Researchers from Vienna found no sign of a symmetron that might explain the nature of dark energy - but it is too early to rule out this possibility
Einstein's theory of general relativity teaches us that the universe is a very dynamic place. Not only the objects that are inside it, but also the fabric of space-time itself. When Hubble measured for the first time that the universe is expanding and even accelerating its expansion, the question was opened, what actually explains this phenomenon? Einstein was the first to add to his equation a cosmological constant that represents the energy that drives the universe. The same energy actually allows Einstein's equation to explain an expanding universe but falls short of a convincing explanation of its origins.
After the quantum theory that tries to explain the foundations of the universe was developed, this question came up again for physicists. Because the researchers had no idea what the energy that accelerates the expansion of the universe was, it was given the special name "dark energy". Dark energy is not related to the concept of "dark matter" but it contains the same confusion that accompanies researchers. The quantum world explains natural phenomena with the help of the most basic building blocks - elementary particles. These particles build the foundations in nature and enable our existence. Each such particle is assigned a "field". This is not an agricultural field, but more like a magnetic or electric field. The quantum fields envelop the universe and when they are stimulated strongly enough and create waves in them, the same particles are predicted.
This idea also reached dark energy. If all the forces and particles in nature are explained by fields why should dark energy be any different? Researchers have proposed that the source of this energy comes from a field that surrounds us, similar to the properties of the famous Higgs field. We gave this field the name Symtron, after its interesting properties. Because to date we have not seen anything in the experiments that contradicts the standard model, the researchers thought that the effects of this field are probably not visible when the density of matter in space is large. The idea led the researchers to a similar mechanism that the Higgs field creates, but this time for the symmetron the mechanism will work when the mass density is very low. In case the mass density is low the effect of the symmetron field should be significant enough to be measurable. As said, a field represents a particle, and therefore the field of the symmetron may represent a new particle or an additional force. At the same time, the researchers have no idea what the mass of the particle is and its other properties other than its resemblance to the Higgs field. Therefore, any experiment that is done makes it difficult for the researchers to prove or disprove its existence.
To find out if this field actually exists, researchers from Vienna developed an experiment that allows them to measure the effect of very weak forces acting on neutrons. The measurement lasted for a hundred days and was published in Physics Nature and its results showed that there are no signs of the symmetron particle. Although this experiment does not completely disprove its existence, it does reduce the number of possible possibilities for this strange particle. Hartmut Hubble, one of the authors of the article says "We already have proof of the existence of the Higgs particle, and the symmetron is very similar to it. Even in the past, we didn't know the mass of the Higgs particle until the experiment was done and it was confirmed that it was indeed the particle."
"No one knows what the mass of the symmetron is and how strongly it interacts with normal matter. This is the reason why it is very difficult to prove it experimentally or disprove it." Any experiment can disprove or show the existence of the particle only in the energy range to which the measuring device is sensitive. Therefore, scientists carefully go through each range of parameters. A large mass symmetron with a weak interaction with matter cannot exist because it would already be visible at the atomic level, if it did exist measurements on the hydrogen atom would be different. Similarly, a symmetron with a strong interaction and a small mass would be observed in contemporary accelerator experiments if it existed.
Although the range has been reduced, there is still a very large search space. The current team performed a precision experiment on this mass range using neutrons. A very weak stream of neutrons was passed between two mirrors. The neutrons in the experiment can only be in two quantum states depending on the force that the mirror exerts on them. If the force acting on the neutrons from the edge of the mirror is different from the force acting on them from the other side (that is, not from the mirror) this is a sign of a symmetron. The researchers knew what the force would be measured from the symmetron if it existed, but it was not visible in the measurements.
Although we do not see a rosy future for the symtron theory, it is still too early to take the option off the table. "We managed to rule out many parameters, if the symmetry was in the parameters we ruled out we would have seen it already". In the future, scientists will probably have to make more precise measurements or think of a new approach that will solve one of the great mysteries of the 21st century regarding dark energy.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
147 תגובות
This article urgently needs editing in Hebrew
"It may be that if you travel far, you will end up coming back here."
Greater than Israel. Israel is only a small pawn in the great transcendental system. Leaving the subjects of the universe for miracles, Yoda, Raphael and transcendental anonymous, and goes to destroy the cows in the barn with Yafim Boris Vishka.
Israel
A finite universe does not require that there be a "last" star.
As you wrote - it may be that if you travel far - in the end you will come back here.
And if space expands faster than you can move, then you can continue indefinitely in a straight line, in a finite universe, and never return.
Israel
The existing limitation on speed is a result of special relativity. The universe is also infinite, this does not mean that there are no fiscal limitations.
If the universe is finite - then where is the last star? And if from every star you can see stars in every direction - then doesn't that mean that if we look from that collecting star in the opposite direction from us we will see stars that we have already passed by before? And how is that possible?
Maybe transcendental?
Israel
If there is an end to the universe at a certain distance (say 13.7 billion light years), it can be concluded that we are close to the center of the universe. This is very unlikely to me.
If an infinite location follows that there is no speed limit, and in practice there is a speed limit, then one can conclude that the universe is finite (modus tollens...)
On the other hand - general relativity does not limit the speed.
And on the third hand, we did not conclude that the universe is infinite, not in place and certainly not in time.
slowly. (AP?)
Girls soccer stuff! Girls soccer stuff!
(Perhaps a translation is possible?).
Miracles
There is also the possibility that "at the end of the universe" - our private sub-universe, created by our private bang, 13.7 billion years ago - the stars end and you will only see them in one direction, not turning from it, unless you see stars from another sub-universe in the distance, so to infinity
In any case, we got an infinite universe, that's what Yafim and Boris concluded at lunchtime milking.
You... you don't shy away from infinitesimals in a panic, do you?
Because the next step is to ask: if the universe is infinite in size and in the time it was and will be - a fairly mainstream approach by the way - then why would there be a speed limit in it?
?
??
??! ??
Revised wording for smart and not smart:
Assumptions that are assumed without noticing their assumption:
1. That infinity is a physical property.
2. A void exists in itself.
3. That there is a (logical) need to limit the existence, but not the limit of the void.
Are these assumptions self-evident? Absence of self-contradiction? And is the landing meaningful?
Transcendental Anonymous
1. That infinity is a physical entity.
I don't think anyone thinks that way. Infinity is an attribute.
2. A void exists in itself.
A void is a volume that has no substance. There is no need to complicate the concept.
3. That there is a need to limit the presence, but not the limit of the void.
Need is not a physical concept.
Assumptions that are assumed without noticing their assumption:
1. That infinity is a physical entity.
2. A void exists in itself.
3. That there is a need to limit the presence, but not the limit of the void.
Are these assumptions self-evident? Absence of self-contradiction? And is the landing meaningful?
I am the anonymous user
Israel
I do think we will accept that the universe is infinite. But - if the universe is finite, then eventually there will indeed be a distant star that will see us "from the other side". Both options make sense.
In an infinite universe we will get things like solar systems identical to ours, down to the last detail, except that Trump was not elected. And I think it's so absurd that we'd be so unlucky that the universe might be finite after all. On the other hand... there are solar systems in which Sarah is the head of Israel's government, so maybe it's not that bad.
we
I did not understand.
(Anyone here? I'm probably not transcendental enough..).
Miracles
"My logic says that nowhere in the universe will you see the same thing."
So let's think about the last star that is visible from the country in a certain direction. It seems that we are also the last star that we see from that star in our direction, accept?
We will look in the opposite direction at the last star in the same direction. We got the size of the observable universe. getting?
Now what happens to those last stars in both directions when they are looking in the opposite direction from us? Won't they see stars that are twice the size of the observable universe? And what will happen if the same stars continue to do the same trick ad infinitum? Won't we get an infinitely large universe with an infinite number of stars?
Of course, it is possible that by some miracle (a miracle?) we will return to the planet of origin this way, but Yimf will stick the pitchfork in the haystack and shout "Fidz!" to Boris.
Israel
My logic says that nowhere in the universe will you see the same. This is provided you are at the same time of course (ie the local clock shows 13.8 billion years).
The basis for this logic is philosophical - the so-called Copernican principle.
I agree with you that Abel's observations showed that the objects in the universe are moving apart and not that the universe is expanding.
But - later observations show that the universe itself is expanding. If you look at my previous comments you will see that I have explained a bit about these observations.
Miracles, the best defense is offense, eh?
"You didn't notice that I wrote that I think that." And you swamp toad, didn't you notice that I wrote "how do I know" before you attacked me with your "hard facts"?
