"Dark energy" is one of the most mysterious topics in the world of physics, a revolutionary idea that can lead to a fundamental change in the accepted theories, provided that it succeeds in fulfilling the important task for which it was invented: to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe
Ofer Lahav
The term "dark energy" was coined in 1999, although the idea appeared for the first time in Einstein as early as 1917 in the form of the "cosmological constant". In recent years, dark energy has become one of the most mysterious and controversial subjects in the fields of physics.
Her story encompasses broad areas of physics and astronomy and provides fascinating insight into the philosophy of science, the way it works, and the status of theoretical predictions that cannot be proven at the time they are made.
Huge capital and countless hours are spent on imaging and spectrographic surveys, trying to explain why various observations point to the accelerated expansion of the universe.
There is a good reason for this investment - to explain this expansion is required no less than a renewed understanding of the composition of the entire universe. Apparently to us today, the explanation for the acceleration lies in the fact that the Earth, the other planets, the stars and every known and familiar substance, occupy only 4% of all the matter and energy in the universe.
More and more reliable evidence, from galaxy surveys and studies of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), shows that the non-baryonic cold dark matter (CDM) occupies an additional 21%, but that the remaining 75% is dark energy, the nature of which is not reasonably clear to us. the mind These discoveries require a dramatic change in our perception, perhaps even a greater change than was required after Copernicus showed that the Earth moves around the Sun.
the cosmological constant
The history of science is full of predictions about a phenomenon that will occur in the future, or about a material that has not yet been discovered. The prediction is based on an existing scientific theory. This is how Mendeleev predicted the elements that would be found in the periodic table, Edmund Halley the arrival date of Halley's comet, and Einstein - the deflection of light rays when they pass near the sun.
A slightly different type of prediction stems from a scientific theory, within which phenomena are discovered that are not explained by the theoretical model. Scientists are trying to add to the theoretical system another, unfamiliar element that will resolve the inconsistencies between the observations in reality and the theory. Thus, for example, in order to "fill" the empty space, the ether was "invented" as a field capable of conducting electromagnetic waves.
Einstein proposed and introduced the cosmological constant, denoted by the Latin letter Lamda (^), to fit the data into his theoretical conception of the universe, but it wasn't long before he began to see Lamda as an unnecessary and unbiased element, and finally gave it up altogether.
The addition of ^ to the gravitational field equations is the only conceivable correction that does not significantly change the structure of the theory, and it was enough that this term would not be forgotten and disappear. Surprisingly, a series of observations made throughout the 20th century consistently hinted at its presence.
Einstein's use of the cosmological constant was intended to eliminate the compressive effects of gravity, which predict the collapse (or expansion) of the universe, because he was certain at the time that the universe was static and eternal.
Einstein saw the aforementioned constant as a property of space itself, but it can also be interpreted as a form of energy whose uniformity fills the entire space. Einstein was disappointed with the term and abandoned it for good in 1931, after Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason discovered that the universe is actually expanding.
From then on, ^ seemed to be brought back to cosmology whenever there was a problem to be explained, and discarded later, when more data became available and made it, in the eyes of the scientists, unnecessary and unnatural.
As soon as two rival groups of supernova hunters in 1998 completed years of strenuous observations with the astonishing discovery that the expansion of the universe is an accelerating process, Einstein's cosmological constant was once again invoked to explain what drives this accelerated expansion.
With surprising speed, almost overnight, the scientific community adopted a new model of the universe. It turns out that astronomy was ripe for change. There is no doubt that the observations of supernovae played a decisive role in changing the perspective of those concerned, but the rapid acceptance of the new theory and of what was given the name "dark energy" is explained by the decade of maturation that preceded these observations.
Cosmic inflation and cold dark matter
The roots of the change lie in 1980, when Alan Goth proposed a bold solution to some of the problems raised by the standard Big Bang theory in the 35s. He discovered a mechanism that could have caused the universe to inflate, or undergo inflation at an incredible rate in a short period of time without the artist. The inflation that occurred immediately after the Big Bang was so massive that the universe expanded in a time space of 10-13.7 seconds more than it did in the estimated XNUMX billion years since then.
One of the most important ways to learn about dark matter and dark energy is the study of the tiny changes in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). This radiation began to move toward us 380,000 years after the event we accept as the beginning of the universe, when the size of the observed universe was a thousandth of its current rate, and its temperature was approximately 3,000 Kelvin.
Below this temperature, the photons did not have enough energy to eject electrons from their atoms, so the interaction of the photons with the atoms stopped and the universe became transparent to light. In the 13.7 billion years between then and now, the universe expanded and cooled, and today the first photons can be detected at a temperature of approximately 2.7 Kelvin.
To complete the missing component that explains the accelerated expansion and the flat universe, cosmologists introduced the name "dark energy" to encompass all the ideas that had come up until then. When the supernova data indicated that the expansion of the universe was accelerating and expressed a demand for the return of the cosmological constant, it was easy to go through a rapid process of adopting the concept of dark energy.
Towards alternatives and new models
If we can learn anything from the new scientific history, it is that we must not ignore the evidence when it is thrown at us. The addition of two poorly understood terms - dark energy and dark matter - to Einstein's theory may indeed corrupt the elegance and beauty of this theory, but simplicity in itself is not a law of nature.
Be that as it may, even if the argument for the right to dark energy has received many reinforcements in the ten years that have passed since it was first presented, many do not feel comfortable with the current cosmological model. This model does agree with all the current data, but it has no explanation in terms of fundamental physics, and the composition of the universe also seems somewhat arbitrary. As a result, several possible alternatives to dark energy have been proposed, and the probability that our perception of the universe will undergo another transformation in the next decade should not be dismissed out of hand.
What ideas for potential changes in the physical model we are familiar with are offered today and can explain the phenomena? We will present some of the options:
1) Violation of the Copernican principle
Today we assume that the Milky Way does not occupy a unique and special place in the universe, but if it turns out that we live in the heart of a large underdense region, perhaps this will explain why supernovae seem dim to us, even though there is no existence of any form of dark energy.
2) Correction of our understanding of gravity
It may be that we need to look for a more perfect theory of gravity beyond general relativity. Exciting new developments in the theory of "membrane worlds" suggest the effect of additional spatial dimensions, but it is likely that the mysteries of dark energy and cosmic acceleration will not be solved before the theory of gravity and quantum theory can be successfully combined.
3) Multiverses
In the XNUMXs there were those who pointed out that the effect of ^ on the formation of structure in the universe could be dramatic. If the cosmic constant were positive and too large, it would be in this position to prevent gravity from creating large galaxies, so life as we know it would never have appeared.
The meaning of this use of probability theory is to predict an infinite number of universes, in which ^ can have all possible values. Many scientists do not believe in these ideas, because they do not create refutable predictions, and it seems that they imply some kind of life principle or intention that coexists with the laws of physics. Be that as it may, the "membrane worlds" theory predicts a huge number of vacuums with different possible values of physical parameters.
In light of these questions, the focus of research in cosmology has changed dramatically in recent years, and many of the astronomical observations planned or being carried out now, are designed first and foremost to add discoveries about the factor underlying the cosmic acceleration. For example, the dark energy survey.
This survey will use a telescope equipped with a new camera with a diameter of 4 meters, located in Chile. This telescope will delve deeper into the sky of the Southern Hemisphere and map the distribution of 300 million galaxies across 5,000 square degrees (an eighth of the sky).
The dark energy will be measured using four tests: clustering of galaxies on a large scale, the richness of heavy galaxy clusters, the distortion of the shape of the galaxies due to the light bias caused by the distribution of mass along the line of sight, as well as the measurement of the distances to supernovae.
