Recently, exotic theories about the existence of an era that preceded the Big Bang have been emerging. They predict that the next generation of telescopes may be able to find the stamp of that era
By Charles K. Choi
It is common to think of the Big Bang as the beginning of everything - including time - which makes questions about what happened before it meaningless. Recently, exotic theories about the existence of an era that preceded the Big Bang have been emerging. They predict that the next generation of telescopes may be able to find the stamp of that era.
The popular opinion about the big bang claims that the universe began at a single point of infinite energy and density, a "singularity" where the laws of physics lose their validity. The universe then went through a process of "bloating" (swelling), during which it expanded for a short time at a speed much greater than the speed of light. The swelling that caused a fairly uniform spread of the universe and erases all its early curves, solved several mysteries, including the reason for the universe being "flat", i.e. a universe where light moves in straight lines and not curved. A slight ripple created during inflation can also explain the general structure of the galaxies we see today.
Observations of the cosmic background radiation - a remnant of the Big Bang - have confirmed some general predictions of the inflation model. However, inflation would have created strong gravitational waves, which would have distorted the background radiation in a way that could be measured. Such distortions have not yet been observed by telescopes, which has led to the disqualification of some inflationary models. Moreover, critics of the theories claim that they are based on inflation as an eternal process. Such swelling is supposed to create infinite pockets in space, with different properties, and therefore the theory needs better explanations for the fact that we live in a flat pocket with the particular structure we see.
In the last 15 years, competing theories have been developed, which hold that before the Big Bang there was an era in which our universe contracted and only then began to expand again. Researchers claim that the ekpyrotic script, proposed in 2001, can explain the current structure of the universe, its being flat, as well as its other characteristics (the name "ekpyrotic" derives from the ancient Stoic concept "ekpyrosis" - the fire from which the universe is born each time anew). The cyclic model, which was developed on the basis of the akpyrotic model in 2002, also explains the existence of dark energy, which is now assumed to cause the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
However, these models of an oscillating universe did not convince many theorists. These scenarios assume that ripples managed to pass from the era before the big bang, through the singularity and serve as a nucleus for the current structure of the universe. "Most cosmologists cast great doubt on this idea," admits cosmologist Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who contributed to the development of the ekpyrotic model and the cyclic model, in collaboration with theoretical physicist Neil Turok of Cambridge University. Moreover, the models were initially formulated in terms of string theory, which many scientists object to, because it includes additional unobservable dimensions, beyond the four dimensions of space and time.
In recent months, many new models of a contracting and expanding universe have emerged. Notably, the models are diverse and very different from each other, many of them avoid singularities, and all describe a universe in only four dimensions. "There is a lot of skepticism about models that describe a contraction followed by an expansion of the universe, possibly due to string theory," says Steinhardt. "The new results use more familiar physics, and they should convince most cosmologists - even those who are not ready to accept the existence of extra dimensions - that there are real alternatives to inflation."
Two models, for example, manage to avoid singularities in the Big Bang. They suggest that a strong force prevented the early universe from collapsing into a point. The source of this force is "ghost condensate" - a flowing substance (compressed gas or liquid) of exotic particles, which can theoretically exert a pressure greater than even that of dark energy. These scenarios arose, each one separately, from the theory of the theoretical physicist Bert Oberot from the University of Pennsylvania and his colleagues, and from the theory of the cosmologist Paolo Criminelli, from the International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) named after Abd al-Salam in Italy in collaboration with the cosmologist Leonardo Senatore from Harvard University.
Another way to avoid the singularity can arise from the fundamental nature of space-time. Theoretical physicist Martin Bujvold from Pennsylvania State University used "loop quantum gravity" - an alternative theory to string theory, and calculated that at very small distances, space-time can be characterized by a repulsive force that prevents it from collapsing. One of the results of such a scenario is a phenomenon Bojwald calls "cosmic forgetting": after a big bang, the universe "forgets" some of its previous properties and acquires new properties, independent of the previous ones.
The new models of an oscillating universe predict that the gravitational waves created after the big bang should be much weaker, by 50 orders of magnitude, than the waves predicted by inflation theory. If future more sensitive telescopes, such as the Planck Surveyor, fail to detect the disturbances in the cosmic background radiation predicted by the inflationary theory, this may reinforce the ideas of an era before the Big Bang. "Right now, it's fair to say that the inflation theory seems more compelling," Carminelli says, "but ultimately, the observational data will decide between the alternatives."
Is the air coming out of the inflation?
Some alternatives to cosmic inflation suggest a cyclical birth and death of the universe. But not all alternatives require such a reincarnation. McGill University's Robert Brandenberger and his colleagues hypothesize that the universe began as a hot, dense gas of strings, filaments of energy whose vibrational oscillations created the particles and fundamental forces. Thermal instability of the gas led to the creation of galaxy clusters and other cosmic structures. This model ignores the question of whether anything existed before the Big Bang, says Brandenberger. If the model is correct, it predicts the existence of a gravitational seal that will be detectable with the help of future telescopes.
To purchase a subscription call toll free 1-800-355-155
67 תגובות
...
Well, good luck then!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Lesbadramish
In the meantime, I'm content with conversations/reactions here, unless you see it as particularly important in the existence or the existence of a meeting of commenters!
Regarding the name "universe scientist" it's a bit big for me but I would love to see if the name scientist can be combined in a more narrow definition (like "three-dimensional scientist") and it also connects to the initial intention of building a model that will explain...good idea!
And believe me, if there is something ready and relevant, I will be happy to provide all the material required for the science site!
Good Friday everyone
Dear Peretz
It is also possible to meet face to face and even with others. What do you think?
And as for the name, maybe the model should be called "Ydan Hikom"? That way we will be justified in proudly placing it in the middle of Avi Blizovsky's living room as our appreciated contribution!
with a smile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Thanks to Sabdarmish for the interest but apparently I failed to explain the difficulty in making a small model of something that doesn't actually exist!!
But if I still decide to make a small model that will illustrate without representing the real thing, I will be happy to announce its existence and even find a way like Michael transferred documents with a sketch through Google!
But it will be something completely abstract, meaning a very, very free interpretation that will include many explanations of what the "poet" meant and what each unit in the model supposedly represents!
Maybe the temporary name of the model will be "The Next Top Model"!!
Shabbat Shalom
So why not make a smaller one for yourself, it can always be the template for the real thing!
That way you can enjoy the creation and know if you are able or want to do it big. If so you will have something to show for it. If you like art, sculpture, then what do you care about doing it for fun?
Food for thought
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I must add that until now I have not contacted any person at Tel Aviv University!! So I have no idea what their opinion will be on this matter! Will they consider, reject outright, or respond enthusiastically (yes of course)!!
It can be quite a headache and a nuisance! And it's not sure what animal will emerge from it at the end! Not to mention the possibility that they will be humiliated in front of all the universities in the world (I actually like it).. that they will not pass Arab jokes and pressures on their account (and without paying)!
And that's even before we talked about the costs, which won't be small at all...and what to do. Every university has priorities, especially after the never-ending strike!
It seems to me that these will be an important part of the management's central considerations...if they even bother to address the proposal!
Lesbadramish
As I mentioned in my response, it will be difficult to prepare even a preliminary sketch because it has to come from conversations with scientists and everyone's angle on the science (concise) as well as explanations of all the theories and various issues before and during the development!!
But in spite of that I forced myself to still try to get the idea off the cloud in which it is found (from the cloudy turtle mop)...I sat on it for an hour and a half on Monday and I barely got two confused lines about definitions! I lost the central direction that I was sure was stable and clear when I entered the details!
Yesterday evening I already came back to myself a little (probably the rest of the ideas need to be removed from the center of thought and it takes a few hours..my estimation)..as soon as the turtles came up from the past I started to adjust again!
