Their research will be published today in the journal Letters Physical Review * In a conversation with the Hidan website, Prof. Netzer explains that in galaxies that are more than 6-7 billion light years away, the supernovae that are used by 'standard candles' are rare, so until now it has been more difficult to measure the distance to them
A group of scientists from the High Energy Physics Institute in Beijing, from Tel Aviv University and the Paris Observatory, developed a new method that will make it possible to measure the rate of expansion of the universe more accurately than is known to date.
The research is published tomorrow (22.2.13) in the prestigious journal Physical Review Letters.
The group led by Professor Jian-Min Wang from Beijing, with other researchers from China, Dr. David Valls-Gabaud from Paris and Professor Hagai Netzer from Tel Aviv University, studied the properties of black holes giants that reside in the centers of galaxies. These black holes were probably formed in the early universe and since then they have been growing as they absorb huge amounts of matter from their immediate surroundings. The mass of the black holes in question is a million to ten billion times greater than the mass of the Sun. They are detectable because the material falling into the black hole heats up and emits huge amounts of radiation that can be detected through observations from Earth.
In a conversation with the Hidan site, Prof. Netzer explains that the method he participated in developing does not replace the conventional method for measuring distances in the universe, but it complements it where it falls short.
The accepted method of measuring distance to distant galaxies is known as the standard candle method and is based on supernova events (the death of stars in a nuclear explosion) known as type la supernovae. Because the absolute luminosity of these supernovae is known. When you see such a supernova in a distant galaxy, you compare the apparent brightness with that known to us from nearby regions of the universe, and based on the brightness ratio, you know how to estimate the distance to the galaxy.
However, this method is difficult to apply at distances greater than 7 or 8 billion light years because beyond this distance those supernovae are very rare. Such supernovae are the result of the explosion of a pair of stars. The explosion occurs towards the end of the life of the stars, a process that takes several billion years. Because of this, they are extremely rare in the early universe and more common in the regions closest to us where we see older galaxies. To date, no information has been collected on a large enough number of events to measure with great precision the rate of expansion of the early universe. Because of this, there is a need for alternative methods, which will allow us to go much further." Prof. Netzer explains. (Where did the quote start? There are no hyphens at the beginning)
"Dark energy is the source that pushes the universe and causes its accelerated expansion, a kind of negative gravity. This energy contributes over 70% of the total mass-energy in the universe (as of today, researches estimate this amount to be 73%). The Nobel Prize in 2011 was given for the discovery of accelerated expansion, but we still do not have a physical explanation for this phenomenon. We understand what it is Gravitation and what electric force is, but we have no idea what causes dark energy. One way to advance understanding is to make precise measurements of the properties of dark energy. In other words, if we don't have a theoretical explanation, at least let's know everything we can from experimental measurements."
"In the work I am involved in, we examined one of the properties of dark energy: whether its quantity and properties change over time. We live today in a universe that is about 14 billion years old and contains a certain amount of dark energy. When the universe was a billion years old, was the energy more or less? Will we get the same value in 14 billion years? Einstein called the factor opposing gravity the "cosmological constant". Today we believe that it may not be a constant factor and it changes over time. We are looking for ways to measure this variability.”
"The mystery of the origin of dark energy is today the biggest question in cosmology, and I am ashamed to admit that we know nothing and a half about it. That's why we propose a new way to make observations that will help us uncover its properties. There are, of course, other suggestions from other researchers and they should all be checked. It is interesting to note that some of the properties of the universe are known to us today with great precision. For example, the age of the universe (about 13.7 billion years very soon) or the relative part of the total mass-energy in the universe that is contributed by dark energy (about 73 percent). The scientists are also coming together to determine the exact value of Hubble's constant which is currently estimated at 72 kilometers per second per megaparsec. The accuracy here is about 5% and there are already ways that will be implemented in the near future to improve it up to a level of about 3%. The problem is that the exact value of the constants in the early universe, for example 10 billion years ago, is much less well known. The current research tries to answer this issue with the help of a unique method that will perhaps improve this accuracy and thus also better understand the properties of dark energy in those eras."