Observations with this telescope will begin in 2011, and the survey will be completed in 2016. More than 100 scientists from the USA, UK, Brazil and Spain participate in the entire project, including the author of this article.
Fortunately, almost any possible outcome of these polls will be of great interest. If large systematic errors in the data teach that it is no longer necessary to assume the existence of dark energy, it will be an important breakthrough. If, on the other hand, the data supports the existence of dark energy or a correction of gravity, it will have a fundamental effect on physics as a whole.
The article was written in collaboration with Lucy Calder and was published in the magazine "Odyssia"
92 תגובות
Itzhak
I do not think so….
Miracles,
Just the opposite, the theory is compatible with the theory of relativity.
It seems to me like a theory invented by someone who has not studied the theory of relativity....
good luck with that
Miracles,
Indeed so, the same with the light.
http://itshakgonigmanenglish.blogspot.co.il/
Itzhak
According to what you say, if there is no magnetic field in advance then an electromagnetic wave cannot propagate...
Electromagnetic waves propagate in the medium of magnetic fields.
It takes a change of culture, of the mode of reactions to circumstances, to effect a change of habit. Genetics is the progeny of culture, not vice versa. This applies in ALL fields of human activities, including economy, to ALL personal and social behavioral aspects.
Since the early 1900's ALL "science" has been taken over by the Technology Culture of the religious Americans, represented by the trade-union-church AAAS. Plain and simple. There has not been any science in the world since then except "religious-American-science".
On the blissful religious science ignorance...:
USA-World Science Hegemony Is Science Blind
Since the early 2000s I have been posting many articles on scientific items surveyed and analyzed by me, without religious background-concepts. I have been doing this because I was deeply disturbed by the religiosity of the 1848-founded AAAS trade-union and by the consequent religious background-tint of its extensive "scientific" publications and activities.
On my next birthday I'll be 88 years old. I know that I'm deeply engaged in a Don Quixotic mission-war to extricate-free the USA and world Science from the clutches and consequences of the religious-trade-union-church AAAS, adopted strangely by the majority of scientifically ignorant religious god -trusting Americans and by their most other humanity following flocks…
But I am sincerely confident that only thus it is feasible and possible to embark on a new, rational, human culture (Scientism) and on new more beneficial and effective technology courses for humanity...
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
Energy-Mass Poles Of The Universe
http://universe-life.com/2012/11/14/701/
Energy-Mass Poles Of the Universe
Again and again:
The universe is a two-pole entity, an all-mass and an all-energy poles.
Singularity and the Big Bang MUST have happened with the smallest base universe particles, the gravitons, that MUST be both energy and mass, even if all of them are inert mass just one smallest fraction of a second at the pre-Bing Bang singularity. All mass formats evolve from gravitons that convert into energy ie escape their gravitons shatters-clusters, becoming mass formats in motion, ie energy. And they all end up again as mass in a repeated universal singularity.
Universe expansion and re-contraction proceed simultaneously.
Graviton is the elementary particle of the universe. The gravitons are compacted into the universal inert singularity mass only for the smallest fraction of a second, when all the gravitons of the universe are compacted together, inert, with zero distance between all of them. This state is feasible and mandated by their small size and by their hence weak force.
The Big Bang is the shattering of the short-lived singularity mass into fragments that later became galactic clusters. This is inflation. The shattering is the start of movement of the shatters ie the start of reconversion of mass into energy, mass in motion. This reconversion proceeds at a constant rate since the big bang, since the annealing-tempering of singularity and the start of resolution of gravitons. The release of gravitons from their shatter-clusters proceeds at a constant rate due to their weak specific force due to their small size.
Gravity is the propensity of energy conversion to mass.
Inflation and expansion are per Newton.
Since the Big Bang galactic clusters are losing mass at a constant rate. Mass, gravitons, continue escaping at constant rate from their Big Bang fragments-clusters thus becoming energy, mass in motion, thus thrusting the clusters. Constant thrust and decreasing galactic clusters weight accelerate the separation of clusters from each other. Plain common sense.
A commonsensible conjecture is that the Universe Contraction is initiated following the Big-Bang event, as released moving gravitons (energy) deliver their thrust to other particles and are collected by and stored in black holes at very low energy levels steadily leading to the re- formation of the Universe Singularity, simultaneously with expansion, ie that universal expansion and contraction are going on simultaneously.
The conjectured implications is that the Universe is a product of A Single Universal Black Hole with an extremely brief singularity of ALL the gravitons of the universe, which is feasible and possible and mandated because gravitation is a very weak force due to the small size of the gravitons, the primal mass-energy particles of the universe.
Proposing,
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
Update AAAS religious trade union concepts:
Natural Selection Is Ubiquitous
Higgs Particle? Dark Energy/Matter? Epigenetics?
These Are YOK!
Update Concepts-Comprehension…
http://universe-life.com/2011/12/13/21st-century-science-whence-and-whither/
Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Natural Selection.
The quantum mechanics of every process is its evolution.
Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, possible or probable or actual mechanisms of natural selection.
=================
Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation
http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/
A. The Universe
From the Big-Bang it is a rationally commonsensical conjecture that the gravitons, the smallest base primal particles of the universe, must be both mass and energy, ie inert mass yet in motion even at the briefest fraction of a second of the pre Big Bang singularity. This is rationally commonsensical since otherwise the Big would not have Banged, the superposition of mass and energy would not have been resolved.
The universe originates, derives and evolves from this energy-mass dualism which is possible and probable due to the small size of the gravitons.
Since gravitation is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass and energy is mass in motion, gravity is the force exerted between mass formats.
All the matter of the universe is a progeny of the gravitons evolutions, of the natural selection of mass, of some of the mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive , the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion set in motion by the Big Bang.
B. Earth Life
Earth Life is just another mass format. A self-replicating mass format. Self-replication is its mode of evolution, natural selection. Its smallest base primal units are the RNAs genes.
The genesis of RNAs genes, life's primal organisms, is rationally commonsensical thus highly probable, the "naturally-selected" RNA nucleotides.
Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection, self-replication.
C. Know Thyself. Life Is Simpler Than We Are Told, Including Origin-Nature Of Brain-Consciousness-"Spirituality"***
The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically worthless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth.
As Life is just another mass format, due to the oneness of the universe it is commonsensical that natural selection is ubiquitous for ALL mass formats and that life, self-replication, is its extension. And it is commonsensical, too, that evolutions, broken symmetry scenarios, are ubiquitous in all processes in all disciplines and that these evolutions are the "quantum mechanics" of the processes.
Human life is just one of many nature's routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base primal Earth organisms.
Life's evolution, self-replication:
Genes (organisms) to genomes (organisms) to mono-cellular to multicellular organisms:
Individual mono-cells to cooperative mono-cell communities, "cultures".
Mono-cell cultures evolve their communication, neural systems, then further evolving nerved multicellular organisms.
Human life is just one of many nature's routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base Earth organism.
It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their lives as individuals and as group members.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
***The origin and essence of "spiritualities", all virtual,
Spiritualities arise from the believers, for their satisfaction and use
An Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything
http://universe-life.com/2011/12/10/eotoe-embarrassingly-obvious-theory-of-everything/
Tags: brain origin, gravitation, gravitons, lifeevolution, nerved organisms, RNAlifehood, spirituality, universeevolution
Solving the mystery of dark energy.
Gravitational forces in the universe are characteristic of the mass of the bodies.
1. According to the theory of relativity, mass and energy are two phenomena that represent the same phenomenon.
Since the big bang mass has been turning into energy.
It follows that the mass is small and the gravitational forces weaken over time.
Bodies that revolve around some center of gravity move at a speed corresponding to the force of gravity acting on them.
As the pull is weakened, the object that surrounds it will move away from the center.
This is an observed oscillation in the expanding universe.