And only after I decided that the whole model would stand on turtles of all sizes and species (as a symbol of diversity and as a hint of evolution) as well as a combination of other animals from the mythologies of different peoples (such as snakes, elephants and more) and in fact they are the first theories of the appearance of the world and other concepts!
From here I went on to how the theories will "look" ..for example, should we show the theory of relativity in E=MC squared as a sculpted unit from which the theory of relativity emerges with one half being Einstein's face looking towards the sky with a deep gaze (how do you create a deep gaze?) ..or does the theory of relativity flow from Einstein's head, maybe as hair!
And how to show gravity? I thought of Newton holding a large apple from rolling down a slope...or leaning on a slope when a large apple (diameter 40 cm) rests on his back and on the slope...and other such attempts to characterize familiar theories with some kind of symbolism!
And should the science be shown on floors in ascending order? After a short visual thought I canceled it.. it will be simplistic and inaccessible if the height exceeds more than 3 meters!
I also have to cast statues from the Greek period inside and find a suitable location for them (probably central) and the idea of playing theories came back to me, that is, find a melody that characterizes a theory and see if connecting all the theories will create something harmonious and flowing or a jarring cacophony!
From this you understand that it is difficult to present something sketched out and even encompass only a part of what will be in the end... and even if I managed to formulate something preliminary and very partial, I don't know how to upload it here in the response because I tried to paste just a scribble or even files of pictures and it didn't work... possible paste only text !!
In short, I will need space and equipment, as well as the generous help of physicists and other relevant professions so that this model will encompass the development of science in all (or most) of its branches and a more focused concentration on the subject because it is not an easy thing to be able to go into it and present a cohesive model within a few hours. A matter of months and maybe years (choosing materials, adaptations, visual connections between the different views, different connections and more and finally choosing appropriate architectural styles)!
A good and rainy day
to burst
Regarding Michael's reaction and casting doubt, I answered him in the article in question: Is it possible that antimatter provides power for super-luminous supernovae?
which was published today on the science website and there is no point in commenting here either. I will only briefly explain that for me the mean free path of the particles is also important, therefore we must work at low pressure where the mean free path is large.
Let's move on to art.
If you try to make your creation with supercomputers and a team of scientists and also in the size of tens of cubic meters, then unfortunately nothing will come of it.
But how about doing it on a scale of one to ten or even one to fifty?
I don't remember a work that came to express science the way you think of it. So it could be interesting, and then maybe you could also be interested in the matter.
In my humble opinion, your idea is good.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
8/12/2007
Lesbadramish
I thank you for your attention..I came up with the idea of building a model of the development of physics for generations as an educational/clarification sculpture (not to be confused with the technical model) following a difficulty
Mine is to understand concepts and processes in physics and since I am more influenced by visual aspects I thought of this direction that would "show" physics in all its complexity and twists in a way
Symbolic and also direct..but when I thought more about it I thought it would be worthwhile to include the history of physics together with its appendices such as mathematics and other related fields
And of course the people who made it in the same building/sculpture!!
I want to emphasize that I spent about 3 hours initially and another XNUMX hours later and added an hour! So in fact I don't even have a preliminary skeleton diagram either because
that my head is filled with other ideas (dozens...unfortunately because it neutralizes me from practicality) and also the size that changed...in the beginning I went for a size of 2 by 3 meters and a height of about a meter
Plus..but after a little rummaging through some books I have on physics and science I realized that this size would not be enough and since there is enough space in the faculty square I increased it in advance
For 30 x 20 meters and a height of 8 meters to cover as much as possible even though this probably won't be enough either!
This is more or less the stage when I left it in June 2006 and moved on..oh I remembered..at exactly the same time the student strike started which had some effect!
All in all, in order to realize this (probably unique) project, we need the help of physicists, scientists, mathematicians, and others who will donate their time and give their opinion at the various stages until
Everything will be embroidered with stone, metal, plastic, wood and a lot of glass and as little concrete as possible, as well as light and sound effects (it is impossible without them in such a model when science developed from understanding
the light to the depth) ..there were two rough versions of how it would look but not really important because they only reflected my opinion at that moment that you were influenced by other models in the subjects
different..referring to external description lines characteristics without the content!
I would get into it seriously if the university would make the designated area available to me and then look for investors who would agree to part with several hundred thousand dollars in favor of enacting their name
Win ! Such a model will have to be designed during construction because there is no possibility (unless I have a supercomputer available to simulate the model, it will probably be more expensive and intangible
for the angles and directions of sight of the observers) to create it only on paper... it is a lot of puzzle work to connect all the parts of science into a sculpted model in which they will be produced together and all
One by one all the known theories and other elements... and of course the question of what will stand out, what will be behind and what will be "put" inside and many more decisions for which I will need your help
The scientists ..that's why there was no point in continuing only with my head !!
To be honest, I didn't think about the practical side and right now I'm busy with health problems that may pass or may remain forever!!
I must emphasize further that I am not an artist and I have no more knowledge of art than the average person.
Yes, in recent years he has been involved in trying to find solutions to all kinds of problems from different fields, including defining different situations as a problem (part of what is called invention) and of course trying
Find a unique solution that will fit the existing lack! This is how I rub my thought processes and practice them!
P.S. I wrote most of this comment on the date above and I intended to continue it later, but then the screen crashed and I only returned to internet life today when the screen arrived
After repair !!
Of course I'm waiting like most of the science commenters for the experiment you will do..and as I see now a new commenter named Michael claims a refutation etc..I guess you will respond later!
Have a good and fruitful week everyone
This, if you wish, should be whitewashed with four eyes. I don't see a problem.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
There is still a problem of difference in forces: the action and the reaction will not be equal!
Legal
Just so, and it is true, a neutron star will have more particles of matter that will be hidden by others, and therefore its gravitational force should only be proportional to a partial mass of its mass. And it is also true that a gas cloud with the same mass of a neutron star will exert a greater gravitation than the neutron star.
I'm glad I was able to explain.
I don't know in what order of magnitude the above differences are and it remains to be seen if this is really the situation in the field, but this is how it should be according to the idea of the simple universe, and I very much hope that scientists will not dismiss it outright.
may we have a nice week
And how fun that the sun is shining again
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Good Morning,
The basic assumption is that the amount of particles that will not "pass" through a body and will be missing in the "shadow" (thus creating a "shadow") depends on the charge of the body facing the other body and its density. Types of materials also differ in the amount of elementary particles per unit volume - density. Therefore, the degree of "pressure deficiency" created by the "shadow" created by a dense body (a neutron star for example) is greater than that created by a sparse body (a gas cloud) and hence they will not attract each other with the same force.
And think about it…
Today an interesting article was published on the science website:-
"A huge part of the matter in the universe is missing again"
Well, after they went out in the mountains to celebrate the discovery of the missing dark mass, it suddenly disappeared from them again. It didn't disappear for me because I never needed it.
An interesting article, you should look at it and see how the scientists wallow in the dark mud and look for something that I don't think exists, including dark energy and the graviton.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Legal c.
I didn't understand what it had to do with the geometry of the bodies. After all, the particles of the body are the same in all bodies. They are all made of quarks and possibly more fundamental particles. The same external gravity particle that hits the particle that builds the body refers only to it and does not "know" what the shape of the entire large or small body is. At the moment of collision it creates the gravitation.
There are no heavy quarks and light quarks, they are all the same, as far as I know.
The gravitational force of a body will be proportional to the "shadow" it casts on the other body. A body with a larger "shadow" will produce greater gravitation.
You are right that if bodies are made of particles with different densities then I am in a problem but I believe that this is not the case and the material that builds all the bodies in the universe is the same for all of them. I believe that the particles of gravity are the ones that also ultimately build all the bodies in the universe. how? I do not know. Just an intuitive guess.