As in the previous article where you wisely concluded that "I'm trying to sell something" and even elaborated "to prove the existence of God".
Put up with the unfortunate fact that your Hebrew is bad, and so is your ability to draw conclusions. If you don't attack people for no reason, maybe you'll be more comfortable talking to them, you flying sky bug..
It's great that for a change you also try to answer those questions that no one knows exactly the answers to. Instead of answering myself, I'll try to show you that every answer leads to an almost dead end.
If at the "end of the universe" you see stars in every direction like in Israel, then either it is not the end of the universe or you see the same star at the end even if you look in opposite directions, or alternatively you will reach it by direct flight, as in Israel you can reach the same point if you fly towards it West or towards the east.
On the other hand, if in one direction you see the earth, as the earth sees you, but in the other direction you see nothing, then you have really reached the edge of the universe - the observable. After it stretches the real, infinitely large universe, and then as I asked at the beginning, what exactly did the Hubble observations show? Are the galaxies moving away from each other? So what? What does the universe have to do with it?
Israel
You wrote "Just to see if you're reset, answer the following questions:..."
I answered what my opinion was on the subject... I wrote "I think..."
Then you responded "Why does a serial wrongdoer like you state absolute facts about things he knows you have no idea about?" Did you not notice that I wrote "I think that"???
You wrote "On what basis do you write that the infinite universe is blocked and expanding?" Again - you asked me, so I respected you and said my opinion. I apologize for that.
You wrote "And if it is infinite, then how can you talk about the end of the universe?"
I put "the end of the universe" in sarcasm, because I don't think it's the end of the universe.
Israel - it is not pleasant to talk to you
Israel
When I asked you - you answered "Good question..
Before I answer - can you show me where you already asked her?"
So now this is a bad question, so you didn't answer it?
"Whoever claims that the universe is finite then try to explain to me what is at the end."
"What is all the creativity and imagination for, don't you see and understand that the universe is infinite, that it always was and always will be? Isn't this the natural choice?"
"But it's all a matter of semantics. In my opinion, the "universe" includes everything, it is infinite in size, always was and always will be, and "our universe" - what I called a sub-universe - is what was created in the big bang and is limited in size and mass."
-
The universe is limited by its identity to itself, just as a stone is limited by its identity to itself. There is no need to assume anything beyond.
Just as there is no meaning in reaching out a hand from a stone beyond a stone, there is no meaning in reaching out a hand beyond the universe.
-
Therefore the question is meaningless.
Beautiful miracles, not a bad method, you make a mistake, blame others for your mistakes, and then go back to the attack?
Didn't you write "I asked Israel, and of course I didn't get an answer"? Israel should have guessed that when you asked take a point 13.7 billion light years away from us. What do you think the universe will look like there?" Did you mean the edge of the universe?
And in general, why does a serial blunderer like you state firm facts about things he knows he has no idea about? On what basis do you write that the infinite universe is blocked and expanding? And if it is infinite, then how can you talk about the edge of the universe?
What fun it is to be on the side that always asks questions for which there is no known answer, then start attacking the side this season as you always do, and also pretend to be the defender of science against the charlatans..
23 submissions.
Basically 230 squats.
So you "think that a viewer at the "end of the universe" will see what we see. In particular - if he looks at us, he will only see cosmic background radiation.'
You have to decide, because we don't just see cosmic background radiation - we also see stars from every direction. So what will the viewer see - stars or just radiation?
Israel
I corrected myself... is that not good either? The universe is 13.8 billion years old, but its (apparent) radius is 46.5 billion years.
I think the universe is infinite blocked and expanding.
I think that a viewer of "the edge of the universe" will see what we see. In particular - if he looks at us, he will only see cosmic background radiation.
"Take a point 13.7 billion light years away from us. What do you think the universe will look like there?”
Are you senile or what?'
So I understand that according to you the edge of the universe is 13.7 billion light years away... but didn't you write a few minutes after that:
"The most distant objects we see are 46 billion light years away"?
Senile elk..
Just to see if you're reset, answer the following questions:
1. Is the universe infinite?
2. Is the universe blocked?
3. Is the universe expanding?
4. Take a point 13.7 billion light years away from us. What do you think the universe will look like there?
Israel
I ask - is the situation possible? I didn't ask what was really going on. Therefore, it doesn't matter what you know or what anyone else knows.
I asked - is what I wrote possible?
Some things are possible and some things are impossible. A possible thing - a moon made of diamond. An impossible thing - a moon made of uranium 235.
No need to be angry…
Israel
"Take a point 13.7 billion light years away from us. What do you think the universe will look like there?”
are you senile or what?
When did you ask Israel on the edge of the universe a dreamy delusion like you?
Miracles
You forgot the first sentence in the response, here it is in full:
What do you want me to answer? How do I or anyone know?
"The following situation is possible: the universe is closed, infinite and expanding. Do you agree to that?'
1. Negative. Both our universe and sub-universe are unblocked.
2. The universe is infinite, our private sub-universe created by our private big bang is finite in size and mass.
3. Our sub-universe is expanding, the infinite universe is not.'
As I explained to you, in spoken and literary language if someone says that he does not know and then states things, the intention is knowledge, certainly not establishing firm facts, otherwise why does he first say that he does not know?
I don't understand what you want from people's lives. If you don't answer - you complain about not answering. If you answer and qualify the knowledge with "I really don't know" - then you establish firm facts.
So isn't it time you get together and decide what exactly you want?
Yehuda
I don't understand the talk about the "end of the universe". I asked Israel, and of course I didn't get an answer, so I'm asking you, and I'll also correct the question...
The most distant objects we see are 46 billion light years away. What do you think an observer at this distance from us would see?
תיקון
My definitions are between the Planck size and the visible universe and do not include what is inside a black hole.
"The question to you is whether the principle of a universe found in space is acceptable to you and beyond the universe is a space with emptiness or other universes. I'm also waiting for Rafael's definitions, and maybe he'll wait for us."
Yehuda, what good will it do you if Nissim agrees to this imaginary and baseless definition?
Don't you know that space and time are created things and did not exist before the creation of our universe? Space and time are characteristics of our universe and any imagination or hallucination or dream about the "place" where our universe was created has no basis to lean on and therefore it is a shame to waste time on it.
And so my definitions are only within our universe and not beyond it.
Israel
Do you think that in a space where there is no matter and in the universe as a whole, the laws of physics exist? Do you think that the laws of physics belong to matter and where there is only matter, the laws of physics are immediately found there? When you put your hand out into the empty space around it, what do you expect to happen? I have no problem changing the definitions we received them. I am sure that the universe does not end sharply, but if it did end sharply, would it be the situation where the hand goes out towards an empty space without laws?
Food for thought
Yehuda
Israel
I am copying from your previous response.
"The following situation is possible: the universe is closed, infinite and expanding. Do you agree to that?'
1. Negative. Both our universe and sub-universe are unblocked.
2. The universe is infinite, our private sub-universe created by our private big bang is finite in size and mass.
3. Our sub-universe is expanding, the infinite universe is not
Really, Israel?
"Your answer was a firm statement of facts"
"where?
Israel
The question I asked, and was not answered, is: "The following situation is possible: the universe is closed, infinite and expanding. Do you agree to that?'
Your answer was a statement of hard facts, unrelated to the actual question.
I am not asking if this is indeed the case in our universe, but only if it is possible.
Now I asked another question, and I would be happy for an answer.
Miracles
Good question..
Before I answer - can you show me where you already asked her?
Israel
Take a point 13.7 billion light years away from us. What do you think the universe will look like there?
I'm always serious, Yoda.
But to say "First of all, in the beginning the hand is in the universe and protected by its laws, now it leaves the universe and reaches the empty space which is a place without laws, without energies and without forces, it does not have the strong force, the weak force, the laws of electromagnetism and gravity" - this is not serious, and raises a bit Doubts about the rationality of the discussion and my desire to participate in it.
Raphael
For me, empty is a space that has no substance. It's just a useful concept in engineering.
Israel
So drinks were distributed tonight in your universe?? Have a cup of coffee and please respond seriously.
Besides, it's almost XNUMX a.m. in my area of the universe, so I'll retire.