The new method is based on the fact that the black holes that attach the largest amounts of matter to them - and therefore emit the maximum energy - have unusual properties. In these systems, the amount of radiation emitted into space depends solely on the mass of the black hole into which the material falls and not on other factors. Astronomers have known for about two decades how to measure the masses of black holes in the centers of galaxies. According to the proposed method, measuring the mass will make it possible to deduce how much energy is emitted from the system every second. Measuring the energy reaching the Earth with the help of various telescopes will allow you to measure the distance to the radiating body without any need for additional information except knowing the mass of the black hole. The new method, which has not been tried until now, has many advantages over previous methods. In particular, it makes it possible to increase the range of measuring distances beyond what was possible until now.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
65 תגובות
Well? So what did you want to say?
ב
There is a reason I ask. The solution you mean is the sum of an infinite engineering column - right?
The solution is known in infinitesimal calculus.
ב
I asked you before if you know how to solve Zeno's paradox (Achilles and the tortoise). You claimed yes. I would love to hear how you do it.
I'm trying to say that the big bang theory is wrong.
There is an internal contradiction.
If the laws are treated as they are today: an internal contradiction is obtained.
If it is claimed that the laws have changed over time, then it is not possible to deduce from the existing laws about the history of the universe and about the big bang.
A black hole is no different from other galaxies and stars, except for the fact that once you are trapped in it, you will never be able to get out (Hawking radiation).
In any case black holes were created together with the galaxies or after the galaxies it really doesn't matter that much.
Remember that black holes also have mass, and not just any mass, but a huge mass, so even if we imagine that in the beginning there was an explosion that didn't work (because black holes sucked the exploding energy back to them) then a few moments later there was another explosion, because the holes themselves were compressed is very
And so the situation happens several times until the universe manages to free itself, perhaps, but this is not relevant to us, it could be another theory about the "singular point" that we know nothing about.
What we do know is that there was a moment (and from this moment we count 13 billion years) that the universe expanded and before it expanded it was very dense (otherwise it would not have expanded).
For my part, think that there were once black holes that sucked the entire universe into them and began to pull each other until a situation of tremendous pressure was created that caused their energy to explode = the Big Bang.
ב
The laws of today are not the laws of the beginning of the universe. The physical constants were not necessarily what they are today. There may have been different particles from today. That's what I mean.
And a point in 4 dimensions is not a point in 3 dimensions.
B - What are you trying to say? Is Einstein wrong?
A black hole is a point where the gravitational force is so great that no material object can escape from it.
In fact, gravity is so great that even light cannot escape from a black hole.
The universe contains all the black holes in it.
In the first second of its existence, the universe was a massive concentration of black holes. Actually one big black hole.
How is it possible that matter was ejected from such a large concentration of black holes as it was in the first second of the universe's existence?
According to the laws that exist today this was impossible.
But if it happened then we have to accept that something was different from what it is today.
If I receive light from a galaxy that is 13 billion years away from me it means that this light has traveled 13 billion years.
You have to understand that the assumption is that the speed of light was the same speed right after the bang, they say that within a few seconds the universe was already big enough that our constants caught up with it.
This assumption is due to the fact that the pressure was so huge at the moment of the explosion, which caused a very rapid eruption/expansion and thus the pressure was quickly reduced and the situation was quite stable as it is nowadays.
We know that the speed of light in matter denser than the "void" is lower than in the "void" itself.
If the speed of light was different from what it is today then it would only be slower because the entire universe and also the "void" in it was denser.
But again, this density that slows down light much more than it does today, did not exist for more than a few seconds, certainly not more than a few years.
Miracles
The laws are valid from the moment the big bang was created. not before.
And stop fucking thinking. You feed the science on the only so-called scientific website in Israel.
A point in four dimensions is not fundamentally different from a point in three dimensions.
This escape to all kinds of "hocus pocus" is unscientific.
These are fairy tales.
You are trying to describe using laws that apply today the starting point of the universe.
Of course you are trying to say that the same laws were valid before.
If before they were different than now then the earlier the time the greater the deviation.
Therefore, the results are different, which means that the conclusion about the existence of the "big bang" is simply incorrect.
ב
No one claims that the same laws were valid at the beginning of the universe. Enough with the inventions…..
ב
cool it
The point is in 4 dimensions. There is no contradiction here to the theory of relativity.
When we talk about the early state of the universe we assume that all the laws we discovered in its current state are also valid in the early state. This is an untested assumption.
