If the Higgs boson had not been discovered, scientists would have had to rethink some of the commonly held ideas about the nature of the particles, and begin a journey of research into other interesting open questions, Hawking said. * Prof. Elam Gross, who headed the search group for the Higgs in the Atlas experiment said: I actually think that finding the particle is physics at its best. "
The discovery of the elusive Higgs boson ended after a race that lasted decades and was hailed as a breakthrough, but the famous physicist, Prof. Stephen Hawking believes that the field could have been more interesting if the Higgs boson had remained a mystery.
In a lecture he gave at the Science Museum in London and which was quoted in the newspaper The Guardian Hawking said: "Physics would be more interesting if the Higgs boson had not been discovered. As you remember, two teams of experiments in Sarn, Atlas and CMS announced in July 2012 about the discovery of the particle. The Atlas team was headed by Prof. Elam Gross from the Weizmann Institute. This discovery represents the missing piece in the Standard Model puzzle.
However, if the Higgs boson had not been discovered, scientists would have had to rethink some of the commonly held ideas about the nature of the particles, and begin a journey of research into other interesting open questions, Hawking said.
He also adds that Peter Higgs and Francois Englert winning the Nobel Prize in Physics this year cost him $100 in an intervention with Gordon Kane of the University of Michigan.
Now he hopes that the resources freed up in Sarn will help to look for evidence of M-theory, which many believe holds the prospect of physics in which all four forces in nature are unified.
Prof. Elam Gross from the Weizmann Institute, who was in charge of the search for the Higgs in the Atlas project at CERN during the discovery period, says in response to Prof. Hawking's words in an interview with the scientist website: "Hawking is right in that we would not have found the Higgs in the mass range in which we expected that physics would have faced stalemate. The entire standard model that describes the elementary particles and forces in nature is based on the mechanism of imparting mass through the Higgs field. I actually think that finding the particle is physics at its best. Fifty years ago, the Higgs Wanglert (and a few others) predicted a particle, we built a sophisticated experiment and found it. This is the greatness of physics. The ultimate comprehension test. First we predict, then we search, then we find. Hawking is right in the content of his words but sinful in essence. He also says he hopes super symmetry is now found. If he were true to his words, he would say that it is also more interesting if we don't find super symmetry because then we will again find ourselves in an awkward situation... And interesting."
63 תגובות
It's a shame that Prof. Hawking speaks poorly of such beautiful physics. Maybe it's the effect of his aging? He also does not love Israel much, does not come to the conference. He probably returns to childhood in his old age. Too bad for him. It doesn't matter, others will come in his place.
If you kill one person you get 72 virgins how much is a billion dead worth? Where will you get so many virgins?
The question is who created us?
Why are we the only people on earth?
In my opinion there is a God and he is about to wipe out an entire continent of about a billion people who are Jews around and in them
I believe that God hates Jews
And he will destroy them and all their ancestors
There are Jews in two towers, American and Zionist
Right now the American is the problem
The 12th Imam Mahdi in the Zionist territory Jesus
This is what I saw in the prophecy 13 years ago and I think the time has come
I warned Homeland Security that God was coming
They think I'm crazy and don't believe me
ב
It is understandable and known to whom. Most of the things you ask about are understandable and known, but probably not to you.
1) How does the Michaelson Morley experiment relate to movement exactly? The Michaelson Morley experiment showed that the speed of light
It is one in a mobile or stationary system.
2) If the universe is expanding then the source of the light is moving away from us and since the source emitting the light is moving away
The wavelength of the light is red-shifted.
sympathetic:
It seems to me that you repeatedly explain what is understood and known and ignore what is not understood.
1) If there are two types of motion then what would have happened to the Michelson and Morley experiment at intergalactic distances?
Would the experiment have yielded the same results when both types of movement were considered?
2) Precisely the redshift is proof that the universe is not inflating. No swelling can produce a redshift. If the meter lengthens then the wavelength measured in meters does not change.
ב
It is not about the cube but about its chance of falling on a certain side. The chance of the cube
To fall on one of the sides is determined by its dynamics. Its dynamics are classic
and is determined by solving a differential equation. To solve a differential equation there is
Need for initial conditions (if the problem depends on time). Since we do not know the initial conditions
The speed and state of the die at the moment of its roll we refer to its chance of stopping when it is
on one of its sides as a random variable. The cube problem has initial conditions
(the speed, height and angle at which it was thrown) and also a final state on which side it fell.