Regarding the geometry of the bodies, I refer to them as spherical, but just as Newton's law of gravitation depends on the shape of the body, so does the aforementioned principle of gravitation.
I must emphasize for the umpteenth time, that the idea of gravitation by particles is not originally mine, but that of a scientist named George Louis Le Sage, what I upgraded in the idea is the conclusion you also reached, that in fact it is a gas, and of course with all The properties accompanying the gas.
In addition, the same Le Sage did not refer to the mean free path of the particles in his gravity calculations, which slightly changes Newton's gravity formula for large distances.
I agree with you that the gravitation of the bodies depends on the "shadow" they cast on each other, which does not correspond to the acceleration mass of the bodies.
Examples
The sun and the moon exert a gravitational force on the earth.
What happens during a solar eclipse ie when the moon hides the sun. According to Newton the gravitation does not change and it will continue to be the sum of the two gravitations, however according to my idea of gravity, the common gravitational force will be smaller. The difference, I believe, will be very small, but it may be possible to measure it.
another example
Given two balls. One is made of a dense material, let's say lead, and the other is made of a less dense material, let's say aluminum.
If the two spheres exert the same gravitation on bodies in their surroundings, then, according to Newton the two bodies are essentially the same and according to the idea of particles the denser body will contain more mass because it has more hidden particles.
And a last example
If we are weighed once standing and once lying down then according to Newton we will be the same weight in both cases, what do you think Mr. Yigal will be according to the idea of particles?
may we have a nice week
And what fun that Chelsea and Grant won again today
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
If I understood correctly, the special particles that you are talking about behave somewhat like a gas, we would move in a kind of Brownian motion in space. Since you don't actually define them, I will not address the questions concerning their type and especially not the energy or momentum they have to produce the pressure that will cause "gravitational force" nor the question of what they actually become after they have given up their energy or momentum by hitting some body.
But, suppose for a moment that two bodies with different geometry are at some distance from each other, the medium between them becomes scarce in these particles, since each of the bodies casts a "shadow" of particles on the other. According to you, since the space inside the material is thin relative to the dimensions of these particles, the "shadow" will of course be a partial shadow (because only a part of the particles will slow down inside the bodies) and will depend on the density of the materials from which these bodies are made. Here you connect to mass, because mass is somehow dependent on the density of matter. I hope I have followed your theory pretty well so far. The effective "shadow" cast by the larger body of the two will, therefore, depend on the density of its material and its geometry, and the same applies to the "shadow" cast by the smaller body on the larger body. And here there is a small problem, because the effect of the body's "shadow" The large one on the small body will indeed depend on its density, but not on its geometry but on the geometry of the small body, because the effective part will only be the one that hits the small body and therefore depends on the geometry of the small body and not on that of the large body. In addition, this "lack of pressure" that results from The "shadow" that the bodies cast on each other, and which causes, as you say, the illusion of attraction between them, will be different between them: the "pressure deficit" on the large body will depend on the density and geometry of the small body, while the "pressure deficit" on the small body will depend on the density of the large body and the geometry of the small body.
It seems to me that here you are getting into trouble a second time with Newton (not only with the law of gravity, but also with the law of action and reaction). And we haven't talked about inhomogeneous bodies with geometry that produces different projections or different densities from different directions.
I may not have understood you correctly, but it seems to me that you may also need to do some homework...
good evening
Legal
You are right but more precise.
Gravitational pull is directly proportional, not to the surface area of the bodies, but to the surface area of the material particles from which the bodies are built. Since we know that in fact most of the volume of physical bodies is made up of the void, then this almost corresponds to the mass of the bodies. Why almost?, because sometimes there will be material particles of the bodies that will be "hidden" by others and will not be included in the calculation of the levy/gravitation.
My/La Sage's particles are very tiny. Much smaller than what is known about neutrino particles, for example. But like the neutrino particles, they have great permeability and most of them will pass the bodies, without harming anything. The ones that harm are the ones that create the gravitation. Of course, they cannot harm the hidden particles that make up the bodies.
If you understood this explanation we can approach understanding two difficult points.
A. There is a tiny difference between gravitational mass and acceleration mass. The gravitational one will always be smaller than the accelerated one because the gravitation only arises from the particles of matter that are not hidden, in other words that do not stand in the shadow of other particles of matter. In small masses the difference will be tiny, but in large and dense stars the difference will be significant. There will be many material particles from which the bodies are built that will be hidden by others. Note that there is an upper limit to the gravitational force that creates a highly compressed star and it will be proportional to the cross-sectional area of the aforementioned star and not to its mass, and here it is exactly as you claimed in your response!
B. Another thing, the force of gravity will depend very much on the free path of the particles and the formula of gravity will lose its power faster than one of the parts of the distance squared and in fact there will be almost no gravity between bodies whose distance is measured in many light years.
But at small distances of several astronomical units the force of gravity will be like the well-known Newton's formula.
I know that the tiny differences between the gravitational mass and the acceleration mass arising from the idea of the simple universe contradict the theory of relativity, but they are very tiny and I believe that they are within the uncertainties of the measurements, but there is another possibility here to shatter the idea of the simple universe and free me from its predicament.
The experiment I am working on is to verify the idea that gas particles moving in empty space are able to create attraction (not gravitation), and also to check if this attraction depends on the average free path of the particles. If he succeeded, it would give a basis for the claim that particles (much smaller) are the ones that also create gravitation.
I have a tiny bit of optimism in this after reading about the existence of a certain effect called the "Casimir effect" but this is not the place to discuss it.
But if the attraction is not proven, even then I will be happy because I am already tired of being accused of ignorance.
I promise that the apology letter I will post online will be the most beautiful ever!
I will be happy to answer further questions
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
A small and humble question for Yehuda: If I understood your words correctly, gravitational force is the result of the pressure of certain particles that exist in space and that comes equally from all directions. This pressure weakens from the direction of the body towards which the gravitational attraction (force) exists as a result of the concealment that the aforementioned body creates from the "rain" of the particles, a fact that causes the two bodies to "attract" each other. Therefore, the gravitational "attraction" was relatively directly dependent on the combination of the areas of the charges of the two bodies one in the other direction and not in the combination of their masses. (The use of two bodies is for the purpose of the discussion only, and it can be extended to any number of bodies desired). An explanation for this contradiction would be welcomed.
Led. breach
I have carefully read all the responses and I want to emphasize an interesting point in your response from 6.12.2007, your artistic approach to science.
I quote from your response:-
"...Since when are there exact sciences? This is not a contradiction? After all, all science is constantly changing itself and this is its strength, and it is precisely religion that claims absolute accuracy! Isn't science falling into a trap here and scoring an own goal?
This stood out to me a year ago when I toured the university (on my own behalf) and I enjoyed it, and especially near the College of Sciences I found an area that suited me to build a model describing the development of physics and science (referring to a sculpted model)."
End of quote.
Mr. Peretz, tell us at least in general what is going on with your sculpted model, there is already something to see. This may be of interest to the science commentators. From the quote I notice that you approach the subject thoroughly. I believe that my father will give you a platform to present your work, a picture or an article. Such a sculpted model can also be interesting to other science readers.
You will be able to receive comments regarding your work, and this is one of the purposes of art, and perhaps the most important of them.
For your decision.
Successfully
In addition, in your response a day later you challenged me to do the experiment. Well, I have just finished a large and interesting work project on the means of feeding a certain product in one of the textile factories in Israel. So maybe next week I'll try to pick up some phones and try to promote my experiment. If this is done, you and the Science readers will be the first to know about it.
Other than that, let's have a quiet and pleasant weekend.