2. The energy created from the mass is mostly electromagnetic radiation.
This radiation moves at the speed of light, therefore it is beyond the realm of galaxies and visible matter.
According to Einstein's theory of relativity this energy has the same properties of space curvature as it was
to the material from which they were made.
arises from the energy that has moved beyond the visible universe and attracts to it the matter that remains behind it.
Since most of the matter has turned into energy since the bang, the gravitational pull of the distant energy is great
due to the gravity of the remaining material.
Therefore the galaxies are attracted to the receding energy at an accelerated rate.
3. It is also reasonable to assume that the universe rotates on its axis
Like most objects in the universe. (fractals)
If the universe rotates on its axis, a centrifugal force is exerted on the galaxies that make it up
which in turn accelerates them outward from the center of the universe.
When a doppelgänger like a disturbed spirit says that these are not nonsense then it is surely nonsense
Apparently they are not bullshit
It's nice to see that the nonsense designed to discredit science remains as it was even though it has been proven many times to be nonsense.
It's nice to read the fervor of the discussion on the topics of 'higher physics' (waves/particles of light, 'energy/dark matter', the curvature of space, the magical 'ether', etc.). I would like to remind you that the use of the concept/word 'reason' is extremely problematic - after all, in the Middle Ages, the ruling 'physics' saw a flat world centered on the 'treasure of creation': God !!...'reason' is what we learned (at home, in school, on the street and so on...). Tomorrow a new 'Einstein' will arise (hopefully...) and explain 'logically'
Breakthrough because the energy/h.' Apple is nothing but... and again God forbid.
Shabbat-peace to nothing!
Yehuda,
"Those who want to see also see formulas and calculations, those who don't want to - then won't see."
I really want to, and I have already asked you politely several times but in vain. Here is another request:
Please direct me to the link where you describe the mathematical equations underlying your theory.
Lenaam
Those who want to see also see formulas and calculations, those who don't want to - then won't see.
I don't want to add to that here, but for anyone who wants, I'm going to give three lectures at the observatory in Givatayim:-
The first one will be about dark mass and it will only include the things accepted by everyone, just like a good boy cosmology. The second will be about dark energy and will again include only the accepted things. In the third lecture, I allow myself to "go wild"
I would love to see you and others too. Details on the website of the Israeli Astronomical Society.
The lecture has a nominal charge for guests, and is free for members of the Israel Astronomical Society.
What, you're still not a member of the association?
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
You repeat and claim that "every time you try to use it (the gravitation formula) in large cosmological structures, it does not prove itself and fails miserably".
In your opinion, the failure manifests itself in the fact that when you put the mass data, the distance and the rotation speed of the galaxies into the mathematical equations, a discrepancy is obtained.
You flaunt it non-stop, and offer your own alternative: the pressure differences in space are what move the galaxies and all sorts of other things.
If we want to check whether your idea of pressures in a similar way to the test of the gravitation experiment, i.e. putting known values in a mathematical equation of your theory, we will encounter a difficult problem: you don't even have a single mathematical equation to present for testing!
(And please, do not present again the calculation of the pressure needed to move a galaxy - even if this calculation is correct, it is not a calculation of the theory of pressures, but the size of any force of any kind, necessary to move the galaxies, is important).
That is, while you repeat and declare the shortcomings of the gravitation formula, you offer an alternative that has not even reached the level that allows us to present a mathematical equation so that we can test it.
In such a situation, the pressure differences can do whatever you want, and it can never be contradicted because it offers no calculation and no prediction except for fascinating stories.
If you do want to promote it, please make an effort to formulate it in the language of physics - that is, with the help of mathematical equations. Only then, it will be possible to put it to the test, and even call it a scientific theory (correct or not is of course another question).
Until then, your attempts to present it as an alternative to the gravitation formula is disrespectful, and in fact knowingly misleads the public who understand less in the field.
Noon:
Although I have already decided not to argue with you, I still tell you that your demand is meaningless.
Everything we know about the various contexts in which e plays a role - we know as a result of pure thought - not through any experiment.
This is the definition of knowing things in advance and not in hindsight.
The fact that our life span is finite and the amount of information we can accumulate is limited is irrelevant.
Machel
Answer the question: Can you provide some automatic algorithm that will provide a prediction of the set of connections of the numerical ratio e for example. You can only do this after the fact, that is, after you have found patterns that are related to this number, you prove that the relationship exists. But you can't do it in advance.
Because mathematics is a field in which you travel like in a labyrinth, you discover by experience how it works, but even after traveling for thousands of years, you cannot provide a description of the labyrinth itself.
Scrabbling
Noam, Machal,
Continued
And for this reason itself, since you never have the possibility of knowing in advance to which possible connections a certain ratio or number can be connected.
You have to admit that mathematics itself is a random if orderly process.
You discover the order in mathematics in retrospect, but you cannot understand where it comes from because you do not understand the essence of the order.
Noam, Machal
I mean Pai himself is some kind of ideal relationship. One of its ideal forms is the circle.
Pi is an approximation of the ratio so it expresses an infinite object through a finite approximation.
Of course, it makes it possible to connect many mathematical objects in different and varied fields.
And it has no substitute for physical calculations.
And with all this still all these calculations are an approximation of objects that have no other definitive expression.
The fact that it is possible to work and operate with approximate calculations indicates that the relevant physical reality
For those calculations, reality is forgiving. It allows working with relatives in a beneficial way.
But on the other hand, it may not work for a more complex physical reality.
That's why I wrote that the order in which we are used to calculating and understanding things is not necessarily something binding.
Cause and effect is a kind of habit that we are used to seeing things and in the same way the mathematical objects are a kind of way that is considered and appropriate for the human way of thinking.
If we return to the pi number issue: we will try to see why it appears in so many mathematical patterns.
No one can provide a real reason. In the style of a reason and a twist that will explain why all these contexts for pie exist.
Equally if you take a number like Fibonacci's golden ratio for the collection of contexts in which it appears there is no general reason that can explain it. You can prove that a certain relationship exists, but you cannot create some kind of function or equation or mathematical pattern by which you can predict all the relationships common to a certain number.
There is nothing in mathematics or logic that can present such a prediction.
Noon:
I'm sorry for the time.
Mathematics is professional and it is clear to me that you have no idea about it and yet you have the pretension to teach the whole world.
There is no chance for a conversation between us.
Before a person can learn he has to understand that we don't know.
noon,
It's a bit hard for me to follow your arguments.
Pi is an important number (there are several others in mathematics) but it does not represent the ideal curve, and it is not limited to a circle, it appears in many places unrelated to a circle, it can even be found in probability calculations.
Besides, it does not represent any infinite ratio. In a circle, it is the ratio between the diameter of the circle and its circumference, but as mentioned this is only one of its aspects.
All the rest of your stories, which include baseless generalizations about engineers, etc., are irrelevant to the topic.
And of course it is clear that Pai represents the ideal curve = the circle that does not exist in nature.
The engineering approach insists on doing what is possible with the knowledge and understanding that are used to them.
On the other hand, there is the approach that questions habits and asks questions that have already stopped being asked.
Machal, Noam
Can you refer to any trigonometric function or any curve at all without the relation "pie".
Pai is a central node, a cornerstone for all mathematics, without which there is almost no mathematics.
Pi represents the finite infinite relationship between straight and curved.
It is true that it works and therefore things are understood and there is an order that is easy to absorb through this representation.
But that doesn't mean it's the only way. There is an expression of engineers what works does not change.
But the engineers think with basic thinking tools created over the years, but sometimes someone comes along
and questioned the old habits of thought. It didn't happen much though, but there were some who thought otherwise.
The habits are a good and nice thing but on the other hand it closes the thinking to other things completely.
