Says Prof. Dan Maoz from Tel Aviv University, who studies exactly the same field developed by his colleagues who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Dr. Dov Poznansky, also from Tel Aviv, mentions that Tel Aviv University already recognized one of the winners, Adam Rees, in 2004, when it awarded him the Sackler Prize
Dr. Dan Maoz, from the School of Physics and Astronomy at Tel Aviv University, studies Type Ia supernovae (And he was even a partner in a scientific publication that was published at an incredible time - today) and even carries out a joint project with Prof. Rees these days, during which they study supernovae of this type with the help of the Hubble Space Telescope.
"This is the first time that a Nobel Prize has been awarded to astronomical work in the field of visible light. If up to now the Nobel Prizes in astrophysics have been in the field of microwaves (such as the cosmic background radiation), radio astronomy (pulsars), X-rays. In the entire history of the award, this is the first time that it has been given precisely for the oldest method of observation in astronomy and astrophysics - visible light."
As someone who knows them, what is your impression?
"They are my friends, I know them well and met them all the time and with Adam Rees I am also a partner in the project of searching for supernovae with the Hubble that is being carried out now. All three are very nice young people. "These are the same supernovae both in my research and in the studies that won the Nobel Prize. They can be used as cosmic rulers thanks to the fact that their luminosity is known and constant, so the difference in brightness must be due to only one thing - the distance."
However, the very awarding of the prize for the discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, surprised Dr. Maoz: "The prize is surprising in this sense, that the Nobel Committee is known to be a very conservative committee. They award prizes for things that have been verified and fully understood. The phenomenon of the acceleration of the universe is a phenomenon that is observed and everyone is now convinced that it is real but no one understands it. Dark energy is some kind of name but there is not much physical content behind it. That's why many people were surprised even though there were those who expected this trio to receive the award."
"One of the disturbing things is that those supernovae that turned out to be such useful tools to measure very large distances with great precision, and made possible this understanding that we live in an accelerating universe, those type Ia supernovae themselves are very incomprehensible. We don't know what exactly is exploding there. One of the possibilities is that there is a star that is slowly being eaten by a companion star, until it eats too much and explodes, that is, it dies from overeating, and a second possibility is that a pair of white dwarfs - remnants of stars - keep spinning into each other until the final merger leading to the explosion."
"There are other possibilities, for example Prof. Noam Soker from the Technion proposed a third possibility, that the supernova is an ordinary star that swallowed a white dwarf and then it will rotate very quickly and only when it slowly loses its spin can it explode and it can give a very long delay. His model can be called a time bomb or delay bomb. But the two ideas I described earlier are the main ones. In any case, it's a bit worrying that we reach such far-reaching conclusions about dark energy with the help of a tool that we don't even understand how it works, don't even understand what it is. Until this matter is resolved with the help of further research, we will continue to be restless."
Dr. Dobi Poznansky, also from the School of Physics and Astronomy, and who just recently returned from a post-doctorate at Berkeley, where he worked with the research partners: "Dan is right in his concerns. But a measurement is a measurement. The measurements made at the end of the nineties were indeed not super unequivocal, but today it is very difficult to contradict the entire mass of the work done since then. There are still open questions. We still have a lot of work to understand a great many of the elements, to understand what these supernovae are, whether it is possible to make better measurements, and of course to understand what dark energy is - a question more for theorists in physics, not even in astronomy - it is a question in fundamental physics. But the mere raising of the subject of dark energy is thanks to the work of these people. No one heard, thought or talked about dark energy before their work was done. Therefore, despite Danny's reservations, these are concerns that sustain us because we are working on these questions, I think they deserve them."
"I just came from Berkeley. Adam Rees offered me a postdoc four years ago. I hesitated and in the end I went to work with Alex Filippenko - one of the few partners in the work of both groups, and he was Adam Reese's postdoc supervisor - when Reese wrote the article in 1998, and the other group is at the Lawrence Laboratories, of the US Department of Energy, adjacent to the University of Berkeley where Sol Perlmutter and his group, I also knew him well even though I did not work with him directly. I had dinner with Brian Schmidt just six weeks ago at a conference in Stockholm. Schmidt is also a winemaker, he has a fairly large winery, produces several thousand bottles a year, it's his hobby.
"They have been on the list of potential candidates for several years and everyone has been waiting for it. Adam Rees, for this discovery, received the Sackler Prize in 2004 from Tel Aviv University for young scientists who have made a unique and fundamental contribution in an entire field. Tel Aviv University was the first to recognize the work as groundbreaking."
"The award is good for the field, it shines a spotlight and shows that the works are important. It brings respect and support to a field that is overall important and interesting."