Good week to all of us
Yehuda
Miracles
Note that I did not define the type of space in advance so as not to determine facts in advance. The question is if you agree that the universe with all the material in it and its laws which I also did not discuss will be found in a certain space which was also not defined. It can be a universe in four-dimensional space or another located in six-dimensional space or any other combination that is negotiable. The question is whether the principle of a universe located in space is acceptable to you and beyond the universe there is a space with emptiness or other universes. I am also waiting for Rafael's definitions and maybe he will wait for us.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
What is it that Israel offers that we don't see Yabush ben Shlolit?
Yehuda
Note that the space I agreed upon is not the XNUMXD Euclidean space you are used to.
I clearly do not accept what Israel is offering. It doesn't match what we see.
We also need to refine the subject of the definition: it is for us only, so that we synchronize concepts.
Technically and historically, Israel includes Judah and not the other way around. If Israel agrees that Judah includes Israel, it is only so that we do not get confused in the battle against the Philistines and then we will really need the miracles of the Archangel Raphael..
Yoda
What you defined, does not change anything for the reality on the ground.
Outer space is also defined as starting at an altitude of 100 km above the earth, but there is almost no difference at an altitude of 100 km and a meter from what it was before.
Raphael
Why get excited?, come give us your definitions and we'll discuss them.
My settings:-
Our universe - all matter, energy and laws known to us.
Space - the place where our universe and other universes (if they exist) are located
The emptiness of a space in which there is no universe.
Other universes are universes located in space without any connection between them
Conclusion from the definitions: our universe is inside a space surrounded by emptiness and possibly other universes as well.
If it's too complicated, let's take a sheet of paper and draw a small circle on it and a big circle around it. In the small circle we will write universe in the big circle we will write space. In the space where there is no universe we will write emptiness. What bothers you about Rafael's settings? I would love to hear your definitions.
Israel
When you take your hand out of the universe it goes into emptiness and without laws and forces. What do you think will happen to her?
good day everybody
Yehuda
Raphael
Who agreed to why? where?
Miracles
I didn't answer what?
Yoda
I did not understand.
It's simply unbelievable how three geniuses like you agreed to exclude space from the whole universe. I have no words to express my astonishment. And to invent a concept called emptiness that the universe is in, which is simply a crazy invention.
Israel and miracles
Now that the three of us agree with the definitions of space, universe and emptiness. We will check Israel, what happens with the hand coming out of space, and even before that we will check what happens with the hand coming out of the universe into space.
The situation is like this:- First of all, the hand is in the universe and protected by its laws, now, it leaves the universe and reaches the empty space, which is a place without laws, without energies and without forces, it does not have the strong force, the weak force, the laws of electromagnetism and gravity. What do you think of Israel and miracles, dear friend??
Good night
Yehuda
Yehuda
I agree with you
Israel
You still haven't answered me
Yoda
As I wrote, it's all a matter of semantics. According to Wiki, the universe includes space and includes everything from everything. But do you want the universe to be inside space? Give up!
You won't be able to take your hand out of space, agree?
to Israel and miracles
So here is, for example, a place for a misunderstanding between you, Israel, and between miracles. If you, Israel, define our universe as also including space, then there is no room for other universes and in addition there is no room for the question of taking your hand out of the universe because where will it go? God has no space?, on the other hand if the definition is like mine which I hope Nissim also agrees with:-
Our universe - all matter, energy and laws known to us.
Space - the place where our universe and other universes (if they exist) are located
The emptiness of a space in which there is no universe.
Other universes are universes located in space without any connection between them
Then your hand will go out from the border of our universe into the space and emptiness around it and there will be something to talk about. In addition there is room for other universes.
Do you agree to exclude the space from the definition of the universe Israel?, because if not you and Nissim are arguing about two different situations.?
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda
Yoda
Vicky says: "Defining the concept of "universe" is problematic, since the question that the mind cannot avoid is always asked: So what is beyond the universe?"
and also holds:
"The universe is the whole whose components are all the matter and energy that exist in physical reality, as well as the space (including space and time) where all the events take place."
Which somewhat conflicts with your attempted definition:
"Space - the place where our universe and other universes (if they exist) will be found"
According to Wiki, the universe is everything and includes space as well.
But it's all a matter of semantics. In my opinion, the "universe" includes everything from everything, it is infinite in size, always was and always will be, and "our universe" - what I called a sub-universe - is what was created in the big bang and is limited in size and mass.
Miracles
It seems to me that the definition I wrote also contains what you say:-
"The space - the place where our universe and other universes (if they exist) will be found" end of quote.
How many dimensions to space or are we a three-dimensional or four-dimensional space in a five-dimensional space is a question that requires a solution.
Dear Israel
Take a minute and refer to my previous response on the definition of the universe as space and emptiness. I would love to hear your opinion
Only then, when the definitions are accepted, can we continue to argue,
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda
Miracles
Indeed - Hebrew, or English or any other language.
When you write "I don't know" and then specify, then you usually mean "this is my opinion". What is called - implied.
Why all the creativity and imagination, don't you see and understand that the universe is infinite, that it always was and always will be? Isn't this the natural choice? That must have been my understanding when I was six.
Filled you, two dimensions, five dimensions, seven dwarfs, but what happened to Yoda a simple universe?
Yehuda
I agree with most of what you say, except for one thing. You wrote "the space - the place where our universe and other universes (if they exist) will be found"
The reality may be a bit more complex. Think of one-dimensional universes in three-dimensional space. Imagine each such universe as a circle in your room, parallel to the ground and at a different height. They will never meet and never know about each other.
So in our case - maybe there really is a five-dimensional space that contains all the universes like ours?
Israel
Reporter:
The following situation is possible: the universe is closed, infinite and expanding. Do you agree to that?'
1. Negative. Both our universe and sub-universe are unblocked.
2. The universe is infinite, our private sub-universe created by our private big bang is finite in size and mass.
3. Our sub-universe is expanding, the infinite universe is not.”
I asked with something possible, and you stated unequivocally that the universe is infinite, that there is such a thing as a "sub-universe", there was a big bang, our universe is expanding, there is an infinite universe, and this universe is not expanding..
But, as you said... my Hebrew is not good.
There can be a universe with a finite amount of matter in infinite space.
And it may be that the space is finite: think of a one-dimensional universe in a plane (a circle for example), or a two-dimensional universe, like a balloon, the three-dimensional space.
The universe may be finite at any given moment, but growing all the time.
What is certain is that we do not know.
That's it, the curfew is over?
Miracles, where did I state facts? I said I didn't know and tried to answer your questions to the best of my understanding. Obviously, this is a private opinion, and also very logical.
Whoever claims that the universe is finite then try to explain to me what is at the end.
For miracles, Israel and others
Maybe we made a big mistake in not initially defining the concepts we are talking about:- our universe, space, emptiness, other universes. And maybe a few more concepts. Only then can we argue what follows from this.
At the moment I have the feeling that we are speaking from a world of deaf people, everyone has their say and is angry that others do not agree or respond.
Try to give definitions, note that it is not easy,
I will start:-
Our universe - all matter, energy and laws known to us.
Space - the place where our universe and other universes (if they exist) are located
The emptiness of a space in which there is no universe.
Other universes are universes located in space without any connection between them
Conclusion from the definitions: the universe is inside a space surrounded by emptiness and possibly other universes as well.
Of course you can disagree and I would be happy if you would come up with your own definition or that of others that is acceptable to you,
Please respond gently,
Good Day
Yehuda
Israel
You start with "How do I or anyone know?" And continues to establish facts... an interesting approach.
I asked you a question, "The following situation is possible: the universe is closed, infinite and expanding. Do you agree to that?" And what did you answer? "How blocked..."
Is it difficult for you to answer? I am not asking if this is the situation in our universe, and I am not interested (in this context) in what is really happening. Simple question, isn't it? Is the situation possible?
Did I underestimate? Did you hear a screeching sound?
I didn't underestimate and I didn't underestimate. I didn't even dare.
But we must point out that saying that at the end of the universe there is a wall is a bit.. creative?
What do you want me to answer? How do I or anyone know?
"The following situation is possible: the universe is closed, infinite and expanding. Do you agree to that?'
1. Negative. Both our universe and sub-universe are unblocked.
2. The universe is infinite, our private sub-universe created by our private big bang is finite in size and mass.
3. Our sub-universe is expanding, the infinite universe is not.
Israel
Why are you asking questions if you know all the answers? What's the point of this discussion if you look down on everything you don't like?
A wall.. and what is the thickness of the wall? And why is it so hard to take an air hammer, make a hole in the wall and reach out?
Maybe. Maybe there is a barbed wire fence, maybe an electric barrier, maybe trees, maybe a lot of things.