And in appreciation to you
Sabdarmish Yehuda
You have successfully uploaded this page to the list of the five most promoted articles on the bottom right. You can also find it there after the page has left the home page.
for a physicist
I also wish to end the "argument" between us, today is Hanukkah, so have a happy holiday of lights to you and all the commenters.
Led. Peretz, regarding your question about conducting the experiment:
The experiment is really simple to plan and it is already planned, but the instrument required for the experiment reminds you of an atmospheric pressure of one hundred millionth of the atmosphere in a vessel with a volume of about a cubic meter, the financial cost is extremely high. There are common but smaller vessels up to only one millionth of an atmosphere.
And regarding Le Sage's approach to gravitation, well he claimed that it is created by the impact of particles floating in space on the bodies in it. I found a way to show if the approach would work using low pressure gas particles.
So now, after all the generations have been compiled, we wish everyone a good weekend and a happy Eid al-Adha.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
for a physicist
It is not clear to me what you had to apologize for.. I do not remember any sentence in your comments that requires an apology of any kind! It is true that you said things as spurs, but it was committed to Sabdarmish's criticism of science and scientists as fixed, etc.
Besides, it's not a joke! I will never demand an apology so as not to limit myself in the future in criticizing others... what's more, much worse things have been said on the Internet!
But I understand your real concern that it won't be found out that you read the (amateur) knowledge site and also seriously wrote a comment on it! It's a shame that there won't be this trial that could have been very interesting from many aspects and I don't think you would have lost it
Apart from that, I envy your ability to write concise (a quarter of what I take up) and comprehensive responses.. that's an advantage in my eyes!!
By the way, here and there similar things are written on different topics on the site if there is someone who will collect them and do something practical with them!
And by the way... do you know Yaron Oz? I saw him in a virtual (recorded) lecture of Tel Aviv University!
And another small question that stems from reading one of Sabdarmish's comments.. What is Le Sage's gravitational approach, which I have not heard of until now? And after reading this comment, I understood what angered Sabdarmish...he offered you to cooperate with him in the experiment and you responded with a decisively deceiving!
By the way, why can't Sabdarmish, the successful engineer, prepare the experiment himself? It doesn't sound very complicated from his description!
And one more thing (and I'll really finish with that)...
You asked for an apology, so here you get it: in all my comments here I have tried to make it clear to the readers that the model you present is extremely simplistic and does not meet the standards of science as I (as a physicist) know them. I argued that you are prevented from knowing this because you do not have the required education (and as I mentioned, the meaning is in the relevant fields) and that you insist on not understanding it. I also stated that, contrary to what you present, you do not have the same opinion and status as a real researcher in physics, even though you seem to consider yourself a pioneer in the field. The thing is, a physicist can't argue physics with you any more than a heart surgeon can take advice from a watermelon seller on where to stick the razor. A physicist may have a polite conversation with you, but the professional value of such a conversation is usually zero. I have nothing against you personally, I don't know you, you may be a kind person and a kind-hearted grandfather, and even a great expert in the field of management. If anyone here thought I was claiming otherwise I deeply apologize for this. I also apologize that my words caused you some discomfort, but in science, as in everything in life, it is necessary to illuminate things in the right light and to put things in their correctness. You were bold and challenged almost all the findings of modern physics and implicitly mocked the physicists Those who are fixed in their thinking. In this situation, you should be prepared for sharp criticism of your very qualification to make any claim in physics. Therefore, I do not understand why you are surprised. In any case, I hope that now things are clear and that my criticism of you is oriented towards the claims I made regarding your (lack of) professionalism in physics.
Lesbadramish
You really should not sue a physicist because the last place you would want to find out the correctness of your theory or the extent of your mistake in physics is the court.. this is the real world and it could be absolutely unpleasant!
Regarding your education, I actually understood that a physicist means (which is what any reasonable person would understand) your education in physics only and the evidence he mentioned was in your lecture and it must not have dealt with engineering!!
I still think that a physicist is right in most of his comments from the perspective of known physics, apart from the fact that you have the right to continue to make mistakes and waste your time as you see fit or to be right in the future as the one who brought the news!.. But since you persist in posting here in dozens of comments your theory and even refer to the addresses where it is written in full you must take into account that you will be exposed to more or less harsh criticism !!
I'm actually hoping for a sharp and uncompromising criticism..it happened two or three times. One I remember is from Cezana in connection with the desire I attributed to the dark matter! And it didn't hurt me!
Regarding the physicist's reference to the theory...he did refer to it in general terms because he does not believe that the theory is worth a deeper discussion to his taste as a physicist and this is rather an accepted matter in these circles that according to them the duty of proof is on those who come from the outside...and I understand and agree with that and therefore I always see the duty of proof on me in case there is I have something to say as an outsider!!
Another part of a physicist's response raises a slight concern for me..."1) The result of a constant speed of light in all reference systems does indeed sound imaginary. It originates from a really basic assumption which, contrary to the basic assumption of Sabdarmish, is very deep and an experience of generations after it. This assumption means that physical reality is absolute and does not depend on the subjective point of view of the viewer. This assumption (which is by no means trivial) leads to a wonderful and special world picture and it takes a little study to understand why. Be sure that this world picture is free from any paradox, amazingly beautiful, amazingly simple and compatible with every experimental result ( and millions of attempts were made!)." Physics is very far from a state where there are no paradoxes even regarding the speed of light which various theories show can be overcome!! "Clean and spotless" doesn't sound good to my ears..it's a bin that many have fallen into..I thought that these were typical expressions of physicists in the past and have already been weaned from them following dozens of changes that have occurred in "clean and spotless" physics. This again tends towards the closed religious and omniscient, the power of Physics in its essence (in my understanding) is being open, meaning an open and never closed science...which makes it dynamic and breathing, changing and adapting itself to the accumulated knowledge!
I write this as someone who reads mainly popular science literature (also the articles on the website here are at a popular level and generally do not go into details and rightfully so)
A merry merry-go-round and menorah for those who don't want to be lit!
For the information of a physicist, I am older than my unclear phrasing might suggest!!
for life
Let's start with number 6, you'll be surprised, but I liked it. It cannot be denied that there is a distribution in the speed of the atoms that make up the standard kilogram (iridium) and some of them may be able to store enough kinetic energy, release the metal species and evaporate into the space around them. This is something that can be measured. I'm afraid that their movement is tiny and more like a vibration instead of a movement. Until So your explanation is at least as good as my explanation.
As for the other explanations of the dimensions of your response, they are not acceptable to me, and apparently they are also not acceptable to Mr. P
As he said:-
"Parallel worlds is one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, and it is not acceptable to 99% of physicists, for various reasons."
End of quote.
You see, we were able to learn something even from unknown fizkas, and even without their will.
This has been said by all my educational teachers and science commentators as well.
So have a good weekend and a happy holiday and may the sun not forget to shine in the end and may it do so in our universe and not in a limiting universe.
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Roberts: There's no point in it.
Lesbadramish. The meaning, of course, is that you do not have a formal education in physics and mathematics - according to your words, you do. Matriculation is not considered education but "buds of education". Of course I have no idea what your education is in other fields; You may be very well educated in literature or history or in one or another civil engineering, but this is completely irrelevant to physics. Every professional learns to think in a "simply and brave" way, whether he is a carpenter or a cobbler, an engineer or a doctor.
Stop fighting like little children, it's disgusting.
Any theory is true as long as the opposite is not proven.
To our eyes, 1. Time is not constant and it is getting smaller.
2. Each person or mass is in a different time space.
3. The most logical theory is of 10 dimensions
From which 4 time dimensions + 3 dimensions "retired".
the space
4. Time did begin at a singular point only when
Within the 10 dimensions they arranged themselves next to each other,
Where the first is time, the second is length, the third
width, the fourth height.