Parable, what is it similar to:
A railroad is laid from the South Pole to the North Pole.
but:
For some reason there is a deviation of a tenth of a degree every 10 km.
After 100 km there will already be a deviation of 1 degree and the track will never reach the North Pole.
But let's describe a more extreme situation.
We start with a deviation of a tenth of a degree every 10 km. But the deviation increases with progress.
That is:
A tenth of a degree deviation in the first ten kilometers.
Ma'ale Shlomo in the next ten kilometers.
10 degrees in the next ten kilometers.
And so on.
Obviously, this type of deviation is much more serious than the previous deviation.
With such a deviation, the train tracks will not even reach the North Pole.
This is the case with the regulars.
At first they are quite stable. (That's why they are called constants).
But it could be that as the density increases, so does their deviation.
In mathematics, this is called an "exponential" deviation. That is, not a normal deviation but a strong deviation.
We were not there and we did not measure the "constants" in the extreme conditions.
We can only speculate.
And hypotheses require proof.
Finally…
When we said a point, we didn't mean a point, and you could already understand that from the quotation marks we made sure to write at the beginning.
I even mentioned "matchbox" I even said "so take all the points in the universe and compress them into as small a space as possible", why did you insist so much on a point?
The assumption is that the cosmological constants do not change roughly until you reach a radius where the density is enormous (right at the beginning of the bang).
Since the material reached a "stable" state (in quotation marks because it is a stable state relative to the previous state) there is no reason for us to change:
A billion years ago the universe was still big enough for our constants to be valid as a pretty good approximation.
This moment when the cosmological constants change immeasurably is the first moments of the bang we are not talking about.
Of course it's not proven, it's a theory, someone here said it's an existing fact?
But, and it's a huge but! None of this has anything to do with the contradiction you tried to present between the theory of relativity and the big bang.
At most we can assume that the radius of the visible universe was once smaller than it is today.
But his topology was always the topology of a sphere and not of a point.
But what happens when the radius is small?
The density is great.
Then the cosmological constants change.
Therefore it is impossible to know what exactly happened.
Therefore the big bang theory is not proven.
incidentally:
It is certainly possible that the radius of the visible universe lengthens and shortens cyclically.
We just don't have enough data to know for sure.
It was once thought that the location of a photon could be known with certainty.
Today it is known not.
Today we know about the uncertainty principle.
I wonder what new principles will be discovered in the future and shed new light on old mysteries!
I don't even know what to say to you it seems like you're trying to drive me crazy
I gave up, kudos to the miracles that managed to do this before me.
I strongly recommend that you submit your conclusions to institutions of higher education and receive a Nobel Prize, you will surely be nominated for a Nobel Prize, and it is doubtful that you will not win it in light of your findings.
A point cannot become straight!
That's how it is by definition!
B.
It has already been said here time and time again, this infinite straight line is the former point which is the universe.
The point grew larger and became one long straight line that continues to lengthen.
in my position
Maybe:
You give an example of an infinite straight line.
How is the infinite line contained within the zero point of the universe?
If someone forces you to think and not give standard answers, then does it mean that he insists on not understanding?
You have a mistake!
All the pioneers in science without exception "insisted on not understanding" conventional thinking.
This is not just insistence.
It is mathematically reasoned.
If you don't have a mathematical answer then you have nothing!
Regarding the straight line coming out of zero: it is called a "beam".
A ray emanating from zero has no center point.
This does not mean that the universe starts from scratch.
There is no connection between such a foundation and the announcement that there is a zero point for the universe.
The declaration that there is a zero point to the universe has no scientific basis.
This is an attempt to explain the mathematical contradictions with a wave of hands.
Remy, this is exactly the response I want to get from "B".
And you're right.
But where is this "0" point?
How can you determine that the point you chose on this line and called "0" is really the center?
After all, it is an infinite message, it doesn't matter if you are at X or X +1 or X-1000 or X + 438934 or even really at 0 you will see the same thing...
Infinity here and there.
I do not know
But the center of a straight line extending from minus infinity to plus infinity is 0
(-:
B…
It may be that Nissim's approach is the right approach, but I am quite patient.
"You haven't added anything new.
The function is defined for every neighborhood of zero except for the zero point itself."