And maybe there is nothing. Maybe there was just the big bang many years ago and the galaxies are expanding within our sub-universe, which is basically what it contains, and like it there could be infinite other sub-universes in infinite places in the big universe.
No torus, no loop, just infinity. Our sub-universe began 13.7 billion years ago but before that time stretched back to minus infinity as it will continue forward to plus infinity.
Yes, here in our private sub-universe entropy dictates the direction of the arrow of time, and it is also possible that the distribution of masses and the interaction between them is the cause of inertia and gravitation. But what private laws of our sub-universe are not binding a trillion light years away from us. There can be a situation where two huge masses will be at a short distance from each other with no attraction between them, and you can spin in vertigo without your head spinning, because after all it is relative to what exactly are you spinning?
Israel
I have no hidden intentions. Suppose there is a reinforced concrete wall blocking the universe.
"Let's ignore the expansion of space for a moment, and talk only about the objects within it. The following situation is possible: the universe is closed, infinite and expanding. Do you agree to that?'
You must mean our tiny universe, not the one that is a trillion trillion light years away from us..
How blocked? What will prevent me from putting my hand out in any direction?
Israel
I haven't seen anywhere that anyone has written that they thought the universe was expanding before the Hubble. I already wrote it to you.
I think what is meant by "expanding universe" is that objects within the universe are moving away from each other. What they saw in later observations is that space itself is expanding.
Let's ignore the expansion of space for a moment, and talk only about the objects within it. The following situation is possible: the universe is closed, infinite and expanding. Do you agree with that?
"That's right, you won't be able to take a hand out of the universe if it's blocked."
I have known! So yes there is a wall at the end..
"Yes, you distinguished between space and emptiness."
Hahaha... as always I said it was an example and mentioned that I have no idea what the reader really is.
I also called you Uncle Iguana. So let's start talking about the animal kingdom and ignore the main thing: knowledge gives that the universe is infinite as any astronomer with a little sense sees and concludes.
I entered the discussion with the question "Can someone explain to an idiot like me why the statement that the universe is expanding?"
This, to my understanding, was not known until Hubble's observations, and all physics, including relativity, assumed that the universe was static.
So what will change?'
And I came back and asked:
"Please direct me to the Wikipedia entry where it says that before the Hubble, someone thought that the universe was not static. As far as I know, the assumption was that the universe is static, Newton certainly thought so and so did Einstein, otherwise he wouldn't have introduced the cosmological constant, wouldn't he? He put it in to fit into a static universe.'
My conclusion from the discussion: the universe is infinite, always was and always will be. The "universe" referred to by the Hubble observations and the big bang theory is a tiny sub-universe whose size is sixty billion to the infinite power of the big universe.
Israel
True, Hubble's observations say nothing about the infinity of the universe. Did someone say otherwise?
True, you will not be able to take a hand out of the universe if it is blocked. And there is also a possibility to remove a hand if it is infinite (ie the possibility does not necessarily exist).
Yes, you distinguished between space and void.
"An infinite universe can be blocked, and a finite universe can be unblocked".
What does that mean? Can't we reach over the barrier?
Did I distinguish between a test and a blank? I gave an example and stated that it doesn't matter at all. My argument was that Hubble's observations of the expansion of galaxies do not mean that the universe is not infinite, in fact say nothing about the universe.
If you watch an atomic explosion on the earth from space, it will seem insignificant compared to the earth, but for those who live inside the explosion, it is the universe for them.
But since I said it five times, I think we're done.
Israel
Hubble announced that he had discovered that the universe was expanding. Two hypotheses were put forward. One is the Big Bang, which does not need to be detailed. The second - the stable universe, made famous thanks to Fred Hoyle. The idea is a homogeneous and infinite universe, where new matter is created in the "holes" that are created due to the expansion.
The stable universe predicts that everywhere in the universe we see a mixture of young and old objects, while the big bang predicts that the age of the objects will be uniform depending on the range. Observations show what the Big Bang predicted.
In addition, the Big Bang predicts the cosmic background radiation.
Therefore - the idea of a stable universe can be dismissed.
An infinite universe can be blocked, and a finite universe can be unblocked. Therefore, your question about "what is a meter away outside the universe" is not necessarily meaningful.
You distinguished between space and void. I apologize for trying to understand what you meant.
And regarding the spinner - don't try to kick it if it's heavy enough even in the dark. The leg will break, and that will be the only certain fact in all the sea of speculation.
Or maybe you will philosophize that actually according to Day or Plato it was not actually broken and you are not screaming in pain? 🙂
You also forgot to ask "What is the color of the blank?" What is its specific gravity? When does he rest in the afternoon?" All your constant questions about the minor details when you try to avoid answering the main point.
One more time and this is really the last time: how am I supposed to know? I just asked a simple thing: if there is a picture of an eternal and static infinite universe before the Hubble - then how did the observations of the receding galaxies change this picture? What does it matter if the galaxies move away from or get closer to the infinite universe, and what is this number of 40-50 billion light years, when we are talking about a universe that is larger than this size times... 40 billion to the power of 40 billion to the power... to infinity.
So now you must continue: how do you know that the universe is infinite? What does it consist of, what happens if you yell at it, what happens to a tree that falls in it and no one hears it and the rest of the usual chatter that misses the essence and takes care of the minor details.
And of course, under no circumstances will you answer the simple, basic and essential question: if the universe is not infinite - then what is a meter away after the last planet? Or a light year away from her? And what next?
Well, of course as always you don't feel like answering, you only ask questions.
Israel
You meant that you think a spinster knows... We don't know what will happen to the spinner that is alone in the dark, and I also don't think that such a question can be asked, because no one is looking at the spinner.
So you're saying that space is what exists between masses? What about photons? What happens if I'm at the edge of the universe, and point a flashlight out? Will a beam of light come out or not?
Miracles
How am I supposed to know? Why don't you ask all those who believe that the universe is infinite, what are its properties, how old is it, what is it made of, what kind of grass grows in its wings, etc.
Do you believe that the universe is not infinite? So once again - what is beyond the most distant star from us at a billion light years distance?
How can you distinguish between a void and a space that contains or is close to masses? I have no idea, but it is possible that the first thing that goes is the inertia, after all it is proportional to the distribution of the masses in space as every spinster knows.
Israel
Calm down 🙂 I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. Because what you say is very unlikely, in my opinion.
I will ask again - how do I know if I am in the space or the void? What is the difference between space and void?
And to your question - I have no idea if Newton's universe is finite or not. It doesn't matter either.
"According to what you suggest, as Judah suggests, the universe has a center"
As usual, a mind reader.. but not mine.
Does an infinite line have a center? where?
So why would an infinite universe have a center? and where?
And who said I was proposing a theory? Once again conspiracies like with the theories I'm trying to market?
Is Newton's universe finite?
Israel
I want to understand the difference between empty and empty space. What experiment can tell me if I am in a void or in space?
According to what you suggest, as Judah suggests, the universe has a center. And more than that - it has edges. There are objects that are on the edge of the universe - what happens to an observer there pointing a flashlight outwards? Does the light not go out?
Miracles, it's quite simple, like the universe..
Let's say the universe is an infinite void, as intuition says (at least to me).
So let's take an empty cube of space out of that infinity, and why riot? Let's say that the profession of that cube is only a billion to the billionth power of light years.
In the center of the cube, a primordial atom creates a big bang from which galaxies scatter everywhere, including space and time - we can talk about it and its essence on another occasion.
After about 14 billion years, you look from one of the planets into the distance and see that all the masses in the observable universe are moving away from each other, including the space created by that big bang.
Now for the viewers on that planet the universe is the masses and space time, the size of which is say 50 billion light years, but for the infinite universe, that private universe is a tiny and negligible particle. After that cube there could be another universe or 100 or trillion or infinite universes.
The radiation produced by pushing can be simple electromagnetic radiation. I'm still not convinced that if you place two large two-way mirrors a millimeter apart you won't get attraction if you shine lasers on them from all directions.
Cap?
Israel
A space defined by that in which distances can be measured. So if you can measure distances in your void, the void is space.
If you are talking about something else - then what is it? There are no coordinates there, there is no time there, so what is there?
I don't understand what radiation is. I "understand" what waves are and what parts are. But I understand you're talking about something else, aren't you?
Miracles
Stepwise elastic collisions for pushing, radiation not yet closed.
"You can measure - so there is space there. If not - then God knows what you mean"
Resolute things, miracles, resolute things!