The dynamics of the cube is chaotic and therefore we attribute a probability to it, it is very
Depends on how we threw it. The question we ask about falling stones is a question that the dynamics
Hers is not chaotic and therefore we can answer with certainty that they will reach the ground (by the way
We could have asked her a question about the cube). Randomness is the result of the question
that you ask and of your knowledge of the initial conditions of the system given the dynamics of
System.
The scattered stars in the sky seem random to you? You don't see our galaxy and when you look
In the telescope you see more galaxies. You see a lot of buildings in the sky, such buildings are called
order and they are not created randomly.
I'm sorry, but the theory of relativity does not assume any randomness or homogeneity of the universe.
As for the balloon, it can start from a point and inflate without being contained in three dimensions
This has mathematical definitions. The spread of the inflation is that the distances across the balloon
(Balloon faces only!) change over time. There is no obstacle for the balloon to start from a point or radius
Infantsmal is small and will swell.
Regarding your claim 3, well you are starting to understand. The redshift we see from distant galaxies
stems from the inflation of the universe in addition to the stars and galaxies having "normal" velocities relative to us
which we measure with the Doppler effect.
sympathetic:
A) The dice have no start conditions and no end conditions, therefore it is called random. Falling stones have termination conditions. Because of the termination conditions the movement is not random.
b) Randomness is not a feature of the cube. This is only our knowledge of the state of the cube.
c) The distribution of the stars in the universe certainly seems random and homogeneous to me. If it was not random and homogeneous, then the theory of relativity was not correct.
d) The balloon matter is not understood at all:
1) It is not possible that all the points of the envelope were ever one point.
2) The balloon can only be inflated if it is in a three-dimensional world. There is no way to inflate a two-dimensional balloon.
3) The swelling charge results: there is normal speed and there is speed as a result of swelling. There is normal momentum and there is momentum as a result of inflation. There is normal energy and there is energy as a result of swelling. In short, everything we have known until now has two components, one normal and the other as a result of swelling.
ב
First you claim that rolling a die is random because we don't take into account
The exact starting conditions, as you call them "history" well by chance
The cube is correct. On the other hand, the opposite conclusion you reach, because every system
that we have no information about its starting conditions, its "history", it is random, it is wrong.
The special thing about systems like the cube is that they are chaotic, meaning they have a high sensitivity to conditions
The beginning, to "history". You write if we don't know the history we have to assume
Random scatter, wrong. Let's look at a collection of stones falling from the same different heights
We don't know, can I not state with certainty without the need to assume a random distribution that
Will they all hit the ground in the end? That is, assuming randomness and more as required
Proof Contrary to what you write, it must be proven that this is a chaotic system.
Second, science is based on observation, look at the night sky at the scattering of stars
Does the sky seem random to you?
Your argument against the big bang goes something like this, what I don't understand is necessarily not true...
So first the big bang theory receives many confirmations from observations in particular from the background radiation
the cosmic and the distribution of the various elements in the universe, i.e. what percentage of the baryonic mass is it
Hydrogen and what percentage of helium and the like. Now for your "proof" that there can't be a big bang. I will give you
An example that contradicts your wrong claim that if all the points are "symmetric" it cannot
to be one point which is the big bang. Look at the spherical balloon and have all the dots on it
Are they "symmetrical" as you say? Do not place the balloon in a three-dimensional space, think for a moment that you are
Lives on the two-dimensional curved space that is the surface of the balloon. Now assume that the balloon is inflated so that in time
Somehow all the points on his face were in one point, this point can be identified with the big bang and
The universe with the face of the balloon. This is just an example to prove you wrong in your words and again that you are
Not understanding something doesn't make it wrong.
Remember the spams.
Maybe he is fretting under the influence of the moon which is not so negligible? 🙂
About a week ago we were flooded with spam in English, and the only way to stop it was to block common words in English
Israel:
In my opinion, it vibrates and the effect of the sun on the time difference between the satellite and the earth is negligible.
Can you stop waiting for all the comments for me?
From the article:
This is the well known and so long unsolved non-midnight problem [5,6]. In fact observations show that the rate of the atomic clocks on Earth and in the 24 GPS satellites is ruled by only and exclusively the Earth's gravitational field and that the effects of the solar gravitational potential are completely absent. Surprisingly and happily the GPS works better than expected from the TR.
