Astronomers have long believed that many surveys of distant galaxies miss 90% of their targets, but they didn't know why. Now astronomers at the European Southern Observatory have discovered that a significant proportion of the galaxies whose light takes 10 billion years to reach us have not been discovered
Astronomers have long believed that many surveys of distant galaxies miss 90% of their targets, but they didn't know why. Now astronomers have discovered that a significant proportion of the galaxies that light takes 10 billion years to reach us have not been discovered. This was discovered during an extremely deep survey using two of the four 8.2 meter diameter telescopes that make up ESO's (European Southern Observatory in Chile) Very Large Telescope (VLT) and a specially built filter. The survey also helped reveal some of the faintest galaxies yet found in these early stages of the universe.
Astronomers often use strong characteristic "fingerprints" of light emitted from hydrogen, lines known as Lyman-alpha lines, to survey the amount of stars forming in the very early universe, but they have long suspected that many of these galaxies are not distinguished in these surveys. A new survey by the VLT concluded for the first time that this is indeed what is happening. Most of the light in Lyman-alpha lines is captured within the galaxy that emits it and 90% of galaxies do not show Lyman-alpha lines in surveys.
"Astronomers always knew that they missed some part of the galaxies in the Lyman-Alpha surveys" explains Matthew Hayes, the lead researcher in an article published this week in Nature. "However, for the first time we were able to measure and found that the number of missed galaxies is enormous."
To find out how much light was missing, Hayes and his colleagues used the FORS camera and the VLT, as well as a special filter built for them to cut off a narrow part of the spectrum, to measure only the Lyman-alpha light, to follow the same methodology used in the standard Lyman-alpha surveys. However, in addition to them, they used the HAWK-I camera connected to another telescope at the VLT. If you scanned the same area in space and looked for light emitted by other light waves, it is also from glowing hydrogen, an area known as H-alpha lines. They specifically looked for galaxies whose light has been moving towards us for ten billion years (redshift 2.2) in a well-known area of the sky - the GOODS-South field.
"This is the first time we have observed a section of the sky in such depth with light coming reliably through two wavelengths of hydrogen and this has proven to be essential," said team member Goran Ostlin, a member of the telescope team. The survey was thorough, revealing some of the faintest galaxies so far from this period of the universe's life. Astronomers can therefore conclude that the traditional surveys that used only the Lyman-alpha lines represent only a tiny fraction of the total light produced because the Lyman-alpha photons are destroyed by the encounter with the cloud of interstellar gas and dust. The effect is very significant in the Heliman-alpha line field than in the H-alpha field. As a result, many galaxies, perhaps even 90%, are not seen at all in the surveys. "If we see ten galaxies, the conclusion is that there are a hundred" said Hayes.
The breakthrough was made possible thanks to the unique HAWK-I camera that first saw the light of day in 2007. There are very few cameras with a field as wide as that of HAWK-I and they are all attached to less powerful telescopes, half the size of the VLT. Therefore only the VLT/HAWL-I team really has the ability to find such pale galaxies at such a great distance," said team member Daniel Scharr.
for the scientific article
For information on the ESO website
83 תגובות
ghost moon,
You get sidetracked and miss the point time and time again.
I chose to use the terminology "contrary to common sense", and not "contrary to logic", because in my opinion the word logic is not clearly defined.
If you insist, here is a quote from the book of Professor Yoram Kirsh, one of Israel's leading physicists:
"The test of a physical theory is its ability to provide consistent and unequivocal results that correspond to observation and experiments.
There is no priority for a theory that seems logical and acceptable to us over a theory that is not."
Did you get it this time? And if you didn't understand, I'm here to help you: Professor Kirsch says: There are also theories that seem illogical and therefore they are true. now you understand ???
Regarding the second point, which is also marginal:
You specifically wrote:
"Note: he says that 'no one understands her' and not that 'she goes against common sense'."
I'm not sure you read what you write, but think again - is it possible for a situation where no one understands the theory but it does seem logical??? Of course not!
But the whole discussion above is marginal, and is intended to try (seemingly without success) to explain to you a simple fact that you refuse to acknowledge:
In physics there is no place for stories and folklore. Any theory or explanation must be backed up with math.
According to you, you don't understand physics, you don't understand mathematics, and you still continue to engage us with your nonsense, and explain to us about advanced physics, without any basis and any substantiation, and share with us all kinds of stories that reflect your creative imagination.
It's not interesting, it's completely unnecessary and unimportant and it's a waste of our time and maybe yours too. This is the main thing, accept, understand and stop taking our time.
What else needs to be explained to you, so that you finally understand???
ghost moon:
I've never scratched or scratched and you know it.
The fact that you take advantage of my every response to try to hurt me makes me want to help you.
Since I have written the things many times and since the link I gave also says everything that is needed - you are welcome to read what we have already given you before you let me do your homework.
I also repeat and emphasize that there is no chance that you will understand the things without learning the basics. Your unwillingness to invest in yourself is another reason not to invest in you.
Noam
Write the word 'logic' in Wikipedia and this is what you will get:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%92%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F
If you say:
"As you quoted me, I used the term "common sense" and not the word "reason", which for some reason you are trying to push with all your might. The two terms are absolutely not the same."
So for me, the things you said (and will probably continue to say) are based on illogicality.
Another 'gem' from you (you just don't stop!):
"I don't understand it but it makes sense to me" ?????????
I didn't write it.
And you understood it that way, because it stems from your lack of reading comprehension.
What I explained to you is that parts of quantum theory make sense to me, like the 'wave-particle' part.
But I won't say that I understand the theory, because I don't understand it in its entirety.
I hope this explanation was not too difficult for you to understand.
Machel
Very good that you finally managed to 'produce' a normal answer.
Even though it happened in the last lines of your comment.
And even if it's about something that's not new to me.
Maybe now you can answer seriously:
The theory, which you mentioned, what are its arguments regarding the limits of the universe?
Do they exist or not?
And if possible without ramblings and scribbles but in simple language.
(as you did in response 78 - towards the end of the response).
Yishai,
"The instinctive perception we learn from age 0"
It is exactly the definition of "common sense", so there is no argument between us.
To Noam,
The quantum theory does not contradict common sense at all, but the instinctive perception we learn from age 0 and it is all based on large and slow objects.
ghost moon,
I was seriously debating how to answer you, after all, the last thing I want is to hurt you. At the same time, your responses are so strange that it is definitely not an easy task.
Let's start from the end: I already wrote in a previous comment that, for the sake of discussion, the universe includes everything in the definition, therefore it is not inside any envelope, and there is no meaning to the question of what is outside the universe.
And the discussion itself:
You make a whole salad of concepts, and put together sentences that have internal contradictions, and all this doesn't even make you feel uncomfortable. It's a difficult situation, but I'll try to help anyway.
As you quoted me, I used the term "common sense" and not the word "reason", which for some reason you are trying to push with all your might. The two terms are completely different.
Common sense is a powerful tool developed by the human race for survival, and it constitutes the total cumulative experience of each of us.
Since we live in an environment of low speeds, of objects that are not particularly large and not particularly small, of moderate gravity, we can use common sense to understand and discover phenomena found in these areas.
Common sense becomes a disturbing factor when we try to deal with phenomena related to speeds close to the speed of light, with small particles that we cannot even imagine their size, and with huge objects that are only far away from us in the universe.
Common sense cannot be used to understand quantum phenomena, and common sense cannot be used to understand the behavior of systems moving close to the speed of light. It is also not possible to use common sense when talking about a universe of 11 dimensions.
The only way to deal with such phenomena is to use mathematical tools, which make it possible to calculate, analyze and predict phenomena that completely go beyond the realm of common sense.
This long explanation comes to make it clear to you that in today's physics there is no place for stories that are not backed up by a mathematical equation. Your attempts to tell us what seems reasonable to you are so absurd, and unfortunately, only you don't feel it.
For the umpteenth time, even if you are unable to understand it for some reason, you are wasting your time and our time with your meaningless stories. You have no chance of adding even a tiny particle of understanding to today's physics.
You also use without feeling sentences with an internal contradiction in them.
Think for a moment, can it be said about anything:
"I don't understand it but it makes sense to me" ?????????
If someone doesn't understand quantum theory, can they say it makes sense?????
Do you not notice the contradiction in the sentence?????
Almost every book describing quantum theory devotes a significant part of it to emphasizing the phenomena that go against common sense.
Fortunately, quantum theory can be used very effectively even without realizing it and even though it goes against common sense. In the last 50 years, there has been no progress in understanding quantum theory, and it is still a very difficult philosophical obstacle.
I hope I helped you understand a little, but I'm very afraid not. Get good advice from me from the bottom of my heart, and for free:
Go to another site - the knowledge site simply does not suit your abilities.
Ghost:
Indeed you are not like me and our joy over this fact is shared.
I don't pretend to know things I don't know and you do.
It is true that there are people (like you) who get upset that I know a lot, but you must understand that this is exactly the result of the fact that I am aware of what I do not know and therefore take the trouble to learn it before I talk about it.
You are so busy talking about things you don't understand a thing and a half that you can't learn anything.
I suggested you go learn the basics before you start building the fortieth floor in the cafeteria in Tiberias but you are on your own and I already understood that you will stay on your own and never learn.
That is why you are not at all interested in how the two bodies will behave in the question I presented to you. It belongs to the basics without which the fortieth floor cannot exist, but you cannot admit that you still have no green idea about the basics, so you ignore the question and go back to using words you don't understand.
The funny thing is that you suggest I answer the question you asked Noam.
Well - this - for example - is something I cannot answer.
You asked what his opinion is on a certain subject and I don't know his opinion. I only know my opinion, but since I've already said it many times and since understanding it requires understanding words that you don't begin to understand and you have no intention of making the necessary effort to understand them - it's a waste of effort.
As a matter of principle - just so as not to be seen as someone who is evading an answer - I only say that I have no opinion on the matter. I only know that of all the models that have been tested to date - the model that is accepted as the most suitable for observations is the machine model Lambda CDM Model It is also called the standard model of cosmology.
This is not the Sinaitic Torah, but it is, as mentioned, the model that, of all the models that have ever been used, matches the observations.
When science advances - the model will also change.
Michael, allow me to answer on their behalf:
God does something and then the triangles slide or stay put or evaporate.
so simple.
Machel
Just because you're so smart (maybe even a little more than Einstein and a little more than Plato) doesn't mean you know
Everything.
You too are sometimes wrong in your choices.
As well as this time for example.
You chose to think that I know everything - just like you - but luckily I'm glad I'm not like you.
I know I don't understand everything.
That's why I asked a certain question to a certain person because I wanted to know his learned opinion on the subject, and from that to conclude
A private and personal conclusion that has nothing to do with you.
incidentally,
How about an answer to the simple question I posed to the one you are defending?
By the way 2,
Please tell me - how did you come to the (wrong) conclusion that I know all the answers?
Chazi and his ghost:
What about an answer to the simple question I presented to you in response 65?
As mentioned, this is a question about high school material - you don't need to know as much as you claim to know to solve it.
Ghost:
Please tell me - why are you interested in someone's opinion on the question of whether the universe is inside something or any other question.
You know all the answers!
What - are you asking just so you can tell us we're wrong?
We admit: we know nothing. Now get out of here.
In my opinion, the best response to Hezi's difficulties on the subject was this: (by Noam)
"Hazi,
You stand up for your right to be ignorant without understanding, and no one is going to deny you this basic right.
It is evident that you are satisfied with your situation, so your chances of getting out of it are extremely small.
Feel comfortable, there are quite a few like you.
At the same time, it seems to me that you should consider switching to a site that requires a little less mental effort - the science site only frustrates you, which is a shame."
There is not much to add to this except that a person speaks without knowing what he is talking about and is so convinced that he is right and everyone else is wrong it is a bit pitiful, just like religious people oppose many insights of science based on blind faith and without any source to rely on that presents supporting (scientific) claims ).
Personally, I strongly believe in investigating the subject and raising questions and searching for answers is an important thing, but everything that is based on this will be based on logical arguments and it is possible to prove or disprove them (or even not prove and not disprove for any reason), but there is a big difference between an investigative approach and raising Doubts and Hezi's attitude which is as if disconnected from everything that exists in the world (and with such great confidence).
Noam
"How strange and contrary to common sense quantum theory is, the following quote will testify:
"It seems to me that I can safely state that no one understands quantum theory"
(Richard Feynman, The Nature of Physical Law, MIT 1964)"
Note: He says that 'nobody understands her'.
And not that 'it goes against common sense'.
I'm not saying I understand quantum theory.
I do say that at least part of it does make sense to me.
you say :
"How strange and contrary to common sense the quantum theory is..."
If for you quantum theory is against common sense, then you don't understand the logic
of quantum theory. (There can't be an illogical theory)
And no wonder you don't understand other things that are said to you either.
1964 years have passed since 45, and the understanding of quantum theory, among scientists,
got better
post Scriptum
I read again. I couldn't find where you answered my question.
I will ask in other words:
Do you think the universe is or isn't inside 'something'?
Continuation: In connection with the continuity of the big bang - I took into account the enormous heat of the initial universe, its decay, the cooling of the universe, the measurement of the cosmic background radiation and more which are against such a different theory of the continuity of the bang as we imagine in the same way. But as I already mentioned, yesterday's theories may not be correct tomorrow. And what will you say about the plasmatic universe?
Correction to the last line: only for us time, distances, and matter have meaning.
In this subject, the unknown is more than the known - many assumptions today may be true and others disproved tomorrow - suddenly they discovered another significant part of the universe that was supposed to be and was not visible and now it is visible due to an improved photography technique - and still so many unanswered questions the direction the size the reason the possibility of parallel universes and more. Who said the big bang was over anyway? Perhaps from that point that didn't exist within that universe that didn't exist and of course the energies and time, matter, space and everything else actually began to "open a fold" that contains everything we know in all directions and that point that didn't exist is actually everywhere because there was nothing so the earth too Or rather the materials from which it was later created was at the starting point of the opening of this folding like all other things and therefore it is impossible to know where the opening of the folding leads because everything is carried in all directions and things are still happening everything is still dynamic therefore it is also not known what the central point is from where it started All because there is no such point - that point is actually the entire universe that is still carried everywhere and along the way all the cosmic events take place, the super novae, the black holes, the birth and death of stars and galaxies, black holes and the other amazing things, you can say that there is the visible universe and there is something beyond it because not everything is visible The dark matter but also beyond the most ancient star which apparently also marks for us the point of time of the big bang which is supposedly located 13.5 billion light years away but if somehow we sit on it and place our most sophisticated telescopes on it and observe further? After all, it doesn't make sense that exactly on that ancient planet the universe suddenly ended. In any theory, even if the universe is round and not finite or in another form with or without a skeleton - the universe is beyond the visible, beyond the understandable and beyond the known.
And regarding the continuity of the big bang, who said that it has no continuity? From a process that started and is still going on. To us, everything seems huge, infinite, big, time, for example, is incomprehensible, the speed of light and everything else, and we use formulas to insert a little sense into the enormous complexity - but if as you increase the speed, time slows down, then at the speed of light, time stops? "Someone" there is not so excited about the time for him, the clock does not affect him and the events, only for us, time, distances, hair, material have meaning.
How strange and contrary to common sense quantum theory is, the following quote will testify:
"It seems to me that I can safely state that no one understands quantum theory"
(Richard Feynman, The Nature of Physical Law, MIT 1964)
Important note:
With all my appreciation for Richard Feynman, who was one of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century, and who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 for his work in the field of quantum electrodynamics,
It must be remembered that he said this without knowing our ghost and his musings.
ghost moon,
I answered. Read again.
Ghost, Chezi, and anyone else who wants to tell us their delusions about cosmology and the Big Bang:
Before you start dealing with such a heavy question, maybe show us that you are dealing with high school physics?
Suppose we are given two bodies that look from the side like bthis painting
Suppose M2 is placed on a table on which it can slide without friction.
Suppose M1 slides on M2 without friction.
Please give us formulas describing the position of the two bodies as a function of time T.
Noam
"In my opinion the big bang theory is nonsense" - I never said such a thing (if I remember correctly
Because I simply do not agree with such a claim).
And I also write what makes sense to me, and not "but it makes sense to me like this and that".
And another gem from your keyboard:
"I don't see any sense in the statement that a particle is also a wave at the same time, that a photon can fight with itself, that according to a mathematical equation, a cat is in a turtle that is both "dead" and "alive" at the same time (yes - there is a term in the equation that accurately expresses this state!) , that there is a certain chance, albeit a small one, that a solid body will pass through a concrete wall unscathed, that measuring the state of one particle immediately affects the state of another particle thousands of kilometers away and on and on.
Maybe in your eyes all of this makes sense and corresponds to common sense - and if so - my congratulations, you are certainly unique and special in the entire world at least for the last hundred years."
First of all I thank you that in your eyes I am special.
Secondly, I really see the logic of the things that seemed logical to those who invented them.
Like for example a particle can also be a wave.
Third thing, if you don't understand the logic in these things you left then the only thing I can
To suggest you is to continue learning.
It is true that my knowledge of physics and mathematics is not much, but the things I say could be true
Physically and mathematically.
Once again, if there is something you do not understand in my words, you can ask what you do not understand.
As for the question I asked you and 'you didn't find it':
Does it make sense to you that the 'universe' is an 'envelope' but one that is not inside any 'envelope'?
ghost moon,
First, I checked twice and I didn't find any of your questions that I didn't answer - you probably didn't bother to read.
Your arguments are simply strange and strange - who said that the theories were invented by themselves?
They were developed by physicists and mathematicians and not by storytellers like you, and they go against common sense and intuition to the greatest extent, even extreme.
To overcome the shortcomings of "common sense" - which is in total the accumulation of our life experience since we made up our minds - physicists use mathematics.
It is a powerful tool, which makes it possible to accurately treat a variety of phenomena that cannot be treated in any other way - certainly not in imaginary stories like yours.
Let's take as a simple example, Einstein's assertion that time moves more slowly in a system in motion than in a stationary system. To me, this goes against common sense completely, and so did many physicists smarter than me immediately after the publication of special relativity (and let me assume that the slowing down of time did not make sense to you either, at least initially).
But Einstein was not a storyteller like you but a physicist and mathematician. Einstein developed equations that accurately relate the degree of time slowing as a function of the speed of the systems and the speed of light. With the help of the equations, it was possible to predict the results of various experiments, results that were indeed obtained in different ways and thus confirmed his determination.
Quantum theory is many times stranger, and to this day there are extremely difficult philosophical disagreements regarding its understanding (it has been said about quantum theory that those who think they have understood it, do not know what they are talking about).
I see no sense in stating that a particle is also a wave at the same time, that a photon can fight with itself, that according to a mathematical equation, a cat is in a turtle that is both "dead" and "alive" at the same time (yes - there is a term in the equation that accurately expresses this situation!). There is a certain chance, admittedly small, that a solid body will pass through a concrete wall unscathed, that measuring the state of one particle immediately affects the state of another particle thousands of kilometers away and on and on.
Maybe in your eyes all of this makes sense and corresponds to common sense - and if so - my congratulations, you are definitely unique and special in the whole world at least in the last hundred years.
At the same time, quantum mechanics is one of the most accurate theories ever developed, backed by extremely complicated mathematical calculations, which make it possible to design and build incredibly accurate installations and devices, as well as to predict phenomena and verify them in experiments.
There is no place in physics for amateurs, whose best reasoning for justifying this or that story is "but it seems logical to me like this", "in my opinion the big bang theory is nonsense" - these are childish reasonings, not to mention stupid and worthless.
Physics is not a meeting of the scout tribe, where we discuss whose opinion makes more sense, and compete to tell better stories
Ghost, I don't mean to hurt you, but you tell us your opinion about particles and antimatter, and antiparticles and parallel universes, and monopoles, when you yourself admit that you have no idea about physics, it's so strange, strange and delusional to me, so contrary to my common sense , until I find it difficult to convey the message to you.
It is understood that your stories are completely harmless, but certainly do not belong on a scientific website.
Final note - I'm not even close to being a genius, I promise you.
incidentally,
It was written: 'over-rims' from Duplam.
It should have been: 'Ober-hukim medoflam'.
In case you are still debating whether to cry or be happy.
Noam
You can continue telling stories to someone like a questionnaire.
What you think about what I do (in response 59) is complete nonsense. You probably don't understand what you are reading.
And you still haven't answered a simple question I asked you.
post Scriptum
"The new physical theories (quanta, relativity, etc.) have moved away from our intuitive understanding and "common sense" by a huge distance, which is why it is so difficult for us to understand and accept."
Tell me Mr. Noam 'Genius'
Were these theories invented by themselves?
So it's not (if you didn't know).
These theories were invented by humans - humans who used logic to invent them.
These theories make perfect sense, and among other things try to explain the things that don't make sense (at least at first glance).
These theories cannot be in the situation where they are: "They have moved away from our intuitive understanding and "common sense" a huge distance".
It seems to me,
that you have moved a huge distance away from "intuitive understanding and "common sense".
(ghost moon)
Noam, thank you.
Is there a physical definition for "nothing"? A place where there is no time/space yet?
And is the reason the universe is expanding because time/space will change the property
expand? And if so, what causes them to expand and at what rate?
And in the same context, if the universe has existed for 13.7 billion years, is the measurement done
Spreading or "frozen" in time/space? I mean is it possible to measure a phenomenon by
The same phenomenon itself, or in other words what is the difference between the time we experience
and time/space that are in the process of expansion?
By the way, I ask out of curiosity and not with the intention of finding "holes".
Thanks.
questionnaire,
The red shift results from moving away from the radiation source, for whatever reason.
The expansion of the universe is done homogeneously. The rate of spread has varied in the past and is probably still changing.
Electromagnetic radiation marks the limit of the visible universe, but it is estimated that the universe as a whole is much larger, and we will never be able to see parts of it.
questionnaire,
The universe by definition includes everything, there is nothing outside the universe (we will ignore for a moment theories that talk about additional universes).
Therefore the universe does not expand into any shell - it expands itself into a point.
The reason it is so hard for us to digest this, is that our daily experience shows that everything that does not exist around us, exists within something even greater.
This is not the case when discussing the universe itself. It's not intuitive, but that's the way it is.
Generally, you need to understand and internalize:
The new physical theories (quantum, relativity, etc.) moved away from our intuitive understanding and "common sense" a huge distance, and that is why it is so difficult for us to understand and accept. But they have a huge advantage: they are suitable for observations, calculations and predictions and reality (which is not simple at all).
The difference between the physical theories, however strange they may be, and the stories you put up here on the website as your best imagination, is that they are anchored in mathematics and incredibly precise formulas and calculations. Unfortunately, these are extremely complicated calculations and are therefore omitted from most articles. This causes people like you to make the mistake of thinking that the physicists' stories are no better than your stories - and there is no bigger mistake than that.
A serious physicist can't just write nonsense "because it makes sense to him", he has to base it on precise mathematical equations.
Note that all your stories are justified by "I guess", "it seems logical to me", and you still haven't realized that what seems logical to you (or to anyone else with a fertile imagination) is completely unimportant when it comes to physical theories.
By the way - as a double-edged 'over-rims' - is this a compliment or a slander?
Noam
you say
"Actually, it is not about an explosion within an existing space, but about the expansion of the space-time itself, therefore it did not happen at a certain point, but the whole space-time (the universe) expands at every point. In this situation, the question in which direction it happened has no meaning."
It makes sense that space/time expands at each and every point.
And all the matter and antimatter that is found is inside an 'envelope' called a 'universe'.
What does not make sense is that the same 'envelope' (hereafter 'the universe') would not also be found inside some kind of 'envelope'.
My question to you (you as a double-edged 'over-hukim'):
Does it make sense to you that the 'universe' is an 'envelope' but one that is not inside any 'envelope'?
If, as usual, you did not understand my question, you would do well to ask me what you did not understand,
And I will try to answer you.
Hezi goes against Einstein. I wonder who will win.
Noam, thanks for the explanation.
If I understood correctly, then the shift to the red is a result of the local movements
of the galaxies as you called them, and not the expansion of the universe?
Does time / space spread out evenly, like an inflating ball for example?
And into what medium do they spread? Does the expansion happen at the speed of light?
Or is it no longer related? But if it is related then it is correct to say that there are no lies
Electromagnetism has reached so far, are these defined as the limits of the universe?
Thanks.
It turns out that in addition to the usual criteria of a scientific theory - adaptation to reality and experiments, predictability of new phenomena, there is another, extremely important criterion, which overshadows in its importance all the existing criteria together:
Every scientific theory must make sense to me.
This is an inviolable rule, and any attempt to adopt theories that Hazi does not understand is wrong in advance. Theories that Hazi doesn't understand are simply not true period.
Hezi - I'm with you, let's go back to Aristotle.
There is no one here with an independent mind.
Everyone is reciting the nonsense that makes fun of them
(And they hold fast to this nonsense, since it took them a lot of effort to understand how complicated and illogical they are)...
questionnaire,
As hard as it is to understand, the galaxies are moving away from each other but not moving at all (if we ignore their local movements unrelated to the expansion of the universe).
The search for a direction probably stems from the mistaken thought about the explosion of matter within an existing space. In this (wrong) situation, it makes sense to ask where the location of the bang was.
In practice, it is not about an explosion within an existing space, but about the expansion of the space-time itself, therefore it did not happen at a certain point, but the whole space-time (the universe) expands at every point. In this situation, the question in which direction it happened has no meaning.
Noam,
I am not clear about the expansion of the universe why Hubble stated that the galaxies
are moving away from each other, and the greater their distance (mhz) the greater their speed
higher, so is it possible to determine the direction of their movement and calculate where they are from
Its export (as matter not as galaxies) and therefore hypothesize the location of the big bang?
Or is the point that before the bang there was no time/space and therefore it is not possible?
Thanks.
Hezi,
Remind me - what challenges are you talking about?
By the way - is Chazi a first name or a last name or both?
Noam,
A first name is not an identification…
Noam,
Try to face the above challenges.
Reality is much simpler than "scientists" try to distort it...
Hezi,
It's clear that you don't care, and that's the reason for your situation, which probably won't change either. It's not terrible, you can live a whole life without understanding the theory of relativity...
You don't pose challenges at all, don't fool yourself, the level of your arguments in the physical field is simply low, but see my previous comment.
Regarding the identification - now you have exaggerated, why do you think that Noam is not my real name???
Noam,
If you noticed,
Slanders and condemnations, "ignorant", "slanderer", etc. do not move me at all...
If you are unable to answer the challenges I pose here, it is better for you to shut up.
I sympathize, and you are afraid to sympathize...
Hezi,
You stand up for your right to be ignorant without understanding, and no one is going to deny you this basic right.
It is evident that you are satisfied with your situation, so your chances of getting out of it are extremely small.
Feel comfortable, there are quite a few like you.
At the same time, it seems to me that you should consider switching to a site that requires a little less mental effort - the science site only frustrates you, which is a shame.
enough,
Everyone is taught the wrong theories:
A- Darwin's theory.
In The Big Bang Theory.
C. The theory of relativity (due to the obscurity that the academic establishment has imposed on the subject, it is not clear what is wrong with this theory).
Hezi
From your response I understand that all graduates of the academic establishment are wrong. nice to know.
however,
Legal reference:
What is "the universe expanded but not the matter in the universe"?
What is the universe if not the matter in the universe?
Yigal: Do you really believe that all the matter in today's universe was concentrated in one point,
And since the bang, no new material has been created?
Noam,
Yigal, like all graduates of the academic establishment,
Addicts to false theories that are accepted, and cannot break free from them.
enough,
An unanswerable question...
Nevertheless: if you don't know the direction, it's a sign that everything is nonsense...
Hazi: If we go? Do you have a more reasonable option? Even if that's your reasoning I'm interested in hearing it.
Because? What is the important direction? And if we assume that your "reasoning" was correct, and the explosion occurred towards the southwest, let's say, then what?
Hezi,
Patiently read Yigal C.'s response. , it is not so easy to understand, but instead of looking for errors in the physicists, try to dig deeper and maybe look for additional material.
You're wasting your time when you decide that everyone else is clueless except you.
Hazy, what expands is the universe itself, not the matter in the universe, therefore the entire universe was once (at the point in time known as the big bang) at one point, hence the "place" of the big bang has no meaning - the entire universe was at the place of the big bang.
Noam,
If we go by the bang theory,
After all, the universe has expanded in all directions. point.
Of course we are on Earth, not exactly at the point of the explosion or in the area that was the furthest away from the point of the explosion.
The simplest logic means that we need to know in which direction the bang was.
Unless we entangle ourselves with more false theories...
Know-it-all understands-everything:
Attani uses the Google Chrome browser, version 2
(I guess it's impossible to get this version today)
which is much more stable than more advanced versions.
Among other great features of this software,
which has an automatic internal speller, which corrects the spelling.
Unfortunately, the speller does not know the full spelling of a male name...
(And he indicates an error to me, even though it is not an error...
For correspondence with the Academy on this subject:
http://www.kaspit.com/hebrew
don't know anything don't understand anything:
A gibberish written with misspellings whose very publication is proof of its falsity
Hezi,
You ask pointless questions.
Since is a preposition. If the whole universe was centered in one point, what direction are you talking about? In relation to what?
You are of course free to not accept the big bang theory, but I don't think it will shock the world of physics.
It is surprising time and time again to find that there are those who are convinced that all the physicists in the world have missed the point in most of their innocence or stupidity and only people like Hezi or Rah Rafaim really understand what is going on. Pathetic.
know-it-all understands everything,
You exaggerate yourself...
It is clear here to everyone that comments that are not flattering to Lac are censored on this site.
The site administrator has his own considerations in this regard.
I respect his considerations.
incidentally,
I really appreciate the effort he puts in, and the work he does,
To continue establishing the site as an attractive and interesting address...
By the way - I don't know what that "it" is that you threaten us with that you have a way to do.
If it's to talk nonsense then obviously you don't need the site for that - on the contrary - I guess many would thank you if you used the other way you have and not the site.
Actually - maybe I'll start directing my words to "know nothing, understand nothing"?
what do you think?
Chest:
You are defaming yourself.
I'm just pointing out the illogicality of your words but you are the one saying your words.
Noam,
A- There should be a starting point for expansion. Which direction is she in?
B - If I don't accept the big bang theory, and claim that it is complete nonsense, what then?
C- The know-it-all understands everything, if you don't stop slandering, I have a way to do it despite the censorship in this matter here...
Noam:
It could actually be that he got confused and blushed because he didn't know how to politely tell Hazi that his question was stupid.
The solution is, of course, not to try to be polite and explain to Hazi that his question is roughly similar to the question "what was the smell of the big bang".
Of course saying this to my chest is a waste of time because the noise of the big bang deafened his ears and its flash blinded his eyes.
Hezi,
He didn't get confused and didn't blush - the only one who is confused and doesn't know it is you.
The big bang is the expansion of the universe in all directions at the same time.
Response to questionnaire number 24
You mention that several years ago I asked one of the senior lecturers in astrophysics at Tel Aviv University,
Regarding the direction of the big bang:
He was confused and blushed, and finally answered: "It is not possible to determine the direction of the big bang."
Maybe the know-it-all can explain,
Beyond the limitations of relativity?
Chest then proves that the thickness does matter...
Company!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It may be that the visible universe is much smaller than we think and calculate. According to the theory of general relativity, the universe is infinitely flat (like the surface of the earth - in a reduced version). According to non-Euclidean geometry, a ray of light that leaves a certain point in the universe returns to that point. So the 13.7 billion light years is actually the extent of the universe and we see our region as it was 13.7 billion years ago.
questionnaire:
The truth is that I brought up Gauss's Law only in the artificial context created by Eddie's words.
In the standard model, the matter has no meaning because what is expanded is the entire universe and therefore there are no "margins" and as a result there is also no preferred point.
According to the standard model of cosmology - all the points that exist in space today were at the same point at the moment of the bang.
Noam:
The interesting thing is that the topic has been presented here many times and it still hasn't penetrated the thick skull of Hezi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
Michael,
It's interesting that you brought up Gauss's law in connection with the Big Bang.
If we replace the charge with a bang, is it possible to determine where the bang was created
The big one (assuming that the expansion of the baryonic and dark matter is equal in every direction)?
And regarding the dark energy, if we roughly assume that it behaves in reverse
to gravity (which is described by Gauss), and the further away the point of the explosion, the more so
Also increasing in strength, is it possible to mathematically describe the inverse of a law
Gauss to be suitable to describe the spread of dark energy?
Thanks
Hezi,
The problem is with you, not with general relativity.
According to the inflation model accepted today, the visible universe is only a small part of the universe, most of which is beyond the visible horizon.
No one censors or hides, there are only those who don't understand, and yet they talk with great confidence about scientists who don't understand...
point,
There is a problem for the supporters of the theory of relativity.
For them, the universe cannot be larger than a distance of 13.7 billion light years...
Therefore, despite observational data that show a larger universe,
"Scientists" censor the data to stay in the "allowed" area...
Whoever asked about the size of the real universe.
It already depends on the cosmological theory and the data.
Some will say that the visible universe is the entire universe and some will say that the visible universe is just a grain of sand in relation to the entire universe.
Wow, a rascal.
It is said there:
Its form is mathematically similar to Gauss' law for electricity
This is similar".
Another thing: physics is not yet mathematics...
For all the know-it-alls:
Here is something that is probably beyond "everything"
Avi,
It's not really related.
and entered here by mistake...
What does this have to do with the topic of the article? Is some lawyer to blame for the disappearance of the galaxies?
About 6
"2. Physical consideration: the "missing" galaxies are scattered in all directions and those who have studied physics know that the field created inside a sphere as a result of a "charge" spread over the surface of the sphere is zero (a conclusion from Gauss's law)."
You are talking about 'Gauss's Law' - which I only know through Wikipedia,
And from what I read there (at the end of the page it refers to 'Gauss' law for the magnetic field'):
"...the meaning of this law is that the magnetic field has no sources - that is, the field lines do not exit or enter any point in space, but form closed loops. This feature is related to the fact that, according to all the observations made so far, magnetic monopoles do not exist in nature - next to every north magnetic pole there is a south pole (and vice versa), and they cannot be separated."
Is it not possible a situation where they will discover that magnetic monopolies really exist?
Can there be a 'leakage' of energy into the magnetic field but such that it is still so weak
Didn't they discover her? (that is, energy of a particle that is a magnet with only one pole
{And hence my hypothesis- which only moves in one direction from a dimension in which it was created to another dimension -ours for example-
where the particle interacts only with the magnetic field.})
Or did they discover all the weak energies that exist?
Thank you if you answer.
It's interesting that the subject does not jump anyone...
The judicial system is managed by the lawyers' cartel.
Judges rule according to the interests of the lawyers and not according to the law or according to justice
All the courts are run like branches of the lawyers' cartel.
Does anyone care?
Response to 9 to the know-it-all know-it-all,
I wonder how you determined that gravitation also works like an electric field?
prove it…
Eddie:
Regarding the psychological consideration - it shows that according to the calculations made - dark energy will be required to accelerate the expansion of the universe even when this mass exists.
Regarding the physical consideration - it is not related to the spherical structure of the universe. Besides - the whole idea falls apart if you expect the whole universe to speed up its expansion because it follows that the outer layers should actually slow down.
Further to my response 7
It may be that at distances of tens of billions of light years we will need to refine the telescope so that it 'takes into account' not only the wave frequency of light and other radiation but also the wave frequency of dark energy (when it is discovered) so that it will help calculate more correctly the distances to the most distant galaxies and also help discover more Details
From the farthest side of the universe.
Michael,
Regarding the psychological consideration: as you said, it is not a physical consideration. I assume that this research is still in its infancy, and it may turn out that all kinds of assessments that exist today ('conclusions') may not exist in the future.
Regarding the physical consideration: the assumption that the mass is uniformly distributed on the large scale, is an assumption that still requires confirmation. If we say yes, we reach, according to many, a cosmic geometry of 'on a sphere' (and for some - the geometry of a sphere). If we say no, we get a cosmic geometry of a sort of 'saddle' or 'trumpet/funnel'. There are phenomena, such as the 'Great Attractor' or the 'Great Wall', which may hint at a non-uniformity in the distribution of matter on a large scale, but such evidence is not conclusive at all, at this stage of the research, so that another vision is due, and the same with regard to alternative explanations for the hypothesis The dark energy.
Chest:
Well - then you don't know that Gauss's law is also true for gravitation.
Nothing - it's just one of the many things you don't understand.
Response to 6:
It has nothing to do with an electric field that is spread over a sphere...
The matter here is completely different...
Is the limit of the universe further away than is assumed today, and the light of the galaxies that are found
There it has not yet reached the Earth and because of this (and because of the height of the telescopes) it has not yet
Were you able to see light in a space where until now you saw darkness?
I mean, does this mean that the amount of matter in the universe is higher than what was believed until now?
Maybe for such distances you don't need an elaborate telescope but another device (which has not yet been built or invented)
Perhaps some device that will be based on technology that will develop from the understanding of the experimental results of the LHC.
Eddie:
I don't think there can be a connection between the discovered galaxies and dark energy for several reasons.
1. "Psychological" consideration: as written in the article - they estimated in advance that this mass exists and yet came to a conclusion about the existence of dark energy. This is not a physical explanation, but for the purpose of this discussion - it is evidence of the scientists' opinion.
2. Physical consideration: the "missing" galaxies are scattered in all directions and those who have studied physics know that the field created inside a sphere as a result of a "charge" spread over the surface of the sphere is zero (a conclusion from Gauss' law).
Dawn,
I was talking about dark energy, not dark matter.
The new discoveries do not seem to affect the issue of dark matter. This is because the consumption of the dark matter is for the purpose of explaining the high accelerations at the edges of some galaxies in all places, where they are well known to us from an observational point of view, and not only in the relatively unknown deep space.
Really an interesting statistic, maybe the meaning of the dark mass is a mass that we simply haven't been able to tell yet that it is there (or both), in any case it is necessary to explain what causes the expansion of the universe and the moving away of galaxies at a high rate, there is something that does resist the forces of gravity.
Astronomers have always claimed that the matter known to us constitutes a very small percentage of the universe. But really like Eddie said, explain it as some kind of dark matter that we haven't been able to discover yet. So what does that actually mean!? Has the lost mass been found and all dark matter theories thrown in the trash?
Isn't there an inherent problem with observations of quantity and location in deep space that result from gravitational compaction of a very wide range of space? When light has such a long distance to travel, it obviously constantly passes by objects that move it at various angles. How can light be expected to move in a straight line through all this enormous mass?
If this finding is also true in further depths of space, the estimate regarding the total cosmic mass must have changed significantly. From this there is also an implication regarding the density constant P. It may even be that the diameter of the observed universe is much larger than what we know about it to date. Assuming that the concentrations of mass in the far reaches of the universe are particularly large in certain distant regions, it may be possible to get an explanation for phenomena such as the 'Great Attractor'. There may even be some explanation for what is explained today by the dark energy hypothesis, who knows.