Sort of like "you're trying to prove the existence of God" from a week ago, isn't it?
I see a few other options, but apparently none are important.
Yoda
What's wrong with an infinite universe? This is not the natural choice, do you see another possibility in a simple universe?
This is also the common knowledge of many scientists by the way.
Yehuda
What do you think the size of the universe is?
Yehuda
If you don't understand my explanation that there is no gravity when the collisions are elastic - then you really don't understand basic physics.
Miracles
We disagree and it is unfortunate that you conclude from those who disagree with you that they do not understand basic physics.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Miracles
We disagree and it is unfortunate that you conclude from those who disagree with you that they do not understand basic physics.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
1. We see objects more than 13 billion light years away. In this whole radius - the universe looks uniform. How much bigger do you think the universe is than that? After all, no object can move faster than the speed of light (or do you not accept that either?).
2. As usual - I will repeat myself: contradictory observations - the density of matter in space increases with distance, the radiation of black bodies (not black holes) will not change its energy distribution, bodies are moving away from us above the speed of light, the cosmic background radiation is hotter at great distances
3. The spread in the wake of an explosion decreases with distance, and does not increase. Let's assume that all the particles are at the same speed (and if not - we'll look at the fastest ones). As you move away from the center - the concentration of the particles decreases, therefore the acceleration decreases. The acceleration is surely zeroed out at the end of the universe, because the objects move in the rush of the particles.
4. We disagree on simple logic and basic physics. It's good that you admit it.
5. Excellent night
6. Miracles
Miracles
1. We are not at the center of the universe and I don't understand how you came to this from my words.
2. Please explain to me which observation is contradictory.
3. Sorry, the internal pressure does create an outward force on bodies and therefore they get an outward acceleration.
4. At least we know what we disagree on.
5. Yom Tov Nissim
6. Judah
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
for everyone
Is there a debate here as to whether the universe is finite or infinite?
I think it is final. Infinite things and in my opinion exist only in mathematics
So please please give me reasons that prove the infinity of the universe?.
Then I can form an opinion and come to a decision. In the meantime, I will travel through Wikipedia.
Good Day
And thanks in advance
Yehuda
Yehuda
You wrote "The result: at great distances there is no gravitation, and naturally the universe would expand into the void around it and would eliminate the need for dark energy. Since the internal pressure of the universe will be greater than the external pressure, the rate of expansion will accelerate. And came to Zion a redeemer."
I wrote that the result (of what you said) is:
1. We are at the center of the universe (and I explained why)
2. Expansion into space (instead of the expansion of space) contradicts the observations (and I explained why)
3. The internal pressure does not create accelerated expansion, nor does it work.
I was referring to exactly what you wrote. What am I doing wrong?
Israel
If you can measure - then there is space there. If not - then God knows what you mean...
Miracles
Why did you stick to the topics that are not the concern of this article.??
Who is talking now about the essence of gravity??
Is the issue now an elastic collision that you are so attached to?
Nissim, we have moved on to another topic and you are stuck in a dispute we have from the past that does not belong to the topic of the article (almost)
Apart from that, I don't accept your insistence that stems from my words that we are the center of the universe, I'm sorry that you think I have to accept the theory of relativity at distances, a theory that requires me to immediately consume illusory and abundant dark matter and also dark energy. What does it belong here if gravitation is explained by the curvature of the universe, the Hammond theory, pushing or a simple universe and I have at least a dozen other explanations?, that is not the issue!
We have one issue we are dealing with:- Does the smitron of dark energy exist and with it the energy that has not been found for decades or is it a waste of time and it does not exist??
Your insistence on claiming that Copernicus works better for you than mine, so what?, it somehow belongs to 96 percent of the dark matter and the energy they added to it?? I show a way that they are unnecessary and I did not mention any gravity pushing
So why are you mentioning a debate from the past on a subject that does not concern us.
I went to rest for a bit and returned to the inflation of comments, so forgive me miracles, I'll also read what other commenters say
Good day miracles
Yehuda
How do I know, but if you have a running meter then why not?
Israel
Can I measure distances in this universe that is out of space?
G
?
Miracles
This space is not a universe. Space can expand within the infinite universe.
Israel
I did not write that the universe is finite. On the other hand - it may be final. There is no use for the question "what is at the end", because it is impossible to say the end (remember - these are 4 dimensions. If you move in any direction, time progresses and you will never reach the end of time).
I explained that there is evidence that space itself is expanding. I described some of the evidence, and gave a link). I see no point in repeating it.
Israel, good luck
G
Write whatever you want. As long as it's about science, consider me agreeable to whatever you want. If it is in matters of psychology, agreements, alliances, canons, please free Israel.
Miracles
If the universe is finite then what is there at the end? wall? And what's next?
You don't find the link to an expanding universe before the Hubble because apparently there isn't one. The expansion of galaxies, and even the space in which they are found, does not necessarily indicate the expansion of the universe, just as the expansion of grenade fragments in space, including the gases it produces, is not related to the universe at all.
Israel, I promised one link on the condition that you abide by the agreement.. Did you abide by it?
Israel
"So if there was no thought before grief, and the universe was considered static and infinite before it, then how did the observations change thought?"
I don't think they thought the universe was infinite. If by static you mean that the galaxies do not move (on average), and the observations have shown that they do move, then it's pretty clear what has changed, isn't it?
I probably didn't understand what you meant.
"The galaxies can expand like grenade fragments that scatter and the universe can still remain static and infinite even with the expansion."
Again - what do you mean static? Hoyle had such a theory, is that what you mean?
My understanding is this: Einstein added the cosmological constant to adjust his equation to a static universe (ie, by and large, the distance between the galaxies is constant). The observations published by Hubble showed that the universe is expanding, so Einstein could give up his constant (which by the way - does not really give a static universe). The expansion corresponded to the solution of Einstein's equation found by Friedman.
And as I already wrote - the observations are not suitable for a "simple" universe that expands into a void, as a result of a primordial explosion.
Oh G!
I believe that most of us here are interested in cosmology and technology, and a little less in psychology and pedagogy. So if possible, spare us the education series please.
You did not answer what was requested:
"Please, direct me to the Wikipedia entry where it says that before the Hubble, someone thought that the universe was not static."
And I haven't seen the link you promised, but I'll wait patiently, maybe it will pop up at some point (of course with a lot of moral preaching and condescension, as always).
Miracles
So if there was no thought before grief, and the universe was considered static and infinite before it, then how did the observations change thought?
The galaxies can expand like grenade fragments that scatter and the universe can still remain static and infinite even with the expansion.
(And I know, I must be trying to sell religious ideas, as always).
Israel
Where does anyone claim that there was a thought of spreading before mourning?
Yehuda
Except for "I don't think so" you didn't give any explanation why I'm wrong about elastic collisions.
The fact that you don't find a third option means there isn't one? Apart from pushing gravity and general relativity - are there no other explanations for gravity? This is simply not true - even you gave examples of this (MOND for example).
Yehuda - What we see is that the acceleration increases as we get further away. In your explanation it is the other way around. In your explanation - there is a finite velocity of the bodies. Why don't you get it?
But - I don't see the need to expand the discussion so much. I see three serious problems with your explanation:
1 - Elastic collisions do not create gravity (Israel also agrees to this)
2 - You believe that we are at the center of the universe (a difficult philosophical problem for me).
3 - Your Torah does not agree with General Relativity (in particular - the subject of properties of space).
Let's at least focus on one of these?
Here it is again:
Please direct me to the Wikipedia entry where it says that before the Hubble, someone thought the universe was not static.
waiting?
Israel,
What is this passive aggressive.. I will offer you an agreement. If you write the following quote, then I will comply with your request to provide a link and quote, but under a restriction that will appear later.
Here is the quote:
"I know Google and the search field in Wikipedia and also how links work on the Internet. I know you don't really have to go through all the Wikipedia entries to find something. And I don't think I'm ignorant either, even though I wrote - can someone explain to an ignorant person like me - . In short, I'm just rambling. And the reason is that I'm not asking out of curiosity... I have a hidden motive that hides behind the question, and the questions that will follow it, and will reveal if there is someone who will cooperate with me long enough."
Limitation: I attach a link once, even if you complain that the link does not satisfy you. And the reason is that, as mentioned, you can search on Google and Wikipedia on your own, and as Super Nanny said - it's not good to spoon-feed children.
Israel
Dear friend!