Noon:
I explained what the scientists think.
I have no idea or influence on what the afternoons think.
Humans defined a circle as they defined it - not because it is a "good curve" and certainly not because "all curves are derived from it".
As humans - we really want to understand things and you are right that not understanding them is also an option and as you demonstrate - it is much easier to realize this option.
noon,
The principle of causality is indeed a type of "sacred cow", and it is completely different from the other examples you gave below.
Besides, it is not accurate to say that all the curves were derived from a circle, if I were to say that all the curves were derived from the trigonometric functions (Sin Cos)
For response 60 from Kahler Rothschild
The principle of causality is not a sacred cow. It's just the way humans understand things in an orderly way.
Just as mathematics defines ideal representations in an attempt to simulate the world outside.
Human thinking is limited and therefore it must have ideal images.
For example, curves exist in external reality everywhere and in any form. But the ideal curve "circle" or circle exists only in mathematics. Because it can be defined in general simply: the location of all points equidistant from one point. And hence it is easy and therefore more appropriate to develop the sentences dealing with more complex curves.
When all the curves are derived from this ideal curve. The order and connections between the ideal bodies and themselves are also limited by human perception. After all, the relationship between straight lines and curves is again narrowly defined through a limiting approach, an approach that defines what a limit is. The theory of the limit was born from this limitation.
This does not mean that it is the best way, it means that it works well and is suitable for the limited human understanding.
ghost moon:
Note that the article repeats and uses the phrase "both scientists claim so and so" and not "happened so and so".
This is because no one has yet repeated the experiment to make sure they were not mistaken.
In the meantime, a lot of time has passed and the experiment has not yet been verified.
Apparently they were just wrong.
You are welcome to read more in this response
https://www.hayadan.org.il/duglas-adams-0412089/#comment-145745
and in the links marked from it
Sorry, not 'two' photons but photons at all.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/photons-challenge-the-light-barrier-1708070
There was an article here a long time ago that scientists managed to break the light speed barrier with the help of two photons.
Does a photon carry information?
(R*H R*Faim)
lion:
The explanations given here are indeed the accepted explanations.
Despite the EPR phenomena, information cannot be transmitted at a speed that exceeds the speed of light.
Why is it important that information cannot be transferred?
Because if information could be transmitted at a speed exceeding the speed of light, the principle of causality would be violated - it would be possible to create a situation in which a phenomenon precedes - in a certain system of axes, its cause.
The argument is that what happens in EPR phenomena does not deserve to be called the transfer of information because the transfer of information is the transfer of information that is known to party A - to party B - but in EPR phenomena the information is not known to either party and is determined simultaneously by both parties.
It must be noted that even the experts differ in their opinions regarding the extent of the problem of this argument and you are welcome to read, for example, here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong-about-relativity
Gil Dotan,
1. I don't think there are really fruitful debates here between competing scientific views but if you enjoy it, great.
2. The different percentages were arrived at not in a pure theoretical way, but by cross-referencing several different cosmological measurements (the model is called CDM for Mada).
3. Regarding string theory - first of all, as I said, there are no conflicts, there is a fairly basic physical knowledge here and agreed upon by the majority of the scientific community confronting conspiracy theories which can be very easily dismissed without using string theory, which, to be honest, I don't understand much and this is a subject that those who wish to engage in He seriously needs to learn a lot. As far as I know, it has not made an important contribution to cosmology to this day, although there are probably attempts to derive cosmological ideas from it (probably because its practitioners have no other way to examine it) - see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_cosmology
to Aria,
As I mentioned, the solution to the paradox sounds a little fishy to me, but apparently according to Wikipedia and according to what I heard from a lecturer who discussed the subject, apparently people who understand physics better than I do believe today that the paradox does not really succeed in contradicting the theory of relativity.
As I mentioned, the explanation is related to the fact that you will not really be able to transmit any information at a speed higher than the speed of light, since in order to receive the full information at B, the viewer there needs to hear about the result at A and it seems that there is no way to do this at a speed that exceeds the speed of light.
Note that things that move above the speed of light sometimes exist, the block is on the transmission of some actual information, that is, on a certain physical effect in a distant location (let's say the information that the sun has disappeared and therefore the earth must change its course will be transmitted at the speed of light).
Like I said, the explanation sounds a bit fishy to me but that's what I know and I'd be happy if someone else could explain it better than me.
lion
Indeed the quantum theory is not hidden and information cannot be transmitted at a speed greater than the speed of light. In EPR experiments the correlation obtained between the two particles does not allow information to be transmitted on the one hand and on the other hand it cannot be explained through correlations of hidden variables.
Lezvi: If there are no hidden variables, then I don't understand the summary in one of your responses that quantum theory is not hidden from EPR and information is not transmitted at infinite speed between the particles.
Nice THREAD 🙂 It was worth reading.
Arguments are always better than anything agreed, so we wouldn't get anywhere.
In our case:
How did they get to 4% 21% 75%?
And why don't I see arguments in the field of string theory?
Isn't she supposed to settle some of the conflicts here?
Regarding the tests that confirm the theory of relativity, see the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
There the three classic tests of general relativity, all of which Michael mentioned:
1) The precession of the perihelion of Mercury* - the fact of the existence of the aforementioned precession was known even before the theory of general relativity, but the scientists at the time thought that it would be possible to explain it with all kinds of Newtonian disturbances, the exact prediction of the precession was, as Michael said, the first proof to the theory of relativity (although it was not a prediction since the precession was known).
2) The deviation of the simulated position of the planet Mercury due to the deflection of light rays under the influence of the Sun's gravitational field (the measurement was made during the solar eclipse of 1919 by Arthur Eddington - quite a famous story).
3) Redshift due to the existence of a gravitational field.
To Michael - thanks for the additional clarifications
* Precession of the perihelion - the perihelion is the point in the orbit around the sun where the planet is closest to it, according to Newton's theory predicting elliptical orbits, this point is supposed to be fixed, but in practice due to relativistic effects it is not fixed and its position changes from year to year - the orbit is not really a closed ellipse.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury
Some clarifications - some on a historical background:
Einstein added the cosmological constant because according to the calculations of the theory of relativity without that constant - a static universe was an unstable solution and the universe was supposed to contract or expand.
He added the constant to "stabilize" the universe in a static state - not because a non-static reconstruction did not appeal to him, but because the opinion in those days was that according to observations - the universe is static.
When it became clear (in Hubble's observations) that the universe is not static, Einstein wanted to get rid of the constant.
For many years the scientists did not think that a constant was necessary and only tried to find out what the nature of the universe was according to the classifications presented by Zvi.
The permanent gained new life as a result of two things:
One is the theory of inflation;
The second is the accumulation of observations that indicate that the universe is not only expanding but that its expansion is accelerating.
The need for a constant to explain these situations was that the predictions that relativity produced without it - whether they predicted infinite expansion or whether they predicted collapse - did not predict accelerated expansion.
The constant that was actually invented to prevent the collapse - was re-recruited to explain the acceleration of expansion.
Evidence for the correctness of general relativity is abundant.
In fact - the first confirmation she received was, as far as I know, the more correct prediction she provided regarding the movement of the planet Hema.
Beyond that there is the bending of light that you mentioned and also the evidence that is received every day and hour by hour (and place by place) from the very ability of the GPS system to operate, as Zvi said in a previous response.
The redshift of light emanating from heavy stars also confirms the theory.
Also regarding the axiom of parallels - I would like to add a certain historical aspect:
The lack of confidence in the need for the axiom of parallels arose from a number of reasons.
One of them was that she was not elegant.
Another reason was that people hoped it would be possible to prove it based on the other axioms and therefore it was unnecessary.