So either he is scheming and making up data (unlikely, he claims that the problem is well known and also unsolved), or indeed the GPS clocks fit the relativistic predictions - as long as the effect of the sun's gravity, which should be significant, is ignored.
By the way - on Wikipedia it is claimed that the deviation of the clocks actually corresponds to the calculations of relativity (which is not entirely surprising because these are the calculations that were used to create the GPS) and the business works
Israel:
I also managed to skim the article and saw that this is what he claims, but it is not called delving into it.
Factual - the article was published more than a year ago and its author still does not appear in Wikipedia.
This probably indicates that those who did delve into things were not particularly impressed by them.
sympathetic:
a) What is randomness?
We say that throwing a die is random.
why?
Because we are not referring to the theory of the cube.
Why do we not refer to the history of the cube?
Because it is very difficult to know precisely the history of the cube.
If it were possible to know this was not a random result.
The same goes for the distribution of masses in the universe.
If we do not know the history then we must assume random distribution unless it can be proven with certainty that the distribution is not random.
And if it is proven with certainty that the dispersion is not random, then the reason for the non-random dispersion will also be clarified.
That is, the assumption of randomness does not require proof.
What requires proof is precisely the assumption of non-randomness.
b) Symmetry:
If all the points in the universe are symmetrical then it is not possible that a certain point is the point of the big bang.
If there is such a point then it breaks the symmetry.
That is, or every point in the universe is the point of the big bang.
Or there is one special point which is the big bang point.
If every point is a point of the big bang then what does that mean?
If there is a certain point that only it fulfills a certain condition that others do not, then this is against the theory of relativity.
Michael
The author offers an alternative explanation for the dark mass. He associates the anomaly of the rotation speed of the stars at the edges of the galaxies with the properties of the interstellar medium (quantum fluid like spatial medium, the same space that rules the propagation of light and the inertial motion of matter.) The relativity to the experiments.
These discrepancies include, among others:
1. A serious deviation in the delay of the GPS clocks from what was expected according to the calculations of the lengthening of the times in the relations.
2. Different arrival times of pulsed signals that are received by antennas on the ground. Antennas that rotate relative to the pulsar due to the rotation of the earth receive the same signal at different times, while those located on the straight line connecting the earth with the pulsar receive the signal at the exact same time.
Everything is explained according to him through that new quantum "website".
Israel:
I didn't get to go through the article (I still devote most of my time to my father) and from Mogi Netzer I don't think I'll hear more than what I heard (I quote his answer: "Unfamiliar, so I doubt it")
Michael
Did you maybe go through the article? Did you hear anything from Hagi?
B:
I have already suggested that you study before you try to replace the existing knowledge.
This is particularly relevant when proposing "new" ideas that are actually very old.
If you don't want to learn - at least read what is on Wikipedia about the subjects you are talking about:
Here you will see that the idea of black holes as dark mass is not new
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Here you will see that the density considerations you offer as an "explanation" for the formation of black holes are actually the consideration that led to the invention of the term in the first place. It's not that they discovered black holes and are now trying to explain them - in fact the situation is the opposite and the explanation for black holes existed long before they were able to see any evidence of their existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
ב
I see that you suffer from a lack of knowledge. The big bang theory is confirmed
From measuring the cosmic background radiation, therefore belief in it is based on knowledge and observations.
On the other hand, your statement about random density is not related to any knowledge or
An observation and therefore it is devoid of any foundation. If you still want to examine what density is
The mass in the universe should be looked at the dynamics of the distribution of mass in time.
From observations we learn that the theory that all the mass was concentrated in a point
In other words, the big bang is plausible and we have theories based on how
Large lumps of bullion mass are formed, i.e. galaxies and stars, and on the other hand we have
the claim that mass density is simply random???? who said that
Why is this so? Is it based on knowledge? On a theory? On an observation? it seems to me
Because the answer to all these questions is no. Therefore before you lecture on
What is the main issue in science to pay attention to the way you determine facts.
Who said that mass density is random, masses attract masses according to
Certain laws and this determines the distribution of a mass that is definitely not
Random, look at the night sky for a moment and argue that.
The hypothesis about mass density does not depend on any physical theory.