I eagerly read your response from Mittovah 59 and I have tears in my eyes from happiness. The idea of being a fragment of an explosion in Tiz Al Nabi and looking at the masses of fragments moving away from me... after all, it is the "Big Bang" explosion of the universe as it goes.
But dear Israel, in the meantime Nissim and I moved on and while disagreeing between us and exchanging blows, we were able to define very well the essence of acceleration in the accelerated expansion of the universe, and we defined a decreasing acceleration with an increasing speed towards a final velocity magnitude, we even gave it a name: "Sabdramish expansion Nissim" ( read my previous response).
And by the way, if you want, analyze the beginning of the expansion after the bang. I'm not sure that it will be the same expansion. It seems to me that the acceleration there will go on and increase until a certain time and only then will it become a miraculous expansion.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Literally science incarnate.
Yom Tov Israel
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Israel
"This idea" - the idea of a classic explosion in space, like a bomb at a range. The big bang is not an explosion into space, but the expansion of space itself.
In the previous response I explained why the observations do show that space itself is expanding.
Miracles
"Now - it could be the result of an explosion as Israel hinted, and Judah believes on the level of religious faith.
But - there are a number of observations that disprove this idea.'
Disprove this idea? This idea is called the Big Bang. I don't know that it was refuted. Can I have a link?
And I still don't think you understood my question for approval. Einstein visits Hubble and after seeing his observations he declares that the cosmological constant is his big mistake.
Now there may be a reason for this due to the properties of the universe itself, but the galaxies moving away from each other still does not mean that the universe itself is expanding.
Israel
So let's not call it a "universe". Distant bodies move away from us, and their speed of moving away depends on the distance to them.
Now - it could be the result of an explosion as Israel hinted, and Judah believes on the level of religious faith.
But - there are several observations that disprove this idea. Among them: the density of matter in space increases with distance, the radiation of black bodies (not black holes) will not change its energy distribution, bodies are moving away from us above the speed of light, the cosmic background radiation is hotter at great distances, and so on (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/according-to-the-big-bang-1999-10-21/)
Now - one can deny observations or deny physical and philosophical principles that quite prove themselves. Especially - when you have your own private theory and you are not interested in what is really happening in the world...
For miracles my dear friend
Greetings!
I was looking for the third option you talk about and not your suggestions in your comment. So I will respond to what you said.
First of all you must renew yourself and not stick to the sentence I said at the time on other days of comments and place it again and again here for example: "I will not see", did I write "I will not see" in my previous response?? So why do you keep using this sentence over and over again? Maybe because it does seem to you?
Secondly, you constantly do not hesitate to point out my "ignorance" that any high school student would have behaved smarter than me. I think that after countless responses it is time for you to understand that I am "a little" above average in understanding things.
Third thing, even if I say things that seem apparently incorrect, then please ask for an explanation and I will explain to you willingly and with appreciation. For example, we will go and explain the accelerated gas expansion.
Let's take a ball of gas that contains bodies inside, spreading into the void around it. In its center, naturally, the pressure is greater than its outer layers that are close to emptiness, therefore in a body located somewhere in the gas spaces, from the center of the sphere, a greater pressure will act on it than from the outside, therefore a pressure / force difference will act on the body outwards, which means acceleration!
So simple that you want to cry! It is also written in Sears-Zymanski.
So in the next experiment of the expansion of a gas containing bodies, spreading into the void around it, notice how the bodies, initially motionless, begin to move with ever-increasing speed. The spread of mourning to glory.
And by the way miracles. It "seems to me" that the acceleration will decrease over time, meaning the speed will continue to increase, but with a decreasing acceleration as the universe expands.
But why did it seem to me that you actually do understand this??, after all, this is also due to what you wrote:-
"The speed of bodies in the gas will not increase indefinitely. In particular, the speed of the bodies is blocked by the speed of the particles" end of quote.
This is a very special expansion of the universe and not just accelerated, but accelerated with decreasing acceleration and increasing speed towards a certain limit speed (that's how it seems to me)
So on second thought it's fairer to call this spread "Sabdramish spread-miracles" and not just "Sedarmish spread", unless you have an objection to the breadth of my heart. That way I will have the backing of a scientist, and not just the expression of a high school student.
And don't say miracles that I don't know how to appreciate a good scientist.
Good day, miracles, my friend
Yehuda
Please respond gently
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
G
I searched, I searched, but there are many tens of millions of entries in the wiki and I still haven't had time to go through them all.
But you must have searched - and found - so if possible a reference to the correct entry, including a quote.
Nissim, Yehuda,
So what? Also the fragments from the cluster bombs from range 59 (I know Nissim doesn't like range 58), are moving away from each other, and if we look from one to the others, then in most cases we will see them moving away quite uniformly and maybe even linearly.
So if the bomb explodes in some dark corner of the universe (hereafter Tiz al Nabi), and the fragments are a great distance away from any other mass, for them the universe is only them, and they can with the same degree of logic assume that the universe is expanding.. They can also calculate the expansion speed of the universe This particular of theirs and the time of the explosion in the past, but what does the universe have to do with the multiverse?
And now the Honorable Rabbi will get up and go home.
take….
Yehuda
You are doing something not "honest" here - you claim that one of the two explanations is correct, and you ignore the possibility of a third explanation.
You ignore the fact that your explanation cannot work. There are two reasons for this, which a high school kid can understand.
The first - elastic collisions do not create gravity. True, it does not seem to Judah... I am really sorry to tell you that neither Ockham nor Popper would accept the reason "I don't think so".
The second - expansion of gas does not create acceleration. Trust me, I've blown up enough things in the past to know how gas spreads 🙂
I'll explain it again (I don't think I've explained it a double digit number of times yet…)
A gas spreads at the speed of the fastest particles.
The speed of gas particles does not increase with time/distance
Therefore - the speed of bodies inside the gas will not increase endlessly. In particular, the speed of the bodies is blocked by the speed of the particles.
So, Yehuda, please - are you Sears-Zymansky and will you study high school physics?
Peace be upon you my friend Israel!
Greetings, you are back, a nice bird from the cold lands...we missed you.
And regarding the expansion of the universe, it started with Melvin Westow who lectured on the expansion of the universe at the American Astronomical Society conference in 1914 and showed that the farther away the galaxies are, the faster they move away from us. Hubble was at the same conference and published in a beautiful article the data plus his own data and that of others and received worldwide fame.
And why is the accelerated expansion happening??, there are two ways to explain:-
The first:- the universe without gravitation in the distances, spreads naturally (and with acceleration!) into the emptiness around it. point.
The second:- to add lots and lots of dark matter to the universe to maintain the holy gravitation at distances. Let it be, and then add the anti of the dark matter which is even more loads, loads... A lot of dark energy, which is created in the smitron, in the dark and mighty void theater of the universe and then the whole thing manages to spread. And then add a little more dark energy so that the expansion will also be accelerated.
Now we are in a problem - which of the two opinions will we choose? I, and my dear friend, "Ockham's Razor" advocate the first option, all other scientists in this region of the galaxy, and miracles among them advocate the second option. We will remain Israel who has just joined the celebration and I ask myself if my friend Israel would be kind enough to join me in order to bring some balance to the vote. Israel humbly await your response.
(I must say that sometimes I really enjoy responding with knowledge!)
good day everybody
And please respond gently, it's just science
Yehuda
Israel.
You didn't answer my question did you search on wikipedia.
Israel
Hubble found that the redshift increased with distance. He saw that the relationship was linear and therefore concluded that the universe was expanding uniformly.
I, I asked. My name is Israel Shapira. Not I, not S, not G, and not anonymous. I wish all of you here would identify yourself by your real name, maybe that way we could avoid responses along the lines of "who asked".
Please direct me to the Wikipedia entry where it says that before the Hubble, someone thought the universe was not static. As far as I know, the assumption was that the universe is static, Newton certainly thought so and so did Einstein, otherwise he wouldn't have introduced the cosmological constant, wouldn't he? He put it in to fit a static universe.
But my question was: "Then what will change?" What was it about the Hubble observations that caused the change in thinking about the static universe?
Whoever asked why the statement that the universe is expanding, did you check on Wikipedia?
And all of physics, including relativity, assumed that the universe is static. This is no longer accurate. Is it assumed in optics that the universe is static? No. As with relationships in general, she only talks about the force of gravity.
The field of physics that deals with the question of whether the universe is static is called cosmology - a sub-branch of astrophysics.