How rude, I argue with you about 1:X throughout Purim and at the end you claim that there is nothing new under the sun..
It is acceptable to say "I was wrong", "it slipped my mind", "I didn't notice", you can say many things other than what you said.
"Points are not something that can be compressed. It's not gas."
Okay, your response shows that you didn't understand a word of what I was saying, but let's move on:
You have not yet answered my question.
What is the center of a straight line extending from 0 to infinity?
ב
You don't want to understand.
Do not need
infinite.
Maybe:
You haven't added anything new.
The function is defined for every neighborhood of the zero except the zero point itself.
Points are not something that can be compressed. It's not gas.
If there is one point that was once the center of the universe then it has great significance.
If she was once the center of the universe, then she is also the center of the universe today. And if it is the center of the universe then everything in the universe can be measured in relation to this point. This is a special point. The measurements relative to it take precedence over measurements relative to any other point.
B.
So take all the points in the universe and compress them into as small a space as possible, there is no meaning to the center that was in this small space, and there is no meaning to the center that the current universe has because tomorrow we will be a wave, don't know please.
Knows what? Let's talk about something much simpler..
There is a straight line extending from point 0 to infinity, where is the center?
Regarding the matter of the function, you are wrong, I didn't say there is no meaning, I said we don't know because there is no definition in mathematics for this matter.
Mathematics does not define one of the parts of X when X=0
It defines when X = 0.0000000000000…………1
But not when X = 0
ב
Do you know how to solve it? how exactly????????
I know but what does that have to do with it?
ב
What does mathematics have to do with it?
Let me ask you a question - do you know how to solve Zeno's paradox (Achilles and the tortoise)?
What you are claiming is that one point split into two points.
It is mathematically impossible.
And what is important is what happened in the past.
At the moment there are two different points each of which is considered the main point and it is a contradiction as of this moment.
ב
The scouts are far away today. In the past they were together in the ancient "point". And again, the theory of relativity has no meaning in this ancient world.
The funniest thing is that you don't notice that the big bang is a prediction of the theory of relativity 🙂
What you are claiming is that the big bang happened at the point where the viewer is. For him, this is the starting point of labor.
So what happens if there are two observers far from each other?
Each of them will claim that he is the center of the universe and that the main point is the point where he is.
This is only possible if the two points merge into one point. But that is not the case. Each of them is at a different point.
ב
1. There is also one point in the theory of relativity that is special - this is the point I am talking about right now. The further I look I see younger objects. Each particle in the universe has its own special point.
2. At this point the universe really began 13.72 billion years ago.
Where is the contradiction here?
Maybe:
You are mixing concepts.
The concept of the point is a mathematical concept.
A point cannot become a cluster of points.
If there is a first. So it is a special point even if we don't know what is happening there.
When you say we don't know what happens in the main environment you mean that the function has no meaning in the main environment.
This is of course not true.
Let's take for example the function one divided by x.
For each finite size x, the function is defined. It has meaning. It is no different from any other function.
ב
"In a function of type one divided by x . X measures the distance from zero.
That is, there is a zero point.
This point is the chosen and special point in the entire universe.
And this contradicts the theory of relativity."
This "zero point" is singular, you cannot talk about the zero in a function of this type.
Does the fact that there is no 0 in such a function mean that there is no "main"? No, it just means we don't know what's going on there.
"The balloon model is also wrong:
When a balloon is inflated, air from outside the balloon enters inside the balloon. It's a completely different process.
No point inside the balloon is inflated. A point cannot swell up and become a ball."
Obviously, the balloon model was created for illustration, cancel the "inflating"/"air" thing.
If I claim that some space is growing without any change in its mass, then every point in it expands.
When each point expands, the center has no meaning, because the initial point that used to be called a point has already expanded and consists of several points.
"It doesn't matter if the "central" point is a point where matter is found or it is empty, nor does it matter if it has a physical effect on its surroundings. The very definition of central is a wrong definition because there is only one central point. There cannot be more than one central point."
You are right, there is no more than one central point, and the universe is even much more extreme than that - it does not have one central point for a duration that exceeds a moment.
""It is assumed that the universe was dense"
That is, from a certain assumption a certain conclusion is reached.
It is very possible that the assumption is wrong."