It's just random density.
Like any random quantity, the relative density of the mass in the universe can have random values between zero and one as a function of location (coordinates).
Regarding the Big Bang:
Blessed is the believer.
Belief comes from lack of knowledge.
On the other hand, in science the main thing is: knowledge, theory, observations and experiments that confirm the theory and predictions that the theory predicts and are found to be appropriate.
sympathetic,
As for the problems of gravity on the scale of a0, this is only true on the assumption that there is no dark matter (otherwise there is no problem).
As I mentioned to you a long time ago, until now it seems to me that the dark matter idea is much more established and requires much less outlandish assumptions than mond and the like.
If so, of course nature may think differently from me - we'll probably have to wait and see.
ב
The point is that raising residuals in physics is not independent of the existing theories.
If you believe in the big bang theory you must explain how the conditions were created
for the formation of black holes as the basis of dark matter. What Zvi explained to you is formed
Black holes in sufficient quantity to explain the dark matter requires the existence of fluctuations
large in density. It is impossible when you come up with a theory to ignore all the existing knowledge
Now.
deer
thank you for the answer. I would like to make another point unrelated to quantum gravity
In the context of the possibility of a new theory of gravitation. We learn from past experience
Because the discovery of new physics is associated with a characteristic scale. Quantum theory is related to scales
of hbar, on the other hand, special relativity is related to phenomena on the scale of speed
the light. On the other hand, the Grotation encounters problems with a certain characteristic scale and it is a scale
The acceleration a0 appearing in MOND. I do not mean to claim that MOND is therefore correct but that there is
Here is a new characteristic scale that when observing the phenomena on this scale a deviation from the theory is revealed
the seller Since the theory of gravitation (general relativity) is a relatively new theory, the fact that
Abnormalities in a certain area that were not previously measured indicate in my opinion the need for change
of the theory. Newton's classical theory, which has existed for a relatively long time, was also not examined
Until the middle of the twentieth century in rocks and extreme distances and when it is being tested now
Problems are revealed in it.
Without any relation to fluctuations or the big bang at all:
hypothesis:
The mass density in the universe (in galaxies) ranges from zero to a certain unknown maximum.
Starting from a certain density, black holes are formed where there is no light emission and this is the reason for the dark mass.
Israel:
As I said - I did not delve into the link and I am not a guarantor of the correctness of what is written in it.
Before I published it, I sent it to Hai Netzer from Tel Aviv University and asked if it was familiar to him. He said no.
Michael
In section 2 of your link it says that the extension of time. GPS is not so suitable for the predictions of relativity. In general, from what I've read (it's true that not everything) there are some unexplained things in the measurements of light coming from distant pulsars, and other things.
B',
The possibility that small black holes are the source of dark matter has been suggested before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_black_hole
The idea is that shortly after the Big Bang, the pressure and density were so great that random density fluctuations could have created black holes. These black holes will be different in terms of history from the normal black holes - but beyond their diameter (there is no reason to have a solar mass index like the stellar black holes), they will be black holes for everything and will also cause observational effects (Hawking radiation that may be observed and the tearing of passing stars - see link in the file).
The idea is not perfect and has problems too. A major problem is the calculation of the masses of these black holes, because the nature of these early fluctuations is not sufficiently known.
sympathetic,
If we exclude from the discussion the people of the corrected gavitation of sorts, the widespread belief is that the theory of relativity is a good classical approximation of reality (classical in a non-quantum sense). Therefore, the theory of relativity perfectly explains what happens in large bodies where the classic "smoothing" done by the theory of relativity does not harm the reliability of the results.
Assuming that this is indeed the defect of the theory of relativity, then its future corrections will not be a substitute for dark matter, since it is a galactic scale - a scale where the classical theory of relativity should, even assuming that it is not completely correct, work perfectly.
As for dark energy - there is no contradiction of the theory of relativity here, although there is definitely something dirty here - I will explain:
The theory of relativity allows the existence of dark energy (that is, its existence does not contradict the principle of equivalence), as long as it behaves mathematically like a cosmological constant, that is, as a scalar multiplied by a metric. Currently, the observations confirm the assumption that this is indeed how the cosmological constant behaves, so that there is no contradiction of the theory of relativity here again.