Most of the time spent on this axiom was indeed spent on failed attempts to prove it based on the others but over the years some mathematicians have managed to describe perfectly logical geometries where this axiom does not hold.
At first it was just a mathematical game. They succeeded in describing a consistent system of axioms in which the axiom of parallels does not hold, but no one suspected that the geometry of the universe is not Euclidean.
General relativity is the one that actually discovered this fact about the universe. Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry both remain excellent mathematical theories, but Euclidean geometry was dismissed from the lofty role of describing the structure of the universe and non-Euclidean geometry took its place.
Thank you deer!
What is the evidence for the theory? The fact that light is bent by mass or is there more?
Does universe 1 mean that there is no expansion of space and actually the galaxies are expanding in the void?
I didn't understand what exactly the cosmological constant came to correct and I would appreciate it if you could explain a little about it.
I hope the questions are not to bother you and if you want you can ask Avi Blizovsky for my email and we won't have to bother everyone here.
incidentally,
Dark energy is a general case of the cosmological constant since initially different options were raised for its behavior.
in more detail,
There is a quantity called W which constitutes the ratio between pressure and energy, which for most normal things (radiation, matter, etc.) is positive or at least not negative, while for the cosmological constant it is -1.
Being negative is related to the fact that it causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate, but it does not necessarily have to be exactly 1- as in Einstein's cosmological constant - the name dark energy speaks of something that causes the expansion of the universe without necessarily committing to W=-1.
Meanwhile, all measurements indicate that W of dark energy is exactly 1-, meaning that it is literally the cosmological constant and general relativity (for now) does not require corrections.
A complex question…
Introduction A
======
Cosmology has a number of basic assumptions concerning the universe - among other things, it is assumed that it is homogeneous and isotropic.
Homogeneous - means that if you divide the universe into cubes, the cubes will be quite similar (same density, same ratio of radiation energy to matter energy, same fraction of matter in stars, etc.)
Isotropic - for each of the directions in which you look (and homogeneity would be true from every point in the universe) you will see more or less the same thing.
We will emphasize that these assumptions are true for rather large cubes (on the order of magnitude of galaxies, for example, this is obviously not true - you have to increase...).
Introduction B
======
One of the basic concepts in general relativity is the matrix - mathematically it is a matrix and it actually describes how the distances between two points in space are measured. For example, in a regular Euclidean space the distances follow the Pythagorean theorem.
Already Euclid, who formulated the basic axioms of geometry, suspected that the axiom concerning that parallel lines do not meet - was problematic, and indeed during the 19th century it was discovered that geometries could be formulated that would hold all the other axioms except for this axiom - to speak of additional meanings, among other things, in these geometries not The sum of the angles in a triangle must be equal to 180 degrees (a good example of such geometry is the geometry of distances on the surface of a sphere - where the sum of the angles is greater than 180 degrees and parallel lines always meet - the Pythagorean theorem will also not hold).
It turns out that the dimension that best describes the space is the matrix matrix.
At the core of the theory of relativity is the idea that the existence of matter changes the matrix around it and it is no longer a Euclidean matrix to something else (if you put three satellites in space in a place affected by the gravitational field of some object - and add up the angles formed by the three, you will find that this sum is different from 180 - In any normal configuration that I can think of, the sum will be greater than 180). Einstein's field equation actually describes how the matrix changes (how space is curved) as a result of the presence of matter.
To the heart of the matter:
Rewriting Einstein's field equation for the universe under the requirement of homogeneity and isotropy, we actually find three possible solutions given:
1) A flat universe - where the metric is a completely Euclidean metric (the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees).
2) An elliptical universe - a universe with a non-Euclidean matrix in which the sum of the angles is greater than 180 degrees.
3) Hyperbolic universe - again, a universe with a non-Euclidean matrix, this time the sum of the angles is less than 180 degrees.
In all three cases the described universe begins (and in case 2 even ends) at a singular point, meaning that space itself expands. Incidentally, Einstein was not satisfied with the fact that the universe is not constant, so he added a constant size to the equation named after him, which was intended to regulate this and make the universe constant - this is an anti-gravitational mechanism that was named the cosmological constant, which was considered for years (also by Einstein himself to be a big fool) - In retrospect, the accelerated expansion of the universe corresponds exactly to that predicted by a cosmological constant (although not to the same extent as predicted by Einstein - apparently the universe is not static)
Note: Universe 2 is often compared to the face of a four-dimensional sphere - this is mathematically correct but conceptually wrong, since there really is no such sphere, simply, the distances between points behave as if they are around such a sphere when it does not really exist. Raya's 3rd universe has no problem existing and it cannot be described as any form (in common parlance) in a four-dimensional world.
Even though I don't like the parable of a ball, it will still explain (and again - it's only a parable and not really true!!!) -
Assume points drawn on a balloon. When the balloon inflates, the points will not move, yet the distances between them will increase, they do not move away by themselves, it is the space that increases.
First of all, thank you both for the wise answers. I will have to delve a bit into them and the websites about the paradox and Bell to understand.
You have another question. According to the current accepted theory, the distance of the galaxies is explained by the fact that it is the space itself that is expanding and not that they are moving away from each other in the void. How can you differentiate between the two options? And why is the expansion of space preferred?
Thanks in advance
I see that in the meantime Michael has overtaken me...
R. H.,
I will start by apologizing - this topic of abortion is familiar to me from other topics about which I have written. If I remember correctly, all the information I will mention here appears in the EPR PARADOX entry on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#Simple_version. If it interests you, it's worth reading there, it's pretty clear
In any case, I think that in my answer I will be able to answer you, but in any case I would love to hear from people who understand the full picture (especially the solution to the paradox) better than me what they have to say.
In short - the answer to your question is that the spin is not a ball since the ball has an answer in advance as to its color, it is simply hidden while the spin really does not have a defined spin before the measurement
Now for details:
The phenomenon of interlacing is interesting because it is an example (allegedly) of information passing at a speed higher than the speed of light, it was proposed by Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) in 1935.
Suppose we do a certain experiment in which two particles A and B are emitted and we know that their spins are opposite. According to quantum theory, these particles do not have a defined spin until the measurement has been made (and here is the difference from your two-ball model). Spin Z and spin X are orthogonal to each other - that is, when Z is measured between about "+" and between about "-", X becomes "+" or "-" with probability 1/2 1/2. When it was decided in A to measure Z, the X data in B was immediately changed so that it corresponds to a probability of half and half, if X is now measured in B then we will know with certainty both the X value and the Z value (since the Z value of A is known) of each of the electrons and this is impossible according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
The EPR solution (shorter than writing Einstein Podolsky Rosen every time) is very similar to your idea of balls, there are hidden variables that predetermine the measurement values of the two particles - according to them, quantum theory is wrong when it says that the Z measurement of a particle determines that X will be in probability Half and half, except that it is predetermined for the particle what is the spin in the X direction and what is the spin in the Z direction and we simply do not know this.
In the terms of your idea (which corresponds to EPR's thinking) - let's say that the box can be red or blue and can house a black or white ball, so what EPR is saying is that as soon as you opened the red box and saw a black ball in it - it is clear that the blue box contains a white ball. Quantum theory, on the other hand, holds that you cannot know the color of the box and the color of the ball inside at the same time.
Apparently, the EPR idea regarding the existence of such hidden variables is very tempting, the problem is that in the basic experiment there is no ability to test which of the two is real and thus it is a kind of philosophical discussion about the nature of quantum theory more than something practical.
All this was true until the 60s, when John Bell proposed the possibility of an actual experiment in which he would accurately check whether or not such hidden variables exist.