What is correct to say is that Einstein, who was a diligent physicist, took in 1917 the equations of general relativity that he developed two years earlier, and tried to apply them to the entire universe - on the assumption that the universe is static. In the same way, you can take the optics equations and ask how they are relevant to what you see in the telescope.
Teachers and gentlemen, learned and honorable, can someone explain to an idiot like me why the statement that the universe is expanding?
This, to my understanding, was not known until Hubble's observations, and all physics, including relativity, assumed that the universe was static.
So what has changed?
Yehuda
The principle means that man does not have a special status in the universe (from a point of view). We observe observationally that the universe is homogeneous, and from this we deduce the cosmological principle (uniformity of the universe).
I did not say that the principle is true! I'm just drawing conclusions from things you say (something you yourself refuse to do).
From what you say - we are approximately at the center of the universe. Why? Because we see an isotropic universe with high precision (5 digits!), at distances of tens of billions of light years.
So maybe we really are at the center of the universe. We see the same in every direction.
More than that - we don't feel any powers. According to you - the gas in the universe causes a force on bodies and their acceleration into empty space. So the fact that we don't feel a force in a certain direction only reinforces your view that we are at the center of the universe.
So we threw away Newtonian physics (because you think elastic collisions create gravity), we threw away general relativity (because you don't accept that space has properties) - and now we threw away the Copernican principle.
By the way - what you wrote about the subject of infinity is interesting - but I think it's wrong. You are right that relativity is continuous, but as far as I understand you are wrong about quantum theory. Quantum values are not exactly discrete. Let's take an electron and look at its spin. This spin does not have two values, but our measurement - in a random direction - gives us one of two values.
I don't think we will throw away any of the theories, but we will find a theory that unites them, just like we didn't throw away Newtonian physics because of the theory of relativity.
Dear Nissim
If you are so sure that the Copernican principle works for example at a distance of 20 billion light years. Please prove!
I will give you a discount. Show me an article that the concentration of the galaxies found in each sphere with a diameter of 100 million light years and centered at a distance of 12 billion light years from us, is the same. in the number of galaxies at least. I don't remember seeing such a study.
And we always, always have Wikipedia, and from the well-remembered Wikipedia in Hebrew on the Copernican principle, below is a quote:-
Since it is not clear whether the principle is true, physicists build models that include the principle and models without the principle. An example of a problem using the principle is the acceleration in the expansion of the universe. The universe is expanding with ever-increasing acceleration, something that is difficult to explain assuming that the universe is uniform from every point from which it is viewed (isotropic). It is customary to call the acceleration factor dark energy and the change in acceleration the cosmological constant. Assuming that the Earth has a place in the universe in an area of extremely low density, it is possible to hypothesize the existence of denser areas in the universe whose gravity causes this acceleration." End quote.
So, dear Nissim, you refer to most of the things I said, and in short, do not know anything for sure about the above principle, so don't be sure of your words!
And my idea/theory could be correct.
That's what it is.
Good night miracles
Yehuda
The center of the universe
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
You wrote "Regarding the Copernican principle I am in a problem. For me, at distances perhaps beyond the horizon, the universe is thinner.
For example, a hand grenade that explodes, the fragments that hit the distances are more sparse."
And you also wrote "Please take an infinite arithmetic sheet and increase its squares twice, will you be able to tell after 13.7 billion years from which point/slot you started to increase the squares?, never!"
So decide….
And again - dismiss my explanation, or understand that it is being prepared.
Yehuda
Calm down... and consider what you yourself said. You explained to Raphael that the universe, meaning the matter in the universe, expands into empty space, due to internal pressure.
If so - then the universe (again the matter in the universe) is not infinite. Therefore, it has a center (center of gravity, if you will).
Yehuda, do you really not understand this? You come up with a hypothesis that rejects the theory of relativity (forget that you deny it, you already said that "it doesn't seem to you" that space itself is expanding).
Regarding elasticity - you can continue to deny the fact that there is no gravity in this situation. Ignore, deny, slander - it will still remain true. You explained many times why - and you didn't find a mistake in the explanation (oh sorry... it doesn't seem to you....)
Yehuda - I don't understand you, really. You claim to come with a scientific approach. So why do you deny science?
Miracles
You are doing something impolite here that he will not do.
You stated that it follows from my words that we are in the center of the universe, all my attempts to explain to you that this is not true and also in my theory you will see everyone moving away from you in every direction and it doesn't matter where you are, it doesn't help and you are on your own :-
"Yehuda stated that we are at the center of the universe",
Please take an infinite arithmetic sheet and double its slots, will you be able to tell after 13.7 billion years from which point/slot you started to increase the slots?, never!
So please don't incriminate false plots!
(Although everyone knows that Jerusalem is the center of the universe!)
We disagree on the rest of the facts in your comment and there is no point in continuing to "chew and ruminate"
Please respond gently
Yehuda
To Yossi
Thank you for your learned response. Analyze the situation as it goes!
And regarding the conclusion of your comment that the two theories (theory of relativity and the quantum theory) are not compatible with each other, I will be more radical. Not only do they not settle down. In my opinion, they can never settle down with each other either!
The reason will be the strength of the groups.
A few words about power
Power = the number of members in the group according to Cantor's group theory.
Cantor proved that there is no end that contains all the points in the segment between 0 and 1 (power A1) greater than the infinite sum of all natural numbers (power A0) and it is impossible to match every point in the segment between 0 and 1, a natural number. In every matching attempt members from A1 will be left out.
And for our purposes:- Quantum theory is a theory built from discrete elements (quanta) and therefore its strength is finite or at most its strength is A0 which is the infinity of the natural numbers. On the other hand, the strength of the theory of attribution is continuous and its strength is at least a1, which is the strength of the terms in the segment 0 to 1. And since it is known that it is never possible to make a single-valued function between a0 and a1, therefore there will always be members included in the theory of attribution whose strength is a1 that will not be included in the explanation of the theory The quantum whose strength is A0
Whoever understood, what good. Those who don't..., not bad,
And maybe I'm wrong
So please respond gently, it's just science or just math fun.!
Yom Tov Yossi and others
Yehuda.
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
The Korpankan principle is a philosophical principle, not an observation. And the conclusion from your explanation does not change - you claim that we are at the center of the universe, and this is a very brave conclusion. Religious people will be very happy to receive your approach.
A gas can't create a clouding that is similar to a gravitational clouding. It would spread in the space in a uniform way, and would not create any pollution.
Elastic impacts do not create gravity. My explanation is at the level of high school physics. Please - don't insult me by saying "I don't think so". Find the error in the explanation, or realize that you are wrong. Science is not a program "according to Yehuda's request".
Whether you accept Yehuda's unique explanations or not, you should note that the criticism of the very existence of dark matter and the existence of dark energy is not fundamentally unfounded.
The observations that led to these theoretical assumptions act as a fork in the two main theories in contemporary physics. General relativity and quantum mechanics (and the standard model derived from it)
If we accept the existence of dark matter and dark energy, then perhaps we save the general theory of relativity, but it may require a fundamental change in the standard model since it fails to explain how it is possible for the existence of dark matter as well as a particle (symmetron) that explains dark energy. The standard model has no idea what the properties and physical profile of these particles are. This is a heavy theoretical price since the standard model has withstood quite a few experiments and proved its explanatory ability.
On the other hand, the preservation of the standard model may require a change and perhaps a theoretical alternative to the theory of general relativity and above all a demand for a new theory of gravitation. This is also a heavy theoretical price since the theory of general relativity also has significant achievements in explaining many phenomena.
Added to all this is the fact that these two theories are incompatible with each other and cannot be reduced. Current physics has been going on for close to 100 years with two opposing theories. One of them will probably have to change or be replaced.
for miracles
Regarding the Copernican principle I am in a problem. For me, at distances perhaps beyond the horizon, the universe is thinner.
For example a hand grenade that explodes, the fragments that hit the distances are more sparse.
But I believe that in the range of ten billion light years the Copernican principle works more or less, beyond that it is not certain, even according to the accepted theory the explanations are not provable but only in the visible range of course, so you will not be able to contradict me (or I you)
Regarding the theory of short-term attribution, this is acceptable to me. Long term, the conventional solution to add dark matter and dark energy to make it acceptable??, so it's acceptable to you and not to me. But we talked about it already and we disagree.
Regarding the distortion - since the spaces of the universe are gas, there can be a deviation of the light beam in its movement according to the density of the gas. Gravitational indentation is always convex, in gas the indentation can be convex or concave. It can be a challenge to look for the concave void in the cosmos.