The problem with dark energy is simply that we don't understand where it comes from in the world, it's like dark matter (something we can't see), but much stranger - it's not simply a substance that doesn't react to light, it's something much weirder.
If so, under the assumption that the theory of relativity is a smoothed classical approximation of a true quantum theory of gravity, the discovery of the true theory will not obviate the need for dark matter and dark energy, which indeed it may explain. I don't see how this happens for dark matter so I'll explain it for dark energy. Let's say you find out that due to the quantot of space, there is a certain energy in the fundamental levels. This energy will be the energy of the void and perhaps it will behave as the dark energy behaves and here we have found an explanation for it - you did not cancel the classical result, you simply explained that the additional element comes from the quantot of the space which due to the absence of anything else and because of the large spaces, becomes very significant (of course to this day it Doesn't work otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion and the science readers would all be completely convinced of the truth of quantum cosmology).
And maybe the matter is not dark at all but is simply trapped inside a black hole (or black holes)?
Water blowing
The correction to relativity in GPS is manifested in the fact that the clocks of the satellites are set to run slower.
The special theory of relativity causes the clocks in satellites to appear slower by about 7 microseconds per day (their speed is -14000 km), while the general theory of relativity causes them to spin by about 45 microseconds per day (their height is about 20000 km) and there is another phenomenon called the Saniac phenomenon . The difference is 38 microns, which is a lot - about ten kilometers per day.
It's not exactly a "simple correction circuit in software"...
This is what I remember at this time... Don't catch me on the micro for a second 🙂
Miracles, I'm not saying that there is nothing in the relationship, but if all the best to GPS, it could be that the software simply has a circuit for correcting mistakes, drinking is healthy for me
Yehuda
Without considering both special and general relativity, GPS would not work at all.
Edmund Bertschinger, Professor of Physics and
Former Head, Department of Physics, MIT
He said in a lecture last year that dealt mainly with dark matter:
Scientists do not know the cause of nature's most obvious phenomena: Gravity.
Michael is right, indeed there are changes according to the theory of relativity at any speed and at any mass, but it is very small at small speeds and masses
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
By the way: here is an example ofAnother suggestion for explanation.
I haven't delved into it and I can't say if it's serious.
sympathetic:
Because until now we have not found any other explanation and the explanation of dark mass is consistent in terms of the connection it maintains between the mass necessary for the rotation of the galaxies and their gravitational dusting.
It is permissible to look for another explanation (although I find it hard to believe that there will be a model that predicts gravitational turbulence around an empty volume)
מ
The fact that the theory of relativity is incomplete indicates that it has problems of course
One might think that only a few small corrections can be made to it and it will be valid for the most part
the cases Historically, this is also how the black body radiation experiment that did not fit was looked at
to the classical theory and to our surprise we discovered that the world is fundamentally quantum. also theories
Apparently established institutions are undergoing a revolution and our natural tendency is to initially assume that this is not the case
necessary and it will be possible to correct the situation in some extreme cases. Scientific history teaches
us that it is not so. If relativity is indeed going to be replaced by a different theory
Why should we believe that dark matter is necessary to explain astronomical observations?
מ
The fact that the theory of relativity is incomplete indicates that it has problems of course
One might think that only a few small corrections can be made to it and it will be valid for the most part
the cases Historically, this is also how the black body radiation experiment that did not fit was looked at
to the classical theory and to our surprise we discovered that the world is fundamentally quantum. also theories
Apparently established institutions are undergoing a revolution and our natural tendency is to initially assume that this is not the case
necessary and it will be possible to correct the situation in some extreme cases. Scientific history teaches
us that it is not so. If relativity is indeed going to be replaced by a different theory
Why should we believe that dark matter is necessary to explain astronomical observations?
Of course Yehuda is wrong and the theory of relativity even has technological uses on Earth such as the GPS system
Yehuda:
As I said - there are lots of situations where the theory of gravitation has been proven wrong and I thought even you could find out some of them.
Want an example?
If you find a body that moves in a straight line in the direction of A and then turns at a sharp angle (across an inextensible curve) in the direction of B.
In general - movement along an unshearable curve will disprove gravitation.
This is of course fundamentally different from your theory that there is no dark matter that in a state where this matter does not maintain any non-gravitational interaction with the baryonic matter will not be disproved (simply because you do not accept its refutations).
sympathetic:
There is no doubt that the theory of relativity is incomplete (I would not use an incorrect phrase because it is possible and even probable that it is correct in most situations and there are extreme situations that limit its field of application).