Maybe the assumption is wrong, but in fact this assumption is a conclusion, according to the observations we understand that once all the galaxies were closer to us, and hence we conclude that the universe was more compressed.
"It is assumed that the universe was dense and from this we come to the conclusion that it was so dense that the "Big Bang" is warranted, but this contradicts other assumptions in physics. That's why you need to check all the assumptions. Some of the assumptions are wrong and some are right.
Willingness can only be those that do not lead to an internal contradiction."
Please expand on the contradictions you found.
"If the points were really close then it would be possible to mark a sphere with a known finite radius that contains the universe.
The center of such a sphere is the zero point of a unique reference system that is different from any other reference system.
This contradicts the theory of relativity."
My dear friend, if there is no effect that can exceed the speed of light, and the universe is bigger than our visible universe (which is likely) then the "central point" is not special because it does not affect us (and we do not affect the points around us)
And in any frame of reference that stands in space, you will see the universe spreading out from you in all directions.
Because again, the whole universe expands, it's not just its "edges" and then following them what's inside expands, no.
All inside including everything spreads.
It is not . And then... and then...
It's more like:
.
and then
...
...
...
and then:
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
If this is understood, then think now that you are on the event horizon
...
...
...
Now look up, and pick some point in space.
Even if you choose the central point, in the future it will become an event horizon cut off from the "center" and everything around it.
If now you understand why every point in space can be considered central, or rather, why there is no central point, I am happy, if not, then less so.
"The starting point is not a point in three-dimensional space"
so where is she?
If the points were really close then it would be possible to mark a sphere with a known finite radius that contains the universe.
The center of such a sphere is the zero point of a unique reference system that is different from any other reference system.
This contradicts the theory of relativity.
ב
There is no contradiction here to the theory of relativity. The starting point is not a point in the three-dimensional space. Hikon between 13.72 billion years. It was burned to every point in the universe.
Look at it this way: all points in the universe were once very, very close. really really close
Where is the contradiction to the theory of relativity?
Maybe:
Another thing:
Reporter:
"It is assumed that the universe was dense"
That is, from a certain assumption a certain conclusion is reached.
It is very possible that the assumption is wrong.
It is assumed that the universe was dense and from this we come to the conclusion that it was so dense that the "big bang" is required, but this contradicts other assumptions in physics. That's why you need to check all the assumptions. Some of the assumptions are wrong and some are right.
Willingness can only be those that do not lead to an internal contradiction.
Yes, it's me . When you forget to write down the name of the computer, an anonymous impression is made.
Maybe:
You wrote long but you didn't update anything that I didn't know before.
Please try to make it shorter?
In a function of one type divided by x. X measures the distance from zero.
That is, there is a zero point.
This point is the chosen and special point in the entire universe.
And this contradicts the theory of relativity.
The balloon model is also wrong:
When a balloon is inflated, air from outside the balloon enters inside the balloon. It's a completely different process.
No point inside the balloon is inflated. A point cannot swell and become a sphere.
It does not matter if the "central" point is a point where matter is found or it is empty, nor does it matter if it has a physical effect on its surroundings. The very definition of central is a wrong definition because there is only one central point. There cannot be more than one focal point.
ב
Did you finally understand??
1) What "point" is it about in mathematics? Maybe you, "B", can explain to us?
B.
1) You cannot draw conclusions based on the math and then throw the math away.
In mathematics it is about a point.
If the point is something that does not exist then all the math is wrong and no conclusion can be drawn from it.
Don't throw away the math, on the contrary, the problem is completely mathematical:
It is assumed that the universe was dense and as it expands its density decreases (this does not mean that its total mass changes)
The more dense it is, the stronger the force of expansion/explosion acts on it (a rubber ball, the more you compress it, the more force it exerts to burst out into a state where it is not compressed)
Now think of a function in the style 1 divided by X will draw you a Y and X axis.
X is time, Y is mass density.
As we move forward in time, the density decreases and tends to 0, but as we go back on the timeline, the density will increase...
X = 0.5 created for us a density of size 2, that is, in the first half second the density of the universe was "2" (of course, the numbers are for illustration only)
When X = 0.1 the density will be 10, which means that from the first second the density is very, very high
And as we advance to X = 0 the density will increase to crazy numbers and what will happen at X = 0 (the beginning of time)?
