy that cannot yet be measured.
Why am I being censored? I didn't swear at anyone, what should it be?
to the silent majority,
Really unfortunate. The level of discussion dropped significantly - after commenter #1 chose to remain silent. Even the quarrels with him were, for me at least, a kind of courtship, with all control and with all respect.
I hope that everyone has learned something from the past, and that we will return to the previous situation.
Indeed, there used to be someone to learn from here.
Unfortunately, it seems that a few good souls who hate him on the site because for a few weeks no longer hear his wise and sane responses.
to all of you,
You will get answers to the questions if you look at the responses to the articleQuasars - very far away and terrifyingly powerful' which was published on this site a few months ago.
Note the explanation presented by Michael Rothschild, that the expansion of the universe during the inflation was faster than the speed of light.
In my opinion, the issue raises again, from an unusual angle, questions regarding the nature of 'time' - see there later in the comments.
In any case, the logic here says that there was something in the universe (perhaps some kind of energy) that preceded the "Big Bang" and perhaps also created it. I'm not talking about God, but it seems there was something that created the bang.
What I did not understand is:
1: Was there a bang 13 billion light years ago and the universe accelerated its expansion so that it reached a distance of 78 billion light years as seen today? or
2: The universe exists 78 billion light years or more where 13 billion light years ago the bang that created the matter in the universe was created?
Meyer,
From what I know, it is estimated that the bang was 13 billion years ago because that is the farthest distance that can be observed with telescopes.
I have no doubt that as the technology in the field of telescopes develops, the distances at which it will be possible to observe the universe will also increase.
Maybe because the universe expanded and spread to the other side at the same time.
Basically for all parties.
How is it possible that the universe visible today is 28 billion light years away? After all, the big bang was only 13.7 billion years ago, and how can light reach us from a distance of more light years?