Why do you ask?
ב
Dark mass does not arise from the theory of relativity and the theory of relativity hardly gives an answer to anything in the galaxy except maybe the black hole at its center.
The theory of relativity becomes meaningful only at high speeds and/or at huge and dense masses
And regarding your question, why are there galaxies in which there is no dark mass and others in which there is dark mass? This is what I expect others to answer for you.
To remind you, I do not believe in the existence of the dark mass.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
מ
If general relativity is not compatible with quantum theory, isn't it our responsibility
Claim that at least one of them is not true? Since the quantum theory is confirmed by countless
Experiments (as opposed to observations) to incredible levels, what is more, it does not require the existence of
Essay A_Pela Is it not logical to claim that the theory of gravitation that exists today is incorrect?
מ
If general relativity is not compatible with quantum theory, isn't it our responsibility
Claim that at least one of them is not true? Since the quantum theory is confirmed by countless
Experiments (as opposed to observations) to incredible levels, what is more, it does not require the existence of
Dark matter Isn't it logical to claim that the theory of gravitation that exists today is incorrect?
If there is one and only galaxy in which there is no dark mass, then the theory of relativity has failed us.
Even if there are a finite number of such galaxies.
Only if there are infinitely many such galaxies can we continue with the theory of relativity.
But then the question arises:
What is the difference ?
Why are there galaxies where there is no dark mass and others where there is dark mass?
Mikel
A scientific idea is an idea that can first be disproved.
I asked
Let's say that Newton's gravitation formula is not correct in galaxies, just let's say. How would you find out?
Can I get an answer?
After all, what you did with the dark mass is that you created an idea that will never be disproved
Isn't this a reason that requires not using this unscientific idea?
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
From my sister's computer
Yehuda:
There is no fundamental difference between percent fractions and many percents.
The gravity formulas require all mass to be taken into account and if you don't do this you won't get correct results.
As you know - the neutrino particles have already been proposed as the dark mass, but the problem with this is that their distribution does not match. If their distribution was appropriate, the problem would have already been solved and you would not have proposed a change in the laws of gravitation.
Note - the situation then was the same situation as today - exactly the same situation - and even then they would deduce the amount of neutrino particles from gravitation, but there was not a single physicist who would not agree with the calculation.
That's before even getting into refuting the unrelated arguments you keep trying to make to support this argument.
As for the other arguments (which, as I said, do not belong to the tuning demagogue) - a change in the laws of gravity cannot deal with the findings:
There are differences between the different galaxies and that is a fact. Even galaxies that look the same behave differently.
The only possible conclusion is that the difference between them is invisible.
It can be argued that this difference lies in an invisible mass and there is a lot of logic in this - we have already discovered invisible particles such as the neutrino particles so this would not be a novelty.
It is impossible to claim that it is a difference in G because a difference in G would not cause (among other things) a gravitational crowding around spaces that appear to be empty.
It is really easy to describe situations where the gravity formulas were unfounded and the current situation is simply not like that.
But if we are dealing with hypothetical questions - assuming there is a truly dark mass - one that does not interact in any way with the electromagnetic radiation or the baryonic matter - not even indirectly through the other nuclear forces, but only through gravitation, are you even able to think of an experiment that would convince you of its existence?
Dear Michael
Please do not compare the fractions of a percent of the deviations in the solar system that arise from the planets, with the hundreds and thousands of percent of the dark matter in the galaxy.
I will ask a complete question, a thought exercise:-
Let's say that Newton's gravitation formula is not correct in galaxies, just let's say. How would you find out?
If you allow yourself to add as much (dark) mass as you want then you would never be able to discover it.
Give me one way you would find out. Or is there no doubt that it must always be true in the galaxies?
I have a doubt.
Good night,
We'll see what's new in science, and we'll go to sleep
Sabdarmish Yehuda
post Scriptum. I didn't forget that I owe you an answer about the "health of the galaxy"
Indeed, he had no choice but to read Harry Potter where things are more interesting
Maybe it will help :
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/10/full/
Yehuda:
you did not succeed.
Far from it!
Even in the solar system, all the planets and moons must be taken into account in order to fully understand the movement of its components.