5. The dark energy is leaking into our universe from a dimension
another and inflates it beyond the constant expansion.
6. The standard kilogram lost weight not because
The expansion of the universe but because of the erosion of the air
around him. Only if they cool it around zero
The absolute, he will stop losing weight. Who says
Otherwise it is wrong and misleading in a big way.
Shabbat Shalom.
to RobertS
I'm sorry that they managed to question my formal education, but I have one.
And as for an argument with Mr. Physics, there is no chance that he will do so because he also knows that it is impossible to doubt the existence of particles in the vastness of the universe and that these particles define a gas with everything that follows from that.
He will always prefer to live in his anonymity.
And by the way, you noticed that in all his responses he didn't refer to my ideas and didn't show where the flaw was in them, if at all.
leave him.
Happy holiday to commenter RobertS
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To all respondents
We argue, hypothesize and sometimes get upset in our responses. But it must be done honestly and fairly. Humans cannot, for any reason, slander. Yesterday I was tired after a busy work day and I didn't pay attention to the things written by a certain commenter.
a quote:
Sabdarmish has no theory any more than the Vikings or the ancient Greeks had. Sabdarmish developed a myth that has nothing to do with modern science. He does not know this because he has no education, and like him there are multitudes.
End of quote.
My best years were spent in school and I graduated with honors in administration.
Is this a person who has no education?
Doesn't the wretched commenter know that this is grounds for a lawsuit for libel.
Lest Mr. P. think that he can hide in his anonymity, he can always be reached.
I think I deserve an apology and I suggest he do so.
A person cannot write what he wants just to justify his response.
Besides, may all the other science commenters have a Happy holiday.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And of course a happy and heartburn-free holiday!!!
Hello everyone ,
Maybe I'm not the world's greatest understander of physics, but I understand a thing and a half about human nature (even though I'm only an engineer) 🙂
Physicist, on the assumption that Yehuda's words are not true why you will not prove to him "my father's father" and of course in an objective, sharp, smooth and scientific way, he is wrong.
Yehuda, I don't know if you have a formal education, but if not, I think that a number of courses in physics can strengthen your argument or, on the other hand, you will come to the conclusion that they are a complete mistake.
In conclusion, in my opinion it is important to be objective and fair in order to promote ideas (or reject them).
To all Man Dibai
I have never referred to the constancy of the speed of light in all systems, what I do claim is that the speed of light in the past was greater and in general the speed of light is smaller on the order of one cm per second per year.
I don't know what about theories that the Vikings were or weren't, but the Greeks were. To remind you of four elements: earth, water, air, and fire, and maybe something else that I forgot, and then there was also someone named Aristotle, remember?, whose theories lasted for almost two thousand years, until the day when Galileo climbed the tower in Pisa and threw all kinds of things from there, so to say that the Greeks did not There were theories that it insults all Greeks and it's not nice to do it even on Hanukkah.
I'm glad that I finally understand what Mr. Physics has found in the world of science, and why he likes the conventional explanations, well the reason is because they have "variety", not "dry" and not "dead". The word "dead" really doesn't work for me because the best science is related to dark mass and dark energy, and everyone knows that dark does come with dead people.
But here a hidden side of our scientists is revealed - a poetic soul and it's good to know that when Matti tells, among our scientists at least they write poetry, and more here, with us, on the science site.
Say what you will, but between one donut and another, I see hope, a little spark of knowledge I have because the best science explicitly says that the interpretations I make are mostly wrong. Mostly, have you heard? Not all of them, say what you will, I see it as a Hanukkah miracle!
Happy holiday!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
1) The result of constant speed of light in all reference systems does sound imaginary. It originates from a really basic assumption which, contrary to the basic assumption of Sabdarmish, is very deep and an experience of generations after it. This assumption means that physical reality is absolute and does not depend on the subjective point of view of the viewer. This assumption (which is by no means trivial) leads to a wonderful and special world picture and you need to study a little to understand why. Be sure that this world picture is free of any paradox, incredibly beautiful, incredibly simple and compatible with every experimental result (and millions of attempts have been made!).
2) Not the College of Exact Sciences but the Faculty of Exact Sciences. The origin of the name is in the means of investigation and description: mathematics. The knowledge and sayings are formulated in a way that is not ambiguous, so that every person who knows the language knows exactly what it is about. Furthermore, this formulation allows the quantification of phenomena, which does not exist outside of science.
3) Parallel worlds is one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, and it is not accepted by 99% of physicists, for various reasons.
4) Sabdarmish has no more theory than the Vikings or the ancient Greeks had. Sabdarmish developed a myth that has nothing to do with modern science. He does not know this because he has no education, and like him there are multitudes. Since I heard his lecture, I can say two things: a) Since he has no knowledge, he is basing himself on personal interpretation and it turns out that in most cases it is flawed. b) Not only does his simplistic model completely contradict everything we know about the world, not only are the interpretations he derives from it mostly wrong, if there were things in God, the world we know would be senseless (literally), lacking diversity, "dry", dead". Human experience teaches us otherwise.
A physicist sounds to me like he understands physics ... Sabdarmish's theory sounded somewhat simplistic to me too, but unlike a physicist, my understanding of mathematics is extremely limited (middle high school level) in physics I mainly refer to ideas and try to grasp them visually!
As much as I tried (within the maximum time frame of 3 hours that my mind allows) (until I sail in other worlds) I could not really understand the special theory of relativity (who is talking about the more complicated general theory) I just remember that I could not accept that the speed of light is constant in every situation and from every angle Evidence also in relation to another ray of light!!
However, you must understand that we are not a university and everyone is allowed to live in their own little world and make mistakes in illusions or gain recognition in the future!
What is written here does not bind anyone and certainly not a scientific institution!
By the way, a question for a physicist...why does Tel Aviv University say the college of "exact" sciences?? Since when are there exact sciences? This is not a contradiction? After all, all science changes itself constantly and this is its strength, and it is precisely religion that claims absolute accuracy! Isn't science falling into a trap here and scoring own goal?
This stood out to me a year ago when I toured the university (on my own behalf) and I enjoyed it, and especially near the College of Sciences I found an area that suited me to build a model describing the development of physics and science (meaning a sculpted model)..I had about ten preliminary versions before I started asking scientists for their opinion. In short, something that suits me and those who do not understand physics very well and find it difficult to understand through the books (also get bored) and that way he will be able to touch the physics and look straight into the mind!
I must point out that Lizzie's theory is better from the aspect of a sculpted model because of the solution to the visual problem of mathematics, but it eliminates the multidimensionality that allowed me to play and maneuver in covering areas!
Another thing that cannot be accepted in physics is parallel worlds that exist at the same time and actually create an infinite mass...and we have already spilled quite a bit of digital ink on this!
Beyond that, most of the site's commenters will be happy if it turns out that there is truth in Sabdarmish's theory and thus they can say that they knew before everyone else .. and although there are not many chances of that, we like to think that the next (virtual) Einstein is among us .. with a smile of course !!
to RobertS
Nothing will help, the aforementioned "physicist" sees me as a representative of all the thousands of eccentrics who come up with strange ideas.
Unfortunately, there are no less than that, the thousands of "scientists" who adhere to the scientific paradigm, who are unable to rise above the mire of their extended scientific knowledge, and delete in one go, in a blatantly insulting and arrogant way, any idea that does not fit their knowledge.
Of course, they always have the fear that the eccentric is right, so they would prefer to do it anonymously.
They will also never create something original of their own.
The aforementioned "physicist" is a tangible example of their quantity.
There is no point in arguing with them.
I would be happy to answer any questions or clarifications you, or other commenters, have. They will argue about my ideas.
