Researchers analyzed data from space telescopes that measured the cosmic background radiation and were able to analyze the structure of the universe in the first hundred million years after the big bang
Mystery buffs know that the best way to solve a mystery is to go back to where it started and look for evidence. To understand the mystery of our universe, scientists try to go back as far as they can to the Big Bang.
A new analysis of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CMB) by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has helped them look back to the farthest point in time from 100 years to 300 years after the Big Bang and provide new clues to what might have happened during that period, which is part of the so-called "Dark Ages of the universe".
"We found that the standard picture of the early universe, according to which radiation dominated and was later replaced by matter, holds up to the level where we can examine the data, but there are hints that radiation did not give way to matter in the way we felt it happened," says Eric Linder, a physicist A theorist at Berkeley Labs and a member of the Supernova Cosmology Project. "There seems to have been a dash of excess radiation that doesn't come from photons of the cosmic background radiation."
Our knowledge of the Big Bang and the early years of the universe comes almost entirely from measuring the cosmic background radiation - ancient photons that were released when the universe cooled enough to allow the separation of radiation and matter particles. These measurements reveal that the cosmic background radiation had an effect on the growth and development of the large-scale structures we see in the universe today.
Linder and his colleagues Alireza Hojati of the Institute for the Study of the Early Universe in South Korea and Johan Samsing of the DARK Cosmology Center in Denmark (who were guests in his laboratory at the time the paper was written) analyzed the latest data launched by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). ) of NASA, who were able to make better resolution measurements of the cosmic background radiation, as well as reduce the head and cover the sky better than ever before.
"With the help of Planck and WMAP data, we were able to push back the boundary and look deep into the history of the universe into areas dominated by high-energy physics, which until now we did not have access to." Linder says, "While the analysis showed that the photons of the cosmic background radiation, which are remnants of the transition period after the Big Bang, were replaced by matter as we observed, there is still a discrepancy in the data compared to the standard model, which implies the existence of relativistic particles beyond the light of the cosmic background radiation."
According to Linder, the main suspects as the source of relativistic particles are "wild" versions of neutrinos, elusive subatomic particles that are the second most abundant type of particle in today's universe (after photons). The term "wild" is used to distinguish them from the neutrino particles common in particle physics that we see today. Another suspect is dark energy, the anti-gravitational force accelerating the expansion of the universe, the same dark energy we observe today.
"The early dark energy is a kind of explanation for the origin of the cosmic acceleration that emerges from some of the models of high energy physics," Linder said. "While the 'conventional' dark energy, such as the cosmic constant, is diluted to one billionth of the total energy density at the time the cosmic background radiation was emitted, the cosmic dark energy theories predict an energy density of 1-10 million times."
Linder says that the early dark energy could have been the driving force that caused the cosmic acceleration to begin seven billion years later. Its actual discovery will not only provide new insights into the origin of cosmic acceleration, but may even lead to the discovery of new evidence for the correctness of string theory and other concepts in high energy physics.
"Scientists have already begun planning experiments to measure the polarization of the cosmic background radiation, such as the POLARBEAR and SPTpol telescopes. These experiments could allow us to further investigate the physics of the beginning of the universe" Linder said.
The results of the study were published in the journal Physical Review Letters
For the announcement of the researchers on the Berkeley Labs website
- First evidence of dark matter has been discovered
- The universe is 100 million years older than we thought
- Prof. Hagai Netzer from Tel Aviv University and scientists from China and France have developed a new method for measuring the acceleration of the expansion of the universe
- The cold end of the universe
- The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe
24 תגובות
Yehuda
.... Well, if that's the way things are... then your words are completely clear (seemingly).
To me, the concept of "uncertainty in the result" is the same as the concept of "doubt in the result", and it is the same as the concept of "inaccuracy in the result", and it is the same as the concept of "more or less the result" and the meaning is always always that it is only "about the result".
(:))
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
R.H.
From Wikipedia:
"Matter and antimatter have the same mass, with the same sign, so from a gravitational point of view, antimatter behaves like normal matter."
"There is no connection between antimatter and "antigravity" (dark energy)" - how do you know?
"Antimatter attracts normal matter just like normal matter attracts normal matter" - not true. Anti-matter attracts matter and matter attracts anti-matter.
Antimatter attracting matter in the form of antimatter (gravity) is a mystery.
A. Ben Ner,
There is no connection between antimatter and "antigravity" (dark energy) - antimatter attracts ordinary matter just as ordinary matter attracts ordinary matter, dark energy is a completely different story.
Yehuda
Two times pi is approximately 6.24. And not "with some uncertainty".
Miracles
No one asked or talked about a number one. Your response is incomprehensible and has nothing to do with the question.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The example you gave is incorrect. 2 times pi is 6.24 with certainty 0. Don't confuse uncertainty with precision. These are completely different things.