Later today we will bring you an interview we conducted with Prof. Avishi Dekal, which sheds light on the theoretical point of view.
By the way, the science site was already active during this period, but at a much weaker pace than the situation today. The initial mention of the research that today turned out to have won the Nobel is found in an interview with Prof. Avishai Dekal that was published in "Haaretz" (I was working at the newspaper at the time, as a high-tech reporter and also contributed a little to the field of science) Although this is a publication that was made a year later in a kind of pull-up news.
31 תגובות
Get upset!
Are you the impatient one?!
If so, why would you go round and round?
Show us your wonderful idea here and now, in short, briskly, and we'll have a discussion. For example, if you claim (like me) for the existence of a certain particle that has behavior Simple a certain one from which all the known phenomena of the physical world can be derived, this is a good place to talk about it. On the other hand, if you are afraid of an open discussion, it is also possible by email.
R. H., and Yuval, peace be upon you
Any theory that attempts to present the structure of the universe must be based on at least one wondrous and incomprehensible idea.
The amazing Newtonian incomprehensible idea is the gravitational force of matter
Geometric curvature of space is a wonderful idea of Einstein's
A theory changes, when wonderful ideas (which are at the base of the theory) change.
The exchange of wondrous ideas is the fruit of free choice.
Free choice is a natural gift of every person,
In the article "Neural Astrophysics" you will find at least one wonderful new idea.
I wish you a good free choice of theory dealing with the structure of the universe.
A. Asbar
R. H.,
On the contrary! It seems to me that the most critical among us is me. I've already rejected Sabdarmish's ideas (only the ones I've read), and most likely I'll reject Asbar's as well. But until I read his words, he is in my possession a genius trailblazer.
Quite a few of us suffer (or perhaps enjoy) one or another type of madness, the main of which is a demand for attention. To satisfy him, they bombard the stage we put at their disposal. Humility from them onwards. Any response will satisfy them. Rotten tomatoes too.
Asbar would have done well if he had acted, as you say, in the accepted ways. But perhaps he is unable to do so, not because of the incorrectness of his words but for personal reasons. If it turns out that his words are false, it is possible and even worthwhile to help him express himself.
jubilee,
Maybe I wasn't clear. I did not pass any substantive criticism of the ideas, it is possible that Asbar is Einstein and Svardmish is a new Newton, there is no absolute dependence between the way the idea is presented or who presents it to its correctness, that is not the point. What I tried to advise them is that if they want serious consideration there is a way to present things.
Today we are in a world a little different from the days of Leonardo da Vinci and science today is subject to rules that regulated the ways of working and raised its level of reliability considerably. It's not that the scientific method doesn't have flaws, but as of today it is the best and the proof is that we correspond on the Internet across continents in real time and it's all the result of scientific progress, so the method probably works.
So again if they want to come up with ideas that's fine and dandy, but if they want to be appreciated or taken seriously for their work (and they work hard and I appreciate them) they must do it within the rules. The article should be according to the rules of scientific writing with the appropriate references and the correct format and then it will be sent to the right place where it will be properly judged. Really, my review is trying to be constructive and I wasn't joking when I said that I appreciate their work.
I really appreciate people who direct their minds and time to scientific ideas and not to pseudo-scientific nonsense such as the New Age of its kind as is customary in our places today.
Only one point they need to remember is a little humility and to understand that there is a considerable chance that they are wrong and if they are made wrong they must not cling to their theory in a sentimental emotional way hard, it happens, they are wrong. Even great ones were wrong.
Hello R.H.,
I have not yet read A. Asbar's article and for that reason I refrain from expressing an opinion on it. Publication in the accepted literature does not seem to me a necessary condition for the correctness of an idea. In order to publish something, a good idea is not enough, but the strength to deal with subjective difficulties is also necessary. It is possible that A. Asbar really tried the accepted channels and was rejected, as you hypothesized, and then he has two options: one, to continue to check on himself. The second, submit it to us for inspection.
I read a number of Sabdarmish's comments, and I did not find any solid truth in them. I have already forgotten Hezi's comments, but I vaguely remember that I was not impressed by them.
We make assumptions, most of which, in fact almost all, end up in the trash can. A. Asbar sends us to a hypothesis that is in a relatively long article, and this is one of the problems in referring to it. But because of the slim chance that there is anything in his ideas, I give him respect at least until I start reading.
upset,
Have you tried translating and publishing your ideas in mainstream literature? If so I understand that they were rejected and do not appear as an article, so what was the review?
If not, why? It is a bit difficult to judge an article that appears out of the blue on a website that is not reviewed by experts on the subject.
A similar criticism is directed at Mr. Sabradmish who has been trying to spread his ideas for several years on websites such as the Scientist or the one who solved all the black hole problems, but both of them refrained from trying to publish the theories and submit them to the common judgment.