There is an entry on Wikipedia that I did not delve into which deals with the idea of Bell's experiment, I did not read it as I remember the explanation from my studies and it is a bit mathematically tedious. The main idea is that the axes taken so far, X and Z are perpendicular to each other and so the results obtained are half and half, just like the arbitrary distribution of the hidden variables. However, if you work with two axes that are not perpendicular to each other, the results change and thus at different angles you can get different results for hidden variables or for quantum theory - these are formulated in the form of an inequality and for the attention of all the various skeptics - also cover the option according to which the distribution of the hidden variables is not completely arbitrary.
As I said the development is completely mathematical but in the end it allows a practical measurement of the difference between the two theories. The experiments have been carried out many times since then and the undisputed result is that as long as the principle of locality is not given up (according to which an object is immediately affected by its immediate surroundings only) then the quantum theory is correct and all the hidden variable theories are not.
Currently, it is believed that the EPR paradox does not really contradict quantum theory due to the fact that A cannot transmit the measurement results to B in any way whose speed exceeds the speed of light, therefore locality is not yet broken.
I hope I've added something
Happy Independence Day to everyone.
Just a small complement for R.H.:
Therefore - what quantum theory claims is not that one has a certain spin and the other has the opposite spin at any moment, but that the measurement experiment will cause the wave function to collapse and only then will the spin values of the particles be determined, but then they will be determined according to the observer's prediction that they will be opposite.
R.H.:
I don't know who you addressed the question to so I will volunteer to answer.
I have already told you about Bell's theorem, which predicts in the case of local hidden variables a distribution different from that predicted by quantum theory, and about the experiments that were conducted and proved that what actually takes place are the predictions of quantum theory - while contradicting the possibility of local hidden variables.
The description you described is a description of local hidden variables (every ball has a color at every moment. It is a local variable because the color of the ball depends only on the ball itself and not on anything else - including not the other ball. It is a hidden variable - because we do not know its value).
Therefore this experiment does not reflect what actually happens.
As someone who understands physics, I would appreciate it if you could answer a question I once asked on the site and it was not answered.
To my understanding, in the interweaving phenomenon we are talking about two or more particles that when they are created we know that one is + and the other - (for example spin). And then even if we separate them by a long distance, we will look at the first and if it + the second will be - regardless of the distance as if information was passed here.
My question is what is the difference between this experiment and the following experiment: we will take two black and white balls and put them in identical boxes. Separate the balls a long distance. We open one of the boxes and it looks like the ball is black, so we know for sure that the other one is white, no information was passed here. So what is so special about quantum entanglement?
By the way, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate for me more about the 'anti-photon'.
deer
You're on point, because I'm also debating whether to call the particle an anti-photon or that the particle I described is actually a particle related to a photon and a Higgs particle, so it's not an anti-photon or a Higgs boson, but a calibration boson of some sort.
Right now I don't have an answer, but I'm working on it, if you still want to hear my opinion I'd be happy to respond.
If not, you have no choice and will have to put up with the 'nonsense' I write here - like all the others.
deer:
I agree with you. As a starting condition, you have to believe in people.
I also believed in a ghost in the past and ate it.
I'm just trying to share my experience with you and as you said - no one is wiser than someone with experience.
Michael, I only read your response after I had already answered the spirit - you may be right but we must believe in humans (-:
Yehuda, when I say that there are two options, I mean that in the eyes of those who understand me, there are as of today two prominent options - it is very possible that in the future the answer will be revealed and she will not wonder either of the two - we will wait and see.
Ghost,
Some things are a matter of definition and some things are not.
A photon has momentum - the law of conservation of momentum is one of the most basic laws of nature, the violation of which (if it existed and it didn't) would lead to strange results. This law is preserved only when it is contained on both the mechanical momentum and the electromagnetic momentum (that is, the momentum of a photon). The question is whether there is any point in defining a mass for it defined by m=p/v and the accepted answer to the best of my knowledge is that there is no point - the standard definition I know for mass is m^2=E^2-P^2 (which has the advantage that it is constant during beyond different reference systems) and according to this there is no mass.
As for your claims about quanta, not everything that is always in motion has no rest mass - I really don't understand what you mean. In any case, you have presented an incorrect picture here as if relativity does not agree with the quantums at this point and this is not the case. The special theory of relativity (and this is what we are discussing) is perfectly aligned with the quantum theory both in the case of spin-less particles* (Klein-Gordon equation) and in the case of particles with spin 1/2 (Dirac equation) - by the way, this equation is what led to the discovery of antimatter.
As for the anti-photon - as we know, every particle has an anti-particle, and so does a photon indeed have an anti-photon, but its behavior is completely different from the behavior you described. An antiparticle is a particle that participates in exactly the same interactions as the particle itself, except that the different charges in it (electrical charge, barionic charge, etc.) are reversed - its mass and its spin, by the way, are the same as that of the original particle (in contrast to the antiphoton that you described as having mass). In the case of the photon (whose electrical and baryonic charge are both zero) the particle that maintains these properties is exactly the photon, therefore the discussion of the anti-photon has no meaning and this concept is unknown.
*Particles for which this equation was relevant have not yet been discovered, but it is expected that this was the relevant equation for the Higgs particle.
deer:
As you must have noticed, Ghost is another one of the idiots of the site.
I suggest you ignore his words.
deer
First of all I apologize for defining the problem in an unflattering way. I'm sure the scientists are doing their best but they won't give up on gravity because it's burned or scratched in their gray cells and they won't get rid of it easily.
For example you claim:-
There are two possible explanations for this - one is that the law of gravitation is incorrect, and the other is that there is dark matter and a cosmological constant. End quote.
Note that you did not take the possibility that the solution is different and not gravity. What I mean:-
If, for example, you tried to explain the movement of hurricanes by gravity and of course failed, would you constantly try to change the law of gravity?, would you try to add mass and dark energy to hurricanes to fit Newton's gavitation formula?, or, perhaps, would you throw away Newton's formula And takes another phenomenon that will explain the movement.? I'm sure you would choose the third option because gravity is not burned in your head in this case.
But, regarding the galaxies you cannot think of a universe without gravitation (almost) at the great cosmological distances. I don't blame you because this is simply too extreme an approach.
If you look at the strange movement of the galaxies you will realize that there are only two or three potential solutions, for example I counted eight possibilities for a mathematical solution to the problem (of course only one is physically correct)
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
Scientists have always talked about the role of black holes in shaping galaxies and it wasn't Hazi's nonsense that "triggered their thinking".
I say again that not knowing everything yet is not a reason to throw away what they know and replace it with nonsense and to the best of my knowledge - this is what Hazi does in every field and this is what you do in the field of gravity.
deer
You claim that "it's a matter of definition" in response 22. I agree with that 100 percent.
This is what I claim, that there is a 'problem' in defining the momentum of the photon. The momentum of the photon complicates the matter
When it is used in different interpretations such as the interpretation of the theory of relativity versus the interpretation of the quantum theory.
In the theory of relativity (which preceded quantum) the photon gets mass because it has momentum.
In quantum the photon is always in a state of motion (when its speed is the speed of light in a vacuum) and therefore has no rest mass.
I claim that the photon has an anti-particle (it's called an anti-photon) with zero momentum and infinite mass that determines the energy level (also with infinite potential) of the photon. The anti-photon only interacts with the photon through gravity and does not interact with any other field. and maintains contact with the Hadrons.
In other words, the antiphoton is constant in space. and charges the photon with energy and in this way gives it momentum.
I can explain and elaborate if you want.
(R. H. R. Faim)
Machel will come today and all the scientists will know the hat. Aliens do exist. See you in 212!!
Yehuda,
You claim that for conservative reasons scientists refuse to accept the fact that Newton's law of gravitation is incorrect.
On the other hand, note that those conservative scientists according to you, do accept no less strange explanations (which you probably dismiss on the grounds of being less plausible) such as dark energy, dark matter, etc.