But again in small ranges the gravitational cooling works even in a simple universe.
Regarding elastic gravity pushing or not, sorry but we have not reached an agreement. I hope that the experiment that I will soon do in these days, Amen, will allow us to reach an agreement.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
On your site I did not find any explanation for gravitational fermentation.
In any case - didn't we agree that elastic collisions do not create gravity? If I explained it - and no one found an error in the explanation - then is there a reason not to accept my explanation?
Yehuda
It is not clear to me how it is possible to accept the theories of relativity in the short term and not in the long term - for two reasons, at least:
1. The theories of relativity are based on a small number of assumptions, which you do not accept. In particular - gravity is a result of the curvature of space by masses. If general relativity is the explanation for gravity, then your explanation is not the explanation, at least at short distances. On the other hand - your explanation is based on short-range collisions, isn't it?
2. We see relativistic phenomena at huge distances, in the Doppler phenomenon.
Yehuda
The Copernican principle is a philosophical principle that says there are no favored observers in the universe. Your approach invalidates this principle.
According to your approach - different viewers will see different things, depending on their distance from the universe.
In particular - the distribution of the bodies in space will depend on the direction of the viewer's gaze. We see a wonderful uniformity, and therefore, again according to your approach, we are very close to the center of the universe.
Raphael
You're right, Raphael, it's a guess but not a wild one, nevertheless it leads to a number of results and saves us most of the matter/energy in the universe. We are talking about things that stand at the center of the universe and no one knows what is really happening there. But if you noticed, dark matter and dark energy also have a hard time explaining their existence. Popper, who demands that everything scientific must be refutable, is not sure that he would have accepted my explanation. On the other hand, is there even room for the question: how was emptiness created?, what proofs can be brought for this?. Raphael asked hard. My possibility that emptiness is the initial state of space seems reasonable and logical to me but will never be provable. Just like we see with the dark matter and energy that has not been proven for decades
And by the way, the Greeks already delved into these questions of emptiness, ether, and the like.
In short, your questions are difficult and challenging!
Good day Raphael
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
to an anonymous participant
Your questions:- 1, 2, 3, 4, are explained by the theory of attribution. My theory does not contradict the theory of relativity at short distances.
Regarding question 5, how do I explain inflation? - If you mean the inflation that happened in the first few seconds after the bang, I prefer a universe without inflation that started with the size of a few light years and not at a singular point.
For questions 6 Idush and gravitation, go to my website and there it is explained
Good day anonymous participant
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda So you agree that your theory is based on a wild guess that no one can ever know if it is true or not?
To Raphael
You asked:-
"Judas, I assume that the emptiness you are talking about is something that is outside of our universe. Do you have any idea how this void came about? What laws govern this emptiness? Are they compatible with the natural laws of our universe". End quote.
Answer:- I don't know and nobody knows! We can only guess, but your guess is no less good than mine.
Good day Raphael
Yehuda
Miracles
You are wrong!. You don't have to be in the center of the universe to see everyone moving away from you! Check yourself.
Tired and going to rest
We will continue in the evening
Yehuda
Your solution explains almost everything?
1. How does he explain the slowing down of time in a gravitational field?
2. How does he explain the symmetrical slowing down of high-speed clocks?
3. How does he explain the shortening of distances at high speed?
4. How does he explain the bending of light in a gravitational field?
5. How does he explain inflation?
6. How does he explain gravitational collapse at distances of hundreds of thousands of light years?
6. How does he explain gravity?
Yehuda -
Judah, I assume that the emptiness you speak of is something that is outside of our universe. Do you have any idea how this void came about? What laws govern this emptiness? Do they conform to the natural laws of our universe?
Yehuda
If you think that the universe is "simple" - and made up of bodies in gas, in infinite space, then you come to a very alarming conclusion: we are in the center of the universe!
Let's imagine a simple experiment. We have a huge ball of gas and inside it are bodies (call them stars, planets or whatever). At a certain moment - the sides of the sphere disappear and the gas begins to spread.
If we are exactly in the center of the sphere, then we will see something similar to what we really see: objects further away are moving away faster. And in any direction - we will see the same thing.
This means that the speed of moving away is blocked, by the speed of the gas particle, and we will certainly not get something similar to inflation.
Also - we will not get an observed phenomenon called the relativistic Doppler effect.
And also... the Copernican principle (a philosophical principle that says we are not at a special point in the universe) should be thrown away, as well as the cosmological principle (the uniformity of the universe).
You say that gravity has not been observed at great distances - this is not true, see the entry "Gravitational Idush" which works at distances of hundreds of thousands of light years.
And besides - we will still be left with the problem that elastic collisions do not create gravity and on the other hand there is a drag problem, and plastic collisions create enormous thermal problems, and we will also be left with the drag problem.
So Yehuda - please don't give others the impression that the "academic establishment" consists of a collection of unsuccessful people.
Raphael and miracles
I don't like styled answers so much
"Emptiness may solve one problem for you, but opens a thousand other problems for you" end of quote,
It is simply impossible to answer such questions because there is not a single example of the problems that arise in them. Therefore, I would be happy Raphael if you would inform me of only two or three other problems, you know what?, I am ready to compromise, inform me of one problem that the Raikan at a distance of tens of billions of light years or more, bothers you.
I bring here a "brave" idea that does not require dark matter or dark energy and explains (almost) everything. But you have to be brave enough and give up the gravity in the distances.
Have a good week Raphael and Nisim
Please respond gently.
Yehuda
Raphael
Great question!
Fertility may solve one problem for you, but it opens up a thousand other problems that are too short to detail. Besides, it is a theory that there is no way to confirm or contradict it.
Dear Raphael
What makes more sense to you, that there is something around the universe or that there is emptiness around the universe??
Or maybe it makes more sense to you that the universe is not around?
I choose emptiness because it explains to me the accelerated expansion of the universe without assuming a special addition of dark energy.
Ockham's razor would also prefer emptiness,
Yehuda
"The universe will expand into the void around it"
Yehuda what emptiness around him? What invention is this???
"The universe will expand into the void around it"
Yehuda what emptiness around him? What invention is this???
How did the scientific thought about dark energy actually develop?:
Well, you started with dark matter.
In the galactic and intergalactic distances it was discovered that Newton's gravitation formula with the theory of relativity attached to it "stutters" to say the least. There is a deviation of hundreds and thousands of percent between what is measured and what is obtained from the formula. Somewhere at the beginning of the XNUMXth century, the academic establishment decided to hold on to the gravity formula and let go of the measured data.
Enormous amounts of "dark" matter have been added to the universe which changes the data and one of its purposes is to continue to grasp the Newtonian gravitation formula.
At first it seems that this welcome addition is respect instead of a term, for example it justified the great age that was set by the galaxy, but then to the dismay of the dark matter fans, another thing happened, the dark matter that was supposed to slow down the expansion of the universe, did not slow it down, and the expansion of the universe actually accelerated !
What is the solution? Is it to go back to the starting point and cancel the dark matter idea that failed, or continue the same way and invent something new?. The scientific world decided to continue to invent something bigger that could destroy the effect of dark matter and in general gravitation at a distance.
The scientific world decided to invent the dark energy that would accelerate the expansion of the universe despite the abundant dark matter present in it and its multiple gravitation.
Now we have to look not only for the dark matter particles but also for the smitron - a particle that will explain the nature of dark energy. Looking for both of them since decades and not with much success.
Suppose we were to do the cosmological construction differently, how would it be done?:
First of all, we would give up changing the data we call "dark matter" and instead throw the gravitation formula to the great distances of the cosmos.
The result: at great distances there is no gravitation, and naturally the universe would expand into the void around it and would eliminate the need for dark energy. Since the internal pressure of the universe will be greater than the external pressure, the rate of expansion will accelerate. And came to Zion a redeemer.
That's it in a nutshell. So how does the galaxy rotate and how does it even move?, ... I have already spoken before and there is no point in repeating.
What is left??…. Right,
Please respond gently
good week
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
I gave a theory since it has observational evidence in an article about an extremely long eclipse.
In short, I am now returning from the wonderful white eclipse of the century. There were hundreds of spectators on the stage in Tel Aviv. The observation organized by Ella, from the "World of Astronomy" in coordination with the "Israeli Astronomy Association" was done in full cooperation with professional guides, and was really fun.
Therefore, in order not to spoil my mood, and because I am tired, I will not comment on the article and leave it for the morning when I have something to say about it and the dark energy that it investigates.
Good night
Yehuda