There is no such thing as 1 divided by 0 and this is exactly our problem (completely a mathematical problem).
We do not know what happens, if anything, at X=0 when the function is 1 divided by X.
We can say with a very good approximation what is in X tends to 0 but not to 0
It is called a "singular point" it is a point that mathematics does not define.
2) If each and every point is the center of the universe then the entire universe is full of points that are the center of the universe and this is a contradiction.
The entire universe is expanding, the "central point" - it has no uniqueness from the other points on the space.
The "central" point sees the whole universe spreading out from it just like you see the central point and everything else spreading out from you.
The focal point is affected and affects its environment as much as you affect it and your environment.
There is no energy/material fixation at the center point of the universe, it may be with very little mass, and one day some very large galaxy may pass there.
Maybe we are currently in the center of the universe or maybe not, it doesn't matter, every point in the universe is still expanding, including the "central" point.
Inflate a balloon, its central point also inflated right? So it is no longer a point, it is a ball, so suppose there is now a new point in the middle of the ball which is - it is the center!
Inflate more, again the central point became a ball... the central point has no meaning.
Put popcorn in the microwave, what is the uniqueness of the central point from the other points? There is no uniqueness, everything explodes and mixes there at every point just like in the center, no one is special.
3) It has nothing to do with time.
Of course there is a relationship to time, after all this theory is built on the laws of physics and the data of the present and from which he deduces backwards...
4) If a contradiction is discovered in the model, then the model should be thrown in the trash. Not the math.
Maybe yes and maybe not, for sure maybe(-;
5) When a model describes reality. He has to describe her in any condition. The quantum model has no advantage over the relativistic model.
The assumption is that when the universe was "small" the laws of relativistic physics did not apply to it because the atoms and electrons themselves were broken down into smaller particles and everything collided and roared, complete chaos.
1) You cannot draw conclusions based on the math and then throw the math away.
In mathematics it is about a point.
If the point is something that does not exist then all the math is wrong and no conclusion can be drawn from it.
2) If each and every point is the center of the universe then the entire universe is full of points that are the center of the universe and this is a contradiction.
3) It has nothing to do with time.
4) If a contradiction is discovered in the model, then the model should be thrown in the trash. Not the math.
5) When a model describes reality. He has to describe her in any condition. The quantum model has no advantage over the relativistic model.
ב
Don't mix things up. Do not use the concepts of "mass".
Look at it this way - take a random point in today's universe and imagine that time is sped back. What you will see at this point is that everything is coming to you, you are the center of the universe. It's like that on Earth too - Anhant is in the center of the universe.
You used the concept of a point. What I said is a consequence of quantum theory. There is no distance that is shorter than the Planck distance.
Relativity is a model. Quantum theory is a model. Everyone describes reality under certain conditions.
I'm sorry you don't get it. That doesn't make it wrong 🙁
It is also impossible to talk about a point that is dimensionless and also about a point that is not dimensionless.
At most it can be said that it is not a point but a sphere with a certain radius.
You can't use mathematics and arrive at the theory of relativity and then cancel the mathematics because something doesn't fit.
If the entire universe was centered at this point then this point is the center of mass of the universe.
That is why it is a special point.
Therefore, a reference system whose zero point is a different reference system from the other systems.
Therefore it contradicts the theory of relativity.
It is not possible to use the theory of relativity only when it is appropriate and if it is not appropriate then throw away the theory of relativity and move to the quantum theory.
ב
I meant - the whole universe. The entire universe was centered in this point - there was nothing outside of it, therefore it is impossible to refer to it from other points, because there are none.
A "point" - because there is no such concept as zero size - cannot be "nothing" or "empty". In modern physics there is a concept of the Planck size - it is the minimum size that can be. That's the size of the point.
At such sizes the theory of relativity is not the correct model for relativity. It is more correct to use quantum theory.
What is "every universe"?
What is a point that is not a "point"?
As far as I understand, the real problem is not what the nature of dark energy is as written
In the article
"The Nobel Prize in 2011 spoke about the discovery of accelerated expansion, but we still do not have a physical explanation for this phenomenon. We understand what gravitation is and what electric force is, but we have no idea what causes dark energy."