If you want a serious consideration of your ideas, try to get an acceptable scientific approval and then a real and proper scientific discussion will also develop.
First of all, hello to you (I don't know the name)
Second, success in exams
And thirdly, a pleasant trip through the expanses of a new universe.
A. Asbar
A. Get upset!
As mentioned, in the near future (with the end of the short exam season that I am about to begin) I will get into the thick of it.
I am not my father.
My father peace be upon you
I'm glad you're interested in the article, and I have plenty of waiting time.
For many years I have been following this unpaved road, at the end of which a new universe appeared.
You are invited to get to know him, through the article "Neural Astrophysics".
The article is innovative, and it is not easy to get ideas that appear in it.
For example: continuous matter with an eternal matter wave motion that is not discernible to the senses
Replaces matter with an atomic structure with eternal particle motion that is not discernible to the senses.
This continuous matter no longer needs "gravitational force" to move, and it moves using its internal kinetic energy, of an eternal matter wave.
And since the article is innovative, I needed new words, for example makfat, makfat, anchan, cycle time of the earth, and their meaning is well clarified in the article.
The article is innovative, but it is based on Kepler's and Galili's studies, and on Newtonian brilliance.
It is very difficult to summarize the article, but it is organized in a clear systematic way and there is no difficulty in understanding it.
All this provided... that the reader is freed from previous ideas received from accepted opinions.
Successfully
A. Asbar
Get upset!
It's a shame that the brevity you use impairs the understanding of your words. Even here, in your comments in "Hidan", you underestimate the explanations, leaving me a lot of room for guesses.
I have no choice but to get into the thick of your article, but I don't know when I will find enough time for it. It is not simple, and contains original and unfamiliar definitions.
I'm also afraid that it suffers from typos. Are "Anchen" and "Angan" two different things? Due to the proximity of the keys "C" and "K" I am afraid that these are two names for the same thing. If there is room to proofread things again, please do so and upload a corrected file to the network.
As mentioned, I will try to study your article as it is, but I cannot commit to a definitive time.
Regards.
In the new universe the concept of energy replaces the concept of Newtonian force.
Newton's famous formula force = mass times acceleration
Does not comply with the Law of Conservation of Energy.
In the Newtonian universe there is Kepler's formula
In the new universe there is another formula, which is the source of Kepler's formula
The Newtonian universe deals with simulated movements (perceived as real by a moving observer)
The new universe discusses real movements, from which the simulated movements arise
It is very difficult to summarize the article, it is itself worded lightly, even though it contains a change.
Best regards
A. Asbar
Chen Chen was upset.
And I wonder: "Another transformation is created, as soon as you accept the idea that the natural movement of the stars is in helical orbits
Now, the Newtonian universe is inevitably replaced by a new universe, in which gravity does not appear". The fact that the motion of the stars is in a screw-like orbit is no longer new and is explained using Newtonian physics. However, it is not clear to me from your words how the Newtonian universe is necessarily replaced by a new universe, in which gravity does not appear. Please provide a brief explanation or direct us to the page in your article.
Thanks in advance
A short summary of the article "Neural Astrophysics"
As soon as the Newtonian idea that the natural movement of the stars is in a straight path, which is curved under the influence of gravity, was accepted (the Aristotelian idea that the movement of the stars is in perfect circular paths was rejected) and a transformation was created in the perception of the universe
Another transformation is created, as soon as you accept the idea that the natural movement of the stars is in helical orbits
Now, the Newtonian universe is necessarily replaced by a new universe, in which gravity does not appear
This exchange eliminates imaginary problems bearing the names "expansion of the universe" "missing mass" "dark energy"
This substitution adds a cosmic formula which is the Kepler's formula.
This exchange creates a new universe, different from the Newtonian universe and also different from Einstein's universe.
A. Asbar.
Get upset! Happy holiday and happy holidays
On the face of it, your article is very intriguing. However, time is pressing and the reading material is long. Can you provide a brief summary?
Alternatively, I would be happy to share my ideas with you.
The universe "works" without gravity
Google "neural astrophysics" and look at the article
describing a new universe, which is not Newton's universe,
And not Einstein's universe.
Happy holiday
A. Asbar
The conclusion that the universe expands at an increasing rate the farther it is from the eye of the observer is obtained, among other things, from the assumption that the space of the universe is empty and does not affect light. However, if it turns out that the "empty space" is not empty, but if it contains a substance that affects light in a similar way to the red shift of the sun's rays by our atmosphere, then this will give a simpler explanation than the claim that the universe is expanding at an increasing speed.