What you say is true - it is clear to everyone that we do not see the full picture and now there are two possible explanations for this - one is that the law of gravity is incorrect, and the other is that there is dark matter and a cosmological constant.
Both explanations have been tested and both have supporters in the scientific community, however, currently as I mentioned before (response 9) the explanations that include a change in the law of gravitation turn out to be terribly complicated, arbitrary and temporary constants are unable to explain the full range of phenomena.
The explanation of dark matter, or in this case of dark energy, is much simpler, does not contradict everything we know from theories that have so far proven themselves (mainly general relativity) and explains reality very well - so for now it is accepted by most of the scientific community.
Hazy, and possibly you too, according to the content of the last correspondence, present a false representation as if the scientific community is a conservative and united group of people in its views that rejects any new and creative idea and only to deceive the public or itself, arbitrarily adopts a revolution every few years (heliocentric theory, relativity, quantum theory, etc.) - these revolutions are partly correct and partly not (if I remember correctly you do not believe in the existence of black holes) while many other correct and wonderful ideas are rejected outright for unclear reasons.
This picture is obviously not true, it is a wide range of people, who unlike me, El Hazy, you and probably also Michael - are engaged in the subject full-time and know many facts and insights that are simply not known to us as a general public (for reasons of lack of professionalism and not due to any dark conspiracy theories) . Those people are trying to put the picture together and see what fits best with what they know and apparently for the time being it is not an amendment to the Newton law to dark energy.
Believe me because in terms of fame, any physicist would be happy to be the one who found Newton's revised law and was right.
True, also in my opinion black holes do not eject galaxies but here he claims that something is wrong with gravity and in my opinion only these words should be considered in response.
But that's just my opinion.
…….I knew I saw something galaxy building, well :-
Published in the last beta of the Astronomical Society (March Spring 2010) of which I happen to be the editor.
New research done shows how black holes shape galaxies. A team of researchers observed for five days a nearby galaxy NGC1068 using X-rays. They discovered that the active black hole in the center of the galaxy "shoots" (squirts?) a lot of material to a distance of up to 3000 light years carrying with it so much energy that it will not allow the formation of new stars. Posted by Dan Evans of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
So it's true, no galaxies were erupted, but Hezi still said something thought-provoking.
Regarding his words about aliens I still allow myself to be skeptical.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I'm not attacking Hazy for this nonsense only, but for his obsessive adherence to every possible nonsense - starting with his theory that black blacks splatter the galaxies through alien theories of all kinds and ending with nonsense on the subject of gravitation.
The fact that not everything is understandable to science does not mean that it can be replaced with anything - including fruit salad.
Why are you attacking Chazi about the Easter Islands or Bangladesh? The article is about dark mass and energy, and consider his words, he says in SSA:-
The most likely solution to the whole mystery,
that we don't understand gravity enough.
It is likely that gravity at vast distances in the universe,
behaves differently than at the small distances we are able to measure.
And in my opinion, Hazy is the closest to a logical answer.
And Sabdarmish Yehuda wants to tell you that he is the only one who understands what is being discussed here.
Something rotten in the realm of gravity!
We think about the gravity that exists in the entire universe according to Newton's gravitation formula (with relativistic corrections) but every time we try to activate it in large cosmological structures it does not prove itself and fails big time. Ready for solutions in the style of: Violation of the Copernican principle or multiverse or another understanding of gravity, but not brave enough to reject gravity at great distances for something else.
Gravity has failed. point. Something else drives the galaxies.
At the Astronomical Society I learned how great the damage is from light pollution making it difficult for us to see the universe.
But, Kim is a worse thing and is the filth of thought. Concepts that have been introduced into our minds since the dawn of our childhood and we are unable to free ourselves from them.
So why are you trying to attack Chazi personally?, he says logical things,
Something rotten in the realm of gravity! point.
I am going to give a lecture at the Astronomical Society three lectures:- dark mass, dark energy, and can it be otherwise. Those who wish are welcome to enter the website of the Israeli Astronomical Society. And by the way, every week on Thursday there is an interesting lecture there.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Hezi,
Light is not matter and the curvature of space is a fact that stems from general relativity - a fairly well-established theory that every time the GPS in your car is right, it is an additional confirmation of it and the idea of the "curvature of space" that stems from it
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Relativity).
Naive Newtonian calculations of the effect of gravity on light (completely ignoring the fact that light has no mass as well as any relativistic effect) - will predict a deviation that is half the size of the true deviation - general relativity will of course predict the correct deviation.
You are allowed to not know knowledge that is not trivial and that you have never had the chance to learn it and I don't think that is why Michael is attacking you, his attack is on your adherence to errors.
Chest:
Maybe you finally want to answer This question?
deer:
Views?
Response to 24
know-it-all understands-everything
Can't help but personally attack people who don't-know-it-all.
I am allowed to be "ignorant" because I am not a scientist...
Just because you studied math and can rattle off a number of mathematical symbols does not make you qualified in physics.
I repeat and assert that light is a substance that behaves like another substance,
And the deflection of light near massive objects is a result of gravitation and not the "curvature of space"...
easter island There is only one Easter Island (a very interesting and beautiful place by the way).
Experience brings wisdom
deer:
I mean mainly the Easter Islands, but if you know Hezi, you will understand that his responses 5 and 6 also come from the same place - an abysmal disdain for science and scientists combined with incredible ignorance on these issues and with a belief in every conspiracy theory that has ever been practiced.
By the way, I assume that in his comments in this discussion you meant what was said about the Easter Islands...
Michael,
It's a matter of definition, they have momentum so you could say they have mass. According to the definition I know (m^2=E^2-p^2 in c=1 units) and which I think is the accepted one, they have no mass, in short - a question of definition.
deer:
Just a little patch.
Precisely according to the theory of relativity, photons have a property that is often called a relativistic mass that arises from its energy.
And actually - another small "correction": you will still get to know Chazi 🙂 See, you have been warned. Already from his responses in this discussion you can begin to get an impression.
Hezi,
The deflection of light in the vicinity of massive objects is not proof that it is matter, but proof that space itself is curved in the vicinity of massive objects (a result of general relativity).
I think you are confused about the matter of the duality of light as a wave and a particle - and indeed light behaves in certain experiments as a wave and in others as a particle (by the way, it is not special in this - material particles also do this - according to de Broglie waves) but a particle does not necessarily mean matter and in the case of light - There is no doubt that light is not material and is not massive.
deer,
The deflection of light rays near the stars,
Proves that light is indeed a substance that is attracted by gravity...
R.H.
As of today, it is known for certain that light is indeed a wave that did not need an intermediary to move in it. This is a non-material wave, but a wave of a certain spatial disturbance (an electric field changes at the time it creates a magnetic field changes at the time it creates an electric field and repeats, God forbid) - electric or magnetic fields also exist in a vacuum, so such a wave has no problem moving forward without an intermediary.
Ghost,
Indeed, it is appropriate that your words be taken with limited liability since they contain many mistakes:
All your description regarding the explosion is not true at all. The principle of an explosion is based on an exothermic process (emitting heat) that occurs in a very short time - as a result, the air temperature in the vicinity of the explosion center suddenly rises and, correspondingly, the air pressure also rises. When the air pressure in the area of the explosion is much higher than the air pressure around it, a shock wave is created - the "pressure gradient" continues to spread at a speed higher than the speed of sound and in the process loses its strength and speed. Far enough, its speed was the speed of sound and the pressure disturbance was small enough and then we will define it as noise, but in principle there is no difference between the same page and noise, both are disturbances spreading in the air pressure. If so, the thrust itself is simply a sharp disturbance wave in the air pressure that is gradually spreading - it does not have special particles with different energies, these are simply the air particles whose pressure rises sharply.