All the best
And have a good day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to Judah and the "physicist"
Without taking a position in favor of one of the parties, I think it would have been interesting to have a "matter-of-fact (and calm) debate" in Yehuda's theory.
I received your psychological scientific analysis. There is no point in continuing the conversation with you. You are yours, and I am mine, we will each go his own way, and a redeemer will come to Zion.
Good evening everyone
Sabdarmish Yehuda
You're right. At first I thought there was no point. Even now I think so. Why would someone conduct an experiment in your honor if you have no idea about physics? If you yourself are unable to draw conclusions from your "model" mathematically? After all, there are thousands like you who are convinced that only if the right experiment is conducted, their incredibly simple genius will be proven, accepted by the people and the world. And no one will be able to convince them otherwise. Someone here already said crank. This is not an insulting word, it is a description of a certain type of people that what I have written here characterizes them.
No one will be able to convince you either. You are already convinced and your conviction is based only on your common sense. As I wrote, I was present at your lecture, so your "model" is familiar to me. The trouble is that he is nonsense. "Models" seem to have been introduced at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. You claim they "explain" reality. This is nonsense too. First, you don't know how to draw the right conclusions from them at all. Second, if you knew, you would immediately discover that they are so simple that they have no power to explain anything. You wrote that your model does not contradict relativity. But how do you know that if you don't understand half a thing about relationships? You wrote a lot more nonsense but there is simply no point in arguing with you. You will find an answer to every criticism and there is no end to it... In any case, you will not go to study until retirement, and until then and even after that, you will continue to imagine that you are at the forefront of scientific research, that you have opened the eyes of the world, that your opinion is equal to the opinion of great scientists and that you are a unique pioneer of your generation... You live in a detached bubble where you Smelling your own scents. So let him perfume you.
Roy, thanks for the encouragement.
To the physicist, I think you've given up on me,
Maybe I exaggerated/we exaggerated the exchange between us.
But, despite all this, it is an idea that dates back to the eighteenth century, the idea of Georges Louis Le Sage, which I "renovated" a little with the idea that this is a gas, including all its properties and including the free path of its particles.
If you want, then maybe with your connections we will do the gas experiment, and see if there is a basis for the whole idea of the simple universe, and for Le Sage's gravitation approach? I promise that if there is no basis, I will write a letter of apology, in my name and in the name of Le Sage, peace be upon him To all the respondents.
What is needed in SA is a pressure of one hundred millionth of an atmosphere in a vessel that is about a cubic meter in size and maybe even less. I promise to share success with anyone who helps me, the failure will be only mine (and La Sage's).
As far as I know, with the little physics I know, no such experiment has been done to date.
This letter is also addressed to others who have the opportunity to conduct this experiment, and are willing to do it.
So have a wonderful day
And we won't lack gravity
with a smile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda -
Thanks for your answers and good luck with the experiment you are planning.
To Roy
A quote from your words:-
As we know, quantum theory with its various laws does not generally agree with the 'collective' laws of diffusion and the like. How do you know that these particles do diffuse into the empty part of the universe, as you describe?
End of quote.
Here you are telling what quantum theory thinks about collective laws and that is why I said that it is not necessary that other theories also think so. But it is clear that if there is a phenomenon that the simple universe idea cannot explain, then the idea is in trouble.
And regarding the movement of the particles into the void, I don't understand the approach. After all, a particle that has motion in the direction of the scooter there until it collides with another particle, if at all. After all, gas movement will always be in the direction of low pressure, and as we know, emptiness is zero pressure. Sorry, I don't understand how it is possible that gas will not move in the direction of emptiness.
The experiment I propose will prove that particles moving in space create a "gravitational" force. It does not matter at all whether the particles are small or large. What hinders the formation of "attraction" in ordinary gases like air is the mean free path, if it is large, as in a very thin gas, we will notice, according to me, a gravitational force. If no gravitational force is detected, then the idea that particles can create gravity will fall. And by the way the idea of particle gravitation is not mine but that of an eighteenth century scientist named Le Sage. I also referred to the average free way, which Sage didn't do. This slightly changes Newton's formula and effectively cancels it at large distances.
Regarding the sun and the earth, it sounds illogical to you, but the universe is large and the amount of particles is large and that should be enough.
But regarding the galaxies, the collisions of the particles among themselves will actually eliminate any effect of attraction, just like what happens with the air particles under normal conditions.
And as for the kg, then one should try and plan an experiment that will test it with digital scales, but I don't have time to wait a hundred years to reach a significant result.
To Aria, yes, the particles hit any material and any specific weight and I don't understand why it doesn't work out for you?
And regarding further studies in physics, I promise to do so after I win the lottery or toto. In the meantime, you have to make a living.
I'm already falling asleep in front of the computer, so,
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Wise men (Scientific American) be careful with your words. The subtitle is - Recently, exotic theories have been emerging regarding the existence of an era that preceded the Big Bang. They predict that the next generation of telescopes may be able to find the stamp of that era
How does this fit with the conclusion of the article - that the universe began with a hot, dense gas of strings, strings of energy whose vibrational oscillations created the particles and the fundamental forces. Thermal instability of the gas led to the creation of galaxy clusters and other cosmic structures. This model ignores the question of whether anything existed before the Big Bang, says Brandenberger. If the model is correct, it predicts the existence of a gravitational seal that will be detectable with the help of future telescopes.
In other words, what the telescopes will discover is Brandenberger's signature of the beginning of the universe and not of an era before the Big Bang that Brandenberger has no reference to.
To Ami Bakr - matter and energy come from nowhere and disappear, provided that the balance is maintained (remember - quantum theory). Besides, the mass balances with gravity, which is in the opposite sign, and therefore all the mass-energy in the universe could have been created from nothing.
I am also not comfortable with super string theory. Every high school student can understand the theory of relativity. I understand all the explanations and phenomena of quantum theory despite all their strange meanings, but I have a hard time understanding superstring theory.
It's amazing how all modern physics is derived from mathematics, but not every mathematically correct model describes reality.
Yehuda - Do you think that all kinds of bodies with different masses and specific gravities will fall on the earth as a result of the pressure of the particles on them? I don't think it works out mathematically.
To all the catechists - I compare Yehuda to Einstein because he also deviates from the conventions, makes assumptions and builds a theory. Thanks to such people, science progressed. I am not saying that I agree with him and for a long time I thought that he should study physics at the academy and compete within the academy. Maybe retired...
Yehuda -
1. We have no way to measure proposed theories but through existing theories, which have already proven their validity in thousands of experiments. Even the MOND theory simply introduces a different coefficient to Newton's second law, which is only effective at low accelerations and extremely large masses. That is, the theory recognizes that it must 'align' with the results known to us from the physics of the solar system.
If your theory contradicts the experimental results on which quantum theory is based, then something is wrong here.
Regarding the movement of the particles into the vacuum, if there is no connection to diffusion then they will move randomly, and almost not move at all. The universe, in fact, will not expand.
2. The particles you propose for the experiment are actually tens of orders of magnitude larger than the particles you are talking about. Why would this experiment prove your point?
To be honest, I have a hard time understanding the idea of gravity from particles. If the Earth and the Sun are attracted to each other by gravity, then it must be established that there is a very large difference in the number of particles that strike the Earth and the Sun from all directions except that directly between the Earth and the Sun. It doesn't sound logical, because the distance between the two objects is very large, and there should be enough particles to 'equal pressures'.
3. From further reading I understood that they discovered the weight loss by comparing it with the average weight of dozens of other gloves. That is, if there was indeed a loss of weight here, then it is not compatible with the idea of the spreading of the particles, because the same loss of weight should have been detected in all the other shells as well.