As has already been stated thousands of times - some of the planets were discovered precisely because of this fact.
Note also that even in a galaxy without dark matter, you have to take into account all the matter that is in the sphere that a given star surrounds. This is a fact you are ignoring.
In fact, the only problem with dark matter is not that it is added to the calculations (because that is also done for normal matter) but only that it is not seen.
M94 behaves as it does because it has no dark matter.
In other galaxies there is a but because its amount in each galaxy is different, the galaxies behave differently - just as they would behave if the dark matter was replaced by baryonic matter.
In short - your answer - again - does not refer to the words at all.
deer
The Nobel Prize was awarded to the discoverers of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. It is speculated that it is because of dark energy that comes blah blah blah from the void. I don't like such energies. I would be surprised if the Nobel Prize Committee mentioned that they gave it for the discovery of dark energy. but maybe
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
That's how it is when there is nothing to say... and really, for many years Hawking has been full of statements that mean nothing.
Yehuda,
The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for the discovery of dark energy
https://www.hayadan.org.il/nobel-phyiscics-0410114/
It is not clear to me what and why Hawking is complaining.
To Tomi I thought that science seeks to reach the study of physical truth as far as the intellectual and experimental tools allow the human being. And here, when the missing particle in the standard model was finally discovered - Hawking loses interest.
Apparently those who lose interest in discovering the truth were not interested in it in the first place. The main thing for him is to come up with theories that don't matter so much if it is not possible - at least in the foreseeable future - to confirm them. It is good for the publication of popular books and invitations to lectures and of course for the bank account, it attracts media, it satisfies the egocentrism of a scientist who probably has no reason to give him a Nobel Prize, even though he is the 'greatest theoretical physicist of all' in his own eyes and in the eyes of a few other brainiacs and Pancha judges.
It is possible to perform a thought experiment, such as Schrigner's Cat Paradox.
Mikel
After all, there is a fundamental difference between the mass in the solar system and the mass in the spiral galaxies. The mass of the Sun does not change if we measure it with the Earth or any other planet. There is no need to add dark mass in the solar system for the business to work. In the galaxies the story is different. If we take a star close to the center it will give us a rotation speed just according to the mass seen in the center. However, if we start moving away, the visible mass will no longer be enough and we will have to add a dark mass between the new position and the previous position. And so on, the same story, the visible mass will always not be enough and we will need the addition of the dark mass, even in the clouds of gas and dust around the galaxy
Unlike M94 which (only?) does not need to add the dark mass, just like in the solar system.
In order for me not to have a problem, all the galaxies had to work like M94.
A substantial difference.
This is my opinion, and I really try, and I hope... that I succeeded?
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
You are all confused.
I decided to adopt Yehuda's advice and say that the formula for gravity is simply G
This G is of course a function that varies from galaxy to galaxy, from distance to distance, and from one pair of bodies to another. I mean - if anything, then already! Why do all these letters so and so mean nothing!
Now you all know exactly how to calculate gravitation and you have to admit that it is much simpler than what you were taught before.
And something a little more serious for Judah.
I mean - I already asked him before, but the phrase "a little more serious" is meant to describe the answer he might give this time.
I mentioned that this matter of determining the mass in a variable manner according to the formula is used by us at every step in the fields accepted by his honor - that is, in the fields of the solar system.
I said that agreeing with this property of the mass does not constitute a limitation in His Honor's view in the solar system and I asked why in his opinion it constitutes a limitation in other regions.
Since I asked, many letters have flowed in Yehuda's responses but not even one answer.
I ask for an answer. Not one that talks about other limitations that Yehuda thinks the dark mass has and not one that talks about his misunderstandings about the cosmological principle. All I want is for him to say why the ability to calculate, which he does not see as a disadvantage of the mass term in the solar system, actually seems to him to be a disadvantage in other places.
I'm not asking to answer gently - I'm just asking to answer the matter finally!
one
Dark mass and energy have yet to be discovered. They are in the standard of a proposition that should confirm itself.
And by the way, no one has received a Nobel Prize related to mass and/or dark energy
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I regret the discovery of dark matter and dark energy
In general, the trend of the last decades in physics is very non-family and child-friendly
True, he has a cool name.
And it is true that he is crippled throughout his body and speaks like a robot.
But that's no reason to quote every nonsense he says