Astrophysicist Michael Turner is convinced that we live in the golden age of cosmology. Big ideas and powerful instruments bring cosmologists closer to understanding the fundamental processes that created and shaped the universe. The answers are in the quark soup
By: Michael S. Turner
The universe is so vast, both in space and time, that for most of human history it has been beyond the reach of our instruments and understanding. This changed dramatically in the 20th century. The developments were driven in equal measure by big ideas - from Einstein's general theory of relativity to modern elementary particle theories - and powerful instruments - from the 100-inch and 200-inch reflecting telescopes built by George Ellery Hale, which took us outside the Milky Way galaxy And the Hubble Space Telescope that brought us back to the days when the galaxies were born.
100 years ago the universe was simple: eternal, infinite, unchanging, containing one galaxy in which several million stars are visible. The picture today is more complete and much richer. The cosmos was created 13.7 billion years ago in the big bang. A fraction of a second after the beginning, the universe was a hot, formless soup of the most elementary particles: quarks and leptons. As the universe expanded and cooled, structures formed, layer by layer: neutrons and protons, atomic nuclei, atoms, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters and finally superclusters.
The observable part of the universe currently contains 100 billion galaxies each containing 100 billion stars and probably a similar number of planets. The galaxies themselves are held together by the gravitational force of the mysterious dark matter. The universe continues to expand and it turns out that it is doing so at an ever-increasing rate due to dark energy, an even more mysterious form of energy, where gravity is a repulsive rather than an attractive force.
The central theme in the story of our universe is its evolution from the simplicity of the quark soup to the complexity we see today in galaxies, stars, planets and life. These features have formed one after the other over billions of years under the guidance of the basic laws of physics. In the beginning of their journey back to Genesis, the cosmologists go through the well-established history of the universe down to the first millionth of a second. Then, until the 10th part to the minus 34 power of the first second, the ideas are solidified but the evidence is not solid.
Beyond that, we only have hypotheses about what happened in the first moments right after the formation of the universe. Although the absolute origin of the universe is still beyond our grasp, we have some fascinating guesses, including the multiverse idea that the universe is made up of an infinite number of sub-universes disconnected from each other.
The dark age - darkness over an abyss
Edwin Hubble showed in 1924, using the 100-inch-diameter Hawker telescope on Mount Wilson, that fuzzy nebulae, which had been studied and puzzled for several centuries, were actually galaxies just like our own. Hubble thereby expanded the universe known to us 100 billion times. A few years later he showed that the galaxies are moving away from each other in a regular pattern that can be described using a mathematical relationship known today as "Hubble's Law". According to this law, the farther away the galaxy is, the faster it moves away. The "running" of Hubble's law back in time is the order of a big bang that happened 13.7 billion years ago.
Hubble's law has a convenient interpretation through the theory of general relativity: it is space itself that expands, and the galaxies are simply carried in space. Light is also stretched, or shifted to the red - a process that reduces its energy and therefore, as the universe expands, it cools. Expansion provides the story that explains how today's universe came to be. When cosmologists imagine a backward projection of the film describing the evolution of the universe, they see a universe that has become denser, hotter, extreme in its conditions and simpler. When we study the beginning of the universe, we also examine the hidden ways of working of nature through the use of a particle accelerator more powerful than any accelerator built on Earth - the big bang in and of itself.
When astronomers look into space through telescopes they are looking back in time. And the bigger the telescope, yes they peer into an earlier time. The light coming from distant galaxies reveals ancient ages, and the degree to which this light is redshifted indicates how much the universe has expanded in the years since then. The peak redshift is eight times, and it indicates a time when the size of the universe was a ninth of its size today and its age did not exceed a few hundred million years.
Computer simulations show that the first stars and galaxies formed when the universe was about 100 million years old. Before that, the universe went through a period called the "Dark Age" where it was almost completely dark. Space was then filled with a monochromatic slurry consisting of five parts of dark matter for every one part of hydrogen and helium, which became thinner as the universe expanded.
The density of matter was not uniform and gravity acted to magnify these density differences: denser regions spread more slowly than less dense regions. When the universe was 100 million years old, the densest regions were no longer expanding more slowly than others, but actually began to collapse. The mass of matter in any such region was about the mass of a million suns. These were the first bodies in the universe held together by gravity.
Dark matter accounted for most of the mass of these bodies, but, as its name suggests, it is unable to emit or absorb light, and thus remains in a vast cloud. In contrast, the gaseous hydrogen and helium emitted light, lost energy and gathered in the center of the cloud. Eventually the center collapsed further and further until stars were formed.
These first stars were much more massive than today's stars: hundreds of solar masses each. They existed for a very short time, exploded and left behind the first heavy elements. Over the billion years that followed, gravity gathered these clouds, which melted about a million suns, and formed the first galaxies.
The radiation emitted from the primordial hydrogen clouds, which has been red-shifted to a very large extent by the expansion of the universe, is to be picked up by huge arrays of radio antennas, whose total collection area will reach a square kilometer or so. When built, these arrays will be able to see the stars and galaxies of the first generation ionizing the hydrogen and bringing about the end of the dark ages.
And there was light: a faint glow of a warm beginning
Beyond the dark ages is the glow of the hot big bang redshifted 1,100 times. This radiation, which was originally in the visible light (red-orange glow) was diverted beyond the infrared to the microwave range. Today we see a wall of microwaves filling the sky: the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) discovered in 1964 by Arno Panzias and Robert Wilson.
This radiation allows a glimpse of the soft universe at the age of 380,000 years, in the age when atoms were formed. Before that, the universe was a nearly uniform soup of atomic nuclei, electrons, and photons. When this soup cooled to a temperature of about 3,000 degrees Kelvin, the nuclei and electrons bonded together to form atoms. Electrons no longer caused the scattering of photons and they could cross space unhindered. These photons reveal a simpler universe, in a time before stars and galaxies.
The American Space Agency's Background Radiation Research (COBE) satellite discovered in 1992 slight differences of about 0.001% in the intensity of the background radiation, which reflect a slight bumpiness in the distribution of matter. This primordial bumpiness was enough to form the seeds of galaxies and the larger structures