The article about the loosing kg
https://www.hayadan.org.il/whats-the-meter-2009078/#more-2385
Pleasant reading
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Roy, I will answer briefly.
1. You quote that particles of the order of ten to the power of minus 40 kg have special properties according to quantum theory. Well here you have done something that should not be done. To attack one theory you use the laws of another theory to what it is similar to, say for example that the MOND theory is not True because it goes against Newton's second law.To remind you Professor Milgrom's MOND theory uses a modification of Newton's second law to eliminate the need for dark mass.
A theory must be verified or contradicted if its rules alone lead to a contradiction with what is known about the universe.
And regarding the movement of the particles into the void, it seems clear to me that there is no reason that would prevent them from moving into the void in their surroundings, and it does not seem to me that this requires the existence of diffusion laws of any kind.
2. Regarding your second question, I do not know in advance how many particles are found around bodies. What I do is the opposite and according to gravity I try to see how many particles are supposed to be around the bodies and what their dimensions are.
What still needs to be proven is an experiment that I have already planned that will test if the movement of particles will create a "gravitational force". The particles that I will use are normal molecules of normal air gas, that is, oxygen and nitrogen, only that the atmospheric pressure must be very small and the vessel must have large dimensions and here unfortunately it is stuck. Maybe someone from the academy will be willing to lend a hand and then if the experiment doesn't work, shut me up. What do you think?
3. How did they discover the weight loss of the standard kilogram? I don't know. Certainly a comparison with another substance would not have revealed this. The article was published in the New York Times and brought here on the science website under the title :- When the kilogram loses its weight.
What I was interested in is if the size of the weight loss is compatible with the simple universe idea and indeed it is, subject to Hubble's constant of about 71 km/s per mega-persec.
And by the way, the standard kilogram is found in Paris under strict guard 24 hours a day, hence the wonder of its weight reduction.
I hope I explained myself
And again, I give the possibility to collapse my idea with an experiment or two.
It's late and I apologize in advance for any mistakes that may occur
T L H
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Thanks for the explanation, but I find it only piques my curiosity further. Three more questions, with your permission:
1. I quote - "The particles of the universe define a gas, but not necessarily a thin one, and by the way, these are particles whose size is on the order of ten to the minus 40th power of the kilogram, which is much smaller than the mass of the Netrino."
Particles of this size have properties described by quantum theory. As we know, quantum theory with its various laws does not generally agree with the 'collective' laws of diffusion and the like. How do you know that these particles do diffuse into the empty part of the universe, as you describe?
2. I quote - "Gravitation is explained by the impact of particles on the body from any direction other than the direction of the body, after which a force is created that strives to bring the bodies together."
According to this description, it is easy to find out whether your idea is right or wrong. We can know statistically how many particles there are around the body, and what is their mass distribution and their momentum distribution. If the total forces that the particles exert on the body are indeed equal to the gravitational force it feels from another body, then this is a strong proof of your theory.
Do you or a physicist have an example of such a computational experiment?
3. "Due to the expansion of the universe, the particles in the universe become more sparse, therefore the gravitation will decrease and hence the weight of the bodies will also decrease. The order of magnitude is the sixth root of the expansion of the universe. The standard kilogram found in Paris has lost fifty million grams of its weight since it was created about one hundred and twenty years ago."
How is that weight loss measured? If the kilogram is measured by normal means of measurement (weight against weight), then according to your theory we should not have noticed the change, because the reset of the measuring tool also changes when the particles 'deplete' in our area. Wouldn't it be simpler to assume that the same standard kilogram lost its weight due to erosion of one kind or another?
Thanks,
Roy.
Peace be upon you
I will explain briefly.
Regarding the expansion of the universe then:-
A. The fact that it is a gas explains its expansion into the void around it.
B. A stronger pressure is exerted on every body inside it from the inside than from the outside, therefore a blow is exerted on the outside which accelerates the universe.
Explain in another way:-
A huge ball of gases that is in an environment of emptiness will spread to its surroundings, but initially only its outer layers, while its inner layers will not feel the difference until after a while, and then they will slowly increase their speed - spreading outward acceleration.
I must point out that conventional physics does not agree with concepts such as the center of the universe, and perhaps not with an environment of emptiness of the universe either. I think every body has internal and external parts. That's how I learned in elementary school.
The particles of the universe define a gas, but not necessarily a thin one, and by the way, these are particles whose size is on the order of ten to the minus 40th power of the kilogram, which is much smaller than the mass of the natrino.
The movement of the galaxies will be explained by the pressure difference in different regions of the universe, resulting for example from tiny differences in the vacuum temperature of the universe. There is no need to look for even masses for the missing gravitation and of course there is also no need for dark energy to justify the expansion of the universe and be a force against the gravity of the dark mass.
The Pioneer anomaly will result from friction that exists in the movement of bodies in the "void" of the universe.
Gravitational pollution will be explained just like Fata Morgana is explained. And, by gravitation.
The speed of light decreases as the gas that builds the universe cools, because that's how it's a garment that expands and cools.
That is, the speed of light will change by XNUMX cm per second per year or so as a result of the expansion of the universe.
Gravitation is explained by the impact of particles on the body from any direction except the direction of the body, after which a force is created that strives to bring the bodies closer together.
And in addition, due to the expansion of the universe, the particles in the universe become more sparse and therefore the gravity will decrease and hence the weight of the bodies will also decrease. The order of magnitude is the sixth root of the expansion of the universe. The standard kilogram found in Paris has lost fifty millionths of a gram since it was created about one hundred and twenty years ago.
No existing theory explains this.
I believe that the speed of light will be found to change in a relatively short time.
There is no singular point because the volume of a gas will always have a volume even if we compress it from a vapor.
So far. Those who want to believe and those who want to continue to be based in the dark mass, black holes and worms of all kinds.
I'm lucky that physics is not my profession so I don't have to answer to any school or university administrator.
I am sure that there is much to improve on the idea of the simple universe, but it does not seem to me that it is possible to cancel it all outright, nevertheless there are many things that the idea explains easily.
I made the explanation short, and those who understand will understand.
Have a good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Mr. Sabdarmish –
I'm not sure I understood why the definition of the universe as a very thin gas can explain its accelerated expansion, or the other phenomena you described. Can you expand?
for a physicist -
I would love to hear what problematic points you find in the theory (and I assume others in the academy also find in it), and what Mr. Sabdarmish has to say about them.
I hope we will be able to maintain the culture of discussion, and stick to the substance of the matter - Mr. Sabdarmish's theory.
And who knows, maybe a discussion will develop here that will enrich all readers.
Dear Ami Bachar
You're right, this kind of debate tarnishes the fun atmosphere on the science site, but I had to respond to the scientific (and psychological) analysis of the shy physicist mentioned above.
With you, it is much more pleasant to confront even when there are no agreements between us.
Good day to you and all commenters,
including the anonymous shy ones.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The sentence: "I'm not religious but..." proves that I consider myself Einstein's twin??????
To what degree of slander are you able to reach just to justify your poor attitude.
Mr. Shy Physicist, there is a gulf between your dismissive attitude and the attitude I have generally encountered in academia.
But, well, well, if you are comfortable with the existing laws of physics, then you will be perfumed!
Just so that people know what the debate is about, I will explain again in two or three sentences what it is about:
"There are innumerable particles moving in the vastness of the universe."
This is the basic premise of the idea of the simple universe. This is where everything comes from!
Therefore, a necessary conclusion, the universe must define itself as a gas, and therefore this gas must have a temperature and pressure that can explain its accelerated expansion, gravitation at small distances, the movement of galaxies without the need for gravitation, the Pioneer anomaly, gravitational depletion and more and more.
True, according to the above idea, there is no dark mass and no wormholes and no dark energy and repulsive force of the void and singular points and other nonsense,
And it is true, in addition, strange conclusions such as the speed of light and the weight of bodies change as a function of time.