Father 2:
1. The explosion occurs in a state where the mass is still around 1.4 solar masses.
2. See the Classification chapter in the Wikipedia article dealing with supernovae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
Maybe the acceleration originates from a force that comes from outside the universe?
There is no gravity that accelerates its expansion.
Luke,
The vacuum energy is basically a quantum effect and can be derived from the uncertainty principle. The vacuum energy means that the basic state of a system, the state obtained at absolute zero temperature (which by the way according to the second law of thermodynamics cannot be reached) is not zero energy. By the way, work cannot be produced from vacuum energy.
Luke,
Here you will find some information on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
This is a fairly old concept (1934 by Lemaitre and I think it was even earlier by Einstein) that has good confirmations in the form of phenomena such as the Casimir effect (a force of attraction between close plates that does not arise from the force of gravity of a valve). The main problem in this matter, in my opinion, is that in the process of the expansion of the universe, more and more void is added for "free" and this, in my opinion, is intolerable if the void has energy content, because then energy is created from nothing. It is one thing how all this energy was created in the first place at the moment of the big bang, but it is much more problematic in my opinion that energy is added to it just like that under "normal" conditions throughout the universe. This, in my opinion, is one of the most interesting questions that exist today in cosmology - the essence of physical space. And maybe this is one of the most interesting questions ever (but that's just my personal opinion... :-))
to Michael Rothschild
I know the quote and the principle on which the measurement is based.
There are still two problems
1. The assumption that every type IA supernova is made at the same mass. It is true that the star starts to become unstable at the Chandraskar radius but the explosion can be at different stages after that
2. How do you know what kind of super nova happened? If the news comes from the brightness of the super nova, we return again to the tautological argument - the distance is determined by the brightness and vice versa
According to what I have understood so far from reading the website you referred to, the questions appear there as well and it is clearly stated that there are indeed no good enough answers but that this is the best assumption there is. I find it a little speculative. I don't have enough knowledge of course for another theory, but I would expect some caution in unequivocal assertions based on assumptions.
From Wikipedia (*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_candle):
Type Ia light curves
Type Ia SN are some of the best ways to determine extragalactic distances. Ia's occur when a binary white dwarf star begins to accrete matter from its companion Red Dwarf star. As the white dwarf gains matter, eventually it reaches its Chandrasekhar Limit of 1.4 solar masses. Once reached, the star becomes unstable and undergoes a runaway nuclear fusion reaction. Because all Type Ia SN explode at about the same mass, their absolute magnitudes are all the same. This makes them very useful as standard candles.
Avi:
"By the way, the science site was already active during this period, but at a much slower pace"
So the science website is also accelerating!
Is it possible to get a reward for the discovery?
Regarding acceleration in the expansion of the universe, some scientists compare dark energy to vacuum energy, I would love to have a simple explanation of this vacuum energy.
Thanks
Bonnie: "Donny, do you know the type called a point?!"
Donny: "Pretty dubious type, why?"
Bonnie: "I think I ran over one of those today..."
Donny: "Well and...?"
Bonnie: "It just doesn't matter..."
to my father I think that your answer to avi2 is not accurate.
To the best of my knowledge, the reference to supernova la as a "bar."
Cosmic" stems, first of all, from the theory. The theory predicts that
The supernova la explodes when the star's mass reaches
to an exact value. The problem is that the theory has no experimental verification,
and hence the doubt in its correctness. Another problem in understanding the supernova
Today, there is no theory that explains the power of illumination
of the Supanova. The energy calculations known today describe
A supernova explosion gives lower values by orders of magnitude
of the radiation levels, compared to the measured values.
Only if a theory is found that explains the radiation levels
measured, this would be a strong confirmation for the theory of the inflationary universe.
It is possible that within the star a cholent fell from the six days of Genesis that turned it into a ticking time bomb.
My father thanks
Your answer raises the question for me - how do you know that these are super novae from the same cosmic environment? As far as I understand (and I may be wrong), the cosmic distance is determined by the intensity of the light - that is, if the brightness of two supernovae, let's say, is similar, then it is assumed that they are from the same cosmic environment. But on the other hand, it is possible that the similar brightness results from differences in distance on the one hand and differences in brightness on the other - that is, it is possible that one super nova is much closer and much weaker. I would be happy to receive a reference to a material that would explain the whole issue of cosmic measurements to me since, based on my (probably limited) understanding, it seems to me that there is a sort of "circular transaction" here
Observing similar supernovae in the near cosmic environment.
Professor Dan Maoz says this:
"They can be used as cosmic rulers thanks to the fact that the intensity of their illumination is known and fixed, so the difference in brightness must be due to only one thing - the distance."
How do you know that the intensity of illumination is constant and how do you know what this intensity is?