As for magnetic fields:
In order for magnetic fields to be created, moving charged particles are needed - their compensation in the plasma can then produce magnetic fields, although it should be said that this field is quite complicated and contains many unknown things. However, air particles propelled at high speed will not produce magnetic fields simply because they are not electrically charged.
Regarding your question regarding dark matter - matter that is ejected from a star as a result of its explosion is the material from which the star is made - that is, it is baryonic matter (consisting of baryons and baryon singular). What is significant is that baryons respond to the electromagnetic force and therefore are not dark (remember, light is electromagnetic radiation). The main idea of dark matter is that it consists of particles that do not react with the electromagnetic force (but do react to gravity and the weak force - see Wikipedia entry about WIMP) - suitable particles for the role have not yet been found (the neutrino is too light even though it only reacts to gravity and the weak interaction) . If so, matter emitted from stars cannot in principle constitute the dark matter since such matter will surely radiate (any baryonic matter with a temperature radiating with intensity proportional to 4^T).
By the way, dark matter is not really the dark energy we are talking about in this article.
From observing and wondering many times about impressive construction works in Egypt and the Easter Islands,
It is impossible not to come to the conclusion that builders had the means to lift enormous weights very easily.
There is no doubt that the means is "natural" and not a technological development...
When an explosion occurs, for example, of a grenade, then there are several levels of energies that the particles are in for a very short period of time.
To the human eye it first manifests as a fireball then in thick black/white/gray smoke and then
After the gas particles are completely dispersed then there is nothing left to 'see' from the explosion.
What is not visible to the human eye - but is felt - and certainly also exists - the repulsion created as a result of the high energy that was released.
The wave itself is actually a 'wave' that carries particles with different energies.
These particles do not disappear but only change position in space.
The strength of the magnetic field - created by the explosion of the grenade - is probably not that strong, and the particles that managed to travel a certain distance and moved away from each other no longer affect the area near the center of the explosion. And the particles are not energetic enough to significantly change the space.
And some of the particles also lose their energy when they move through space and collide with other particles.
On the other hand, the explosions (in space and deep space) that are the supernovae and all the other 'explosions' that happen
After all, they too must produce not only magnetic fields but also star dust and everything that has already been proven.
I claim (without any formal education at least in the field of physics and mathematics so that my words should be taken with a limited guarantee) that dark matter is the 'residues' of those explosions or particles that are in the 'progress' of the 'shock wave' - which is actually the galaxy.
(R*H R*Faim)
Zvi, thanks for the interesting review.
So what are the thoughts today about the medium through which the light passes? Is a wave possible without an intermediary?
In the 19th century, with the process of discovering the visible properties of light, the question arose as to what is the medium in which it moves.
I will explain:
The simplest example is ripples in water. The ripples are waves whose medium is water and the speed of propagation of the ripples is relative to the water and not relative to the source of the ripples, thus, if you throw a stone into the water and it hits it with a certain horizontal speed - the ripples will spread so that the impact point will always remain in the center of the circles that will be formed regardless of the speed the injury
Another example is the voice. The sound is a wave whose medium is the air - the sound is actually cyclical fluctuations in the density of the air which propagates at a constant speed that depends on the thermodynamic dimensions of the air (pressure and density). The speed of sound is also relative to the medium and not relative to the source of the sound (therefore a plane can fly faster than the sound emitted from it).
If it turns out that light is also a wave, the question arises as to what is the medium through which it passes or in another wording, in relation to why the speed of light is constant (what is the equivalent of water or air). A trivial answer does not exist, since unlike sound or water waves, we know that light is transmitted even in the completely (theoretically) empty expanses of space, so a new and unfamiliar medium was needed to fill the entire universe. This medium is the "ether" (the name itself is taken from a Greek philosophical concept) - a very special substance that fills the entire universe and in which massive bodies such as Earth move easily and without resistance.
In classical mechanics there was no "correct" coordinate system in relation to which it is correct to measure speed - speed is a relative matter - I am static now in relation to the Earth, but not in relation to the Sun and certainly not in relation to the Andromeda galaxy. Now, after the idea of the ether, suddenly there is a coordinate system in relation to which it is apparently correct to measure speed - the ether system and the question arises as to what is the speed of a car in relation to this coordinate system. At the end of the 19th century, Michelson and Morley performed one of the most famous experiments in the history of physics, which was designed to measure the speed of a cadaver in relation to the ether, and the experiment repeatedly produced the same result - a static cadaver relative to the ether system.
Two possible solutions - the first and obviously improbable one is that Earth is standing still and the entire universe moves around it (I'm pretty sure that in the meantime there are good ways to contradict this conclusion). The second, more reasonable solution is that the speed of light is constant in relation to any measurer and it doesn't matter what its speed is in relation to another measurer - this is a very strange conclusion and is very inconsistent with what we know from the world of normal speeds, but this is how it is and this is where special relativity actually begins. I will point out that Einstein himself did not refer to the Michelson Morley experiment so that there are other ways to arrive at the special theory of relativity (mainly through understanding the nature of magnetism).
As for ether, the meaning of this conclusion is that ether does not exist and thus it enters the pantheon of theoretical substances that came to explain phenomena but were found to be wrong, such as phlogiston (which allows substances to burn) and caloric (the particle of heat).
Dark energy may one day turn out to be a mistake, on the other hand, there were theoretical inventions that were later found to be correct and of physical significance (antimatter first emerged from Dirac's equation, the quark began as a mathematical idea stemming from the theory of bunches, etc.). In light of this, it seems right to me to wait with judgment and in the meantime to recognize that it is probably the best proposal that explains the observations.
Going to be interesting in the future…
Is it just me or is the "dark energy" the modern version of the "ether" and the "phlegmstone"? I would appreciate a serious answer. The single and insufficient mention of the concept of the "website" seems like avoiding a problem.
I agree with Raanan's request.
Also, I'm not a fan of the dark energy theory, I hope they will soon find evidence that confirms or refutes it.
Hezi
It is wrong to determine on a website what is the most likely solution to a mystery of this magnitude.
For the past 12 years, the scientific community has embraced the idea of dark energy because no one has been able to come up with another idea, explain it in a satisfactory way and match it with the observations.
Ideas for a revised theory of gravity have been put forward (among others by Prof. Milligrom from the Weizmann Institute and by Prof. Bekenstein from the Hebrew University) but in the meantime have not been able to convince the scientific community - probably because they are not yet complete and are a less good explanation than dark energy.
It may be that one day it will turn out that corrected gravity is the solution, but that should be determined by people who understand the field and not by readers of the science website who think certain things make more or less sense to them in a rather arbitrary way.
Dark energy is old
Do an article about dark flow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow
There is no doubt that there are many more things that need to be discovered in the fields of physics, we still do not see the complete map but are still aware of phenomena that have no explanation and things that are still hidden from us that stem from a lack of sufficient understanding of the universe.
Apparently, as the author of the article points out, our perception of the universe will change, although I do not really think that our perception will change completely in the next decade (as written in the article), although I hope that in the next decade there will be far-reaching breakthroughs.
It is very possible that after our perception of the universe changes completely we may be able to unify the knowledge for the theory of everything.
incidentally,
The speed with which the scientific community adopted the theories of "dark energy"
shows that scientists too
(like other human beings)
Acting like a herd…
The most likely solution to the whole mystery,
that we don't understand gravity enough.
It is likely that gravity at vast distances in the universe,
behaves differently than at the small distances we are able to measure.
Why do you smell your own nod? Are you one of those who also eat their Hanna?
I know it's there because I smell it but I don't see it
Is the twitch coming out of my ass dark energy? Because I don't see him...
Dark energy is the site of science