Anyone who thinks that what I have written here is wrong, simply thinks that the basic premise for all the above conclusions is wrong, and let me remind you, the basic premise is one: innumerable particles are moving throughout the universe.
So, Mr. So-and-so shy physicist, do you think or not think that partial masses are floating in the vastness of the universe?
I hope that in your extensive education in physics you have heard of particles such as the neutrinos, for example.
And by the way, what I wrote here is not the "ether" theory, and the variation of the speed of light as a function of time in one kilometer per second per year does not contradict the Michelson Morley experiment and the theory of relativity!
So maybe you're a better physicist than me, but in streamlining factories and means of production, I can put you in my small pocket, and what I've done here is just to think in a simple and brave logical way, because this is the origin of streamlining and development.
But, what a wonderful day, and the sun is shining,
what fun
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
Even though you see yourself as Einstein's intellectual twin ("I'm not religious but...") and even though you have a degree in physics, your understanding of physics is nothing. Just nothing. Yes Jonathan or no Jonathan, I bothered and came to hear you in one of your lectures and found (unfortunately) that you do not understand your right and your left, not even the most basic concepts. As long as you are not educated, you will not understand how simplistic and empty your "model" is and does not meet any scientific standard. The way you draw conclusions from it also shows that you have no idea how conclusions are drawn in science. In short, Gornish.
I was sorry to read that the discussion became personal and awkward. Dear friends and talkbackists: We would all be much more pleasant on this popular science site if we maintained a basic level of mutual respect. The personal reference to Sabdarmish Yehuda, a veteran commentator and writer, is inappropriate and tarnishes the atmosphere - a matter that does not contribute to the scientific discourse.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Regarding "Little Jonathan" as I said in my previous response, I will not respond to his slanders.
Regarding the physicist, please, don't be "shy", and maybe you would be so kind as to tell us at least what you know so we can respond. I have a suspicion that your name is of Jonathan origin.
If you agree, I'd love to make you question some truths such as dark mass, the repulsive force of the void, singular points, the speed of light not changing over time, and much more.
Pay attention to the previous response and the desperate attempts to explain the dark energy by collisions of universes, is it smarter than trying to explain the course of the universe in a simple way, without dark mass and even without gravitation. Only by particles that rotate in the spaces of the universe.
This is the only condition, and everything stems from it!
I'm not religious but I'm sure that the creator of the world wouldn't get involved in creating such a complicated universe.
And by the way, in matriculation I have a score of 90 in physics, so I understand something.
All the best to physicists
Have a wonderful night
with simple and pleasant dreams
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I heard an interesting lecture about one of these theories at the Weizmann Institute, which was not properly explained here, so I will add a comment here.
This is a strange idea of adding a string theory style dimension. In this dimension there are two universes moving away from each other and approaching each other alternately, like two parallel surfaces connected by a spring. When these universes collide with each other, a whole lot of elementary particles are created that create uniform conditions for a new big bang without the need for a singularity and inflation. But then they drift apart, which creates a dark energy between them. This dark anergy scatters everything that was created in the previous universe over vast distances, so it is difficult to find a remnant of what was before the last collision.
This is my theory, it sounds strange. Is the rapid inflation theory better than it? Do not know.
A point is the smallest part that cannot be divided, and this is the quantum. There should be a cont in all the universe's manifestations - a time cont, a space cont, a thought cont, a desire cont, a faith in God cont, a prayer cont, etc., etc., the cont must be freed from the concepts of energy.
I agree with Jonathan and the physicist. Sebdarmish is not a little rascal...
to "physicist"
You hurt the soul of the elite of science in Israel.
I hope you come back soon! Don't you know that Mr. Yehuda Svardamish is a candidate for the Nobel Prize in Physics on behalf of the Yden site?
Among the recommenders are the best scientific minds in Israel, such as the great (but unknown) physicist from the TechnionRoey Tsezana and others whose names are confidential at this time.
If you don't do so, you will be considered a troll, and Ayatollah Avi Blizovsky will delete your comments.
Amen yes may it be. May the name Sabradish be blessed forever and ever.
Point - Hawking and Penrose did not prove any such thing.
The cool commenter - there is no reason to assume such a thing, given that the universe is not going to collapse again.
Your "simple universe model" is not simple but horribly simplistic. From a purely technical point of view, your simplistic model stems from a misunderstanding of the most basic concepts in physics and the most elementary information in mathematics. It is somewhat reminiscent of Aristotle's model for describing material reality. From a "psychological" point of view, you are thirsty for fame and recognition that are so dear to your heart and at the same time so far from it. This model of yours will forever be the "Sabdarmish model" for those of you whose understanding of physics is nil. If it makes you feel good then let it be perfumed for you. If you want to be taken seriously, you must, but absolutely must, acquire an education. If you acquire a little education, it is not certain that you will want to mention your model again, but unlike before, you will know the satisfaction that it has something to base it on. Either way, have a wonderful day.
To the cool commenter and where did the mass "spring" come from?
Why not assume that the material came from somewhere? And on this to build a theory!
As I wrote before.. when I combined the dark matter and its properties and the dark energy and its properties I came up with some concept in which the dark matter was used as a protective tube against the dark energy and inside the tube made of dark matter the (gaseous) matter was transported from its place (without going into details where the place is) into our universe.. and maybe Even to its center there the matter was compressed until the conditions for the big bang were created!
And perhaps for a series of compensations from large and huge to medium and smaller ones!
In this view, dark matter plays a central role in the creation of the universe, so of course we must prove its existence beyond any doubt!
It's similar to what Ami Bachar thinks in his common sense, only I continued and tried to come up with an initial direction of how things could have happened! And definitely non-binding .. not even me!
Why can't we say that a big bang is a completely cyclical thing and each time the universe expands until it collapses in on itself (like a star collapses to become a black hole), and each time it collapses in on itself there is a big bang.
You can perhaps compare it to a spring that is compressed very much and then when it is released it stretches until it shrinks back. And without energy escape it can be a cyclic movement forever.
to the point
It is explicitly written in the article:-
The popular view of the Big Bang holds that the universe began at a single point of infinite energy and density, a "singularity" where the laws of physics lose their validity
End of quote.
And as for the possibility of cramming all the matter in the universe into a plank-sized "sardine can", well, I doubt it.
Have a good and blessed week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
All the same. Sorry for the many spelling errors. And if I have already erupted again I must wonder out loud - why is it necessary to determine or believe that the universe ever began? Matter and energy are not created out of thin air and do not disappear out of thin air, so there is no reason that one day all of these will suddenly be created. Singular point or not, Planck or Bohr... these still do not really answer the fundamental question of what created or what is the source of the matter and energy that was there? Even in a singular point there is infinite density and infinite energy, etc. and someone or something had to concentrate everything there in advance (sorry for the religious terminology - the reference is only linguistic and not theological).
We were the Those who think that there is a fundamental difference between zero magnitude and Planck length are quibbling and getting clever and even get involved in physics that originate from an arbitrary definition and that's how they also appear.
My obviously uneducated opinion relies on gut feeling only, because it is the only tool I have at my disposal when I try to think about physics, astronomy or cosmology.
Yehuda, no one really thinks that the universe started from a point (size 0).
Collapsing to a point is a result of using relativity alone where there are no limits on the smallest size.
Hawking and Penrose already showed that this singularity is not a point, but a quantum string of Planck length.
End, end, see scientists who do not believe in the existence of an initial singular point, and require the existence of an initial volume for the big bang.
They talk about the universe starting with a substance similar to a dense gas. Say what you will, but, it reminds me of my simple universe idea.
good day everybody
Sabdarmish Yehuda