There is a physical source for the phenomenon of the expansion of the universe, which is the vacuum energy. The real problem is
in the obtained sizes. According to a naive calculation of the vacuum energy, it should have been greater by 120
Order of magnitudes according to the astronomical observations showing that the universe is expanding. This is the mismatch
The largest ever between observation/experiment and theory. The question is then why the vacuum energy
so small? If the vacuum energy was zero it could be explained but when something is small
Very, but not zero, the theory has a problem explaining this.
ב
Do you really think Einstein didn't think of this?? This point is not a point in the universe - it is the whole universe!!!
And this point is not a "point" - it is not of size 0.
If the universe expands from a certain point, then a reference system of which this particular point is the main point, will be different from any other reference system.
This contradicts the theory of relativity.
my father
The theory of the expansion of the universe from a singular point is based on evidence, unlike the "turtle theory".
Science has only improved in the last 100 years. You know something we've been laughing about for the last 100 years?
It is possible that we will discover far-reaching things, but I see no serious reason to believe that this will cause a revolution in the existing theories.
2400 years ago they knew that the world was round and even knew what its radius was, and they also knew the radii and distances of the moon and the sun. The fact that various religious people opposed it, because it takes man out of the center of the universe, does not change the facts that the ancients already knew.
If I remember correctly the energy emission from the black hole is not completely symmetrical, is that true? And how much error will be added if there is an additional need to estimate the form of the radiation emission and its direction in relation to the DHA?
In addition the mass of the black hole depends on the amount of matter that fell into it, so I assume that as we move further away this type of black holes will also become rarer. By how much time/distance does this method extend the range of 8 billion light years provided by the supernova method?
And finally, have you compared this method to the super nova method (measuring the same galaxy with both methods)? How significant is the difference between them and how does it change with distance?
netzer is 68 years old - see more in the wiki.
he sure is very smart but here it looks like the chinese use his name and offer nothing.
all the best.
What does it matter?
It used to be important to check if the expansion is accelerating, it is useful to know if in the future we will all freeze or if the universe will shrink again and we will all burn. Now that the Higgs has been discovered we already know that the end of the universe will be completely different and the universe will collapse regardless of the speed of expansion.
Avi,
The fact that the three turtles have not yet been discovered gives hope to science
That way at least it will never be boring
Nice idea but there is a fundamental error in it
Super black holes reside in the cores of galaxies wrapped in layers of dust. The dust changes throughout the life of the galaxy, so the light will change not only depending on the distance of the galaxy, but also in its dusty spiral elliptical nature. There may be unknown biases here that may change the results by 20% and we will find ourselves imagining that we live in a slower universe. Instead there will be an accelerator.
In another 100 years, every child will read in history class what funny ideas people invented in the past. The funniest will be the idea that the moon is made of cheese, that the world sits on three turtles, and the most heartbreaking is the idea that the universe was created by the inflation of a singular point.
It's like how people looked at the horizon 2000 years ago and thought that the world is flat horizon means the world is round.
The universe we see is 13G years old and its visible diameter to us at the starting point is a minimum of 26G light years.
Yaron,
The problem with this method, if I understand correctly, is that it is less accurate than the conventional method.
The conventional method relies on the fact that the power of supernovae of a certain type is always fixed with a very high precision. That's why the measurement is very accurate and therefore you can know very well exactly what the distance is there.
The method discussed in this article is to estimate the mass of black holes in the centers of galaxies. This result is cross-referenced with the illumination of the black hole's absorption disk and thus, one can get good information about the distance from there.
It is not clear to me what the method is based on in order to determine the mass of the black hole, but I find it hard to believe that it reaches the accuracy of determining the power of these supernovae. In fact, the only idea I have is that the method is related to finding the characteristic velocity in the vicinity of the black hole - this is a known relation, but its accuracy is at the level of orders of magnitude and not beyond (often known as "M-sigma relations").
If this is indeed the case, the method is less accurate and therefore complements the existing method.
@Tam, the energy flux decreases as the distance squared, since the luminosity is uniform over any spherical surface around the source.
How is the distance calculated as a function of the amount of energy?
"The method does not replace the conventional method of measuring distances in the universe, but it complements it"
I didn't understand, why can't it actually completely replace the existing method? What can the existing method measure that the new method cannot?