There are places in mathematics where you can talk about uncertainty. For example, in certain encryption methods you need very large prime numbers. There is no practical way to find such numbers. But there are methods (like Rabin Miller) for testing whether a number is prime or not, and these are probabilistic methods. That is - the method tells you, with a certain probability, whether the number is prime or not.
Well, at least I understood the main disagreement between us. You are wrong that there is no "proof with uncertainty" and I claim that not only is there, but that every proof on a scientific subject is made under certain conditions of uncertainty.
Note - in mathematics, things can sometimes be done without uncertainty. For example, five times six is exactly 30 without uncertainty, but two times pi is 6.24 with some uncertainty.
Besides, I'm happy to see you again from time to time in the comment space of the scientist.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
You claim - so you claimed!
Can you really prove that tomorrow things will fall at the same speed as today?
After all, you went against this assumption in your previous comment!
In my opinion there is no such thing as "proof with uncertainty". A proof with uncertainty is simply no proof. I cannot assert this strongly because language is a matter of convention and if people use the word proof to describe an elephant I cannot change that and I will also start calling an elephant by the name of proof.
You define what the scientists do as unscientific.
Ok - so let me define what you are doing as un-Jewish.
Already Galileo decided that in science only the measurements will determine whether a claim, formula or theory, is true, and I claim that theories or formulas are actually proven, but with a certain uncertainty in the range of measurements we tested. Beyond that range I don't know what happens.
For example, Newton's gravitation formula is proven in the solar system for distances of up to a thousand light years (about 60 or 70 YA), when the uncertainty of the formula is, in my opinion, on the order of a millionth. (There is a certain deviation from the formula in Pluto and in Pioneer's anomaly) If someone wants to decide that the formula will suit him even at distances of a hundred million times (galaxies) with the same deviation and draw different conclusions about masses and dark energies, that is his problem, but it is not scientific. Take for example what they did with the expansion of the universe. They discovered that the expansion used to be above the speed of light known today, so instead of checking that maybe the speed of light was greater then, they found an easy solution by running the entire space at a greater speed, and determined that space is allowed to expand faster than the speed of light.
Please respond gently.
Thanks
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
no one said
This is the nature of theories. They are never proven and they are never the result of "someone said that..."
You are welcome to disprove the assumptions that bother you or any other scientific theory.
You talk so confidently about extreme cosmological situations when everything you refer to is not necessarily what you think. Who told the triad that the speed of light was the same as speed
And today? Who said that the laws of physics were the same?
The article shows that antimatter and dark energy are two manifestations of one physical entity,
The spreading energy (... from a physical point of view, of course), while matter - the electromagnetic energy - and gravity are manifestations of a second physical entity, the contracting energy.
The spreading energy is visible in the large astronomical-cosmological range, hundreds of millions and billions of light years
While the contracting energy operates in the small astronomical ranges of galaxy clusters, up to about tens of millions of light years.
More than that: because of the accelerated expansion, even galaxies that we see today will also exit in the future (if the acceleration does not stop) outside the visible universe, when their speed of receding will exceed the speed of light (in fact, it is likely that some of the galaxies that we see today have actually already exited the visible universe the visible universe And the light we perceive from them today is light that came out of them before they did this).
In his book A Universe from Nothing Speak Lawrence Krauss For the fact that we live in a "discounted" period in which the expansion of the universe can still be observed.
In his opinion, beings no less intelligent than us who will live in the universe in the distant future will not be able to see stars that are not in their local cluster and therefore will have no clue that space is expanding.
Yaniv,
not like that.
Space itself is not subject to the speed of light, so your calculation is wrong. The universe expands faster than light and there are definitely areas that are causally disconnected from us and we will never be able to see them
Since at the beginning of the big bang both light and matter were created and light moves at the highest speed, then light reached the edge of the universe and matter is very far from light, which means that light has long since overtaken matter. From this figure it can be concluded that the expansion speed of the universe is the speed of light, and since the universe is 13 billion years old its size is equal to the speed of light times the speed of light, they discovered that it is 13 million times the distance that light travels in a year.
Boaz:
There is no such thing as "expansion speed of the universe".
Let's start with the fact that in relation to the Earth, the farther the galaxy outside the local cluster is from us - the faster it recedes and even accelerates its receding.
It is quite possible that there are galaxies whose distance from the local cluster increases at a speed that exceeds the speed of light, and therefore we are unable to see them at all.
At the same time, it is desirable to emphasize that the speed of a galaxy is also an indeterminate thing in itself: there are only relative speeds (that's why I talked about speed in relation to the Earth or in relation to the local cluster)
To react like an eternal being you have to be an idiot
Hi,
For this you have to believe in the Big Bang and scientific religion...
In general, dark materials make a lot of impression and build in a wonderful way the veil of the presentation of the Seder...
Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
a question:
What is the speed of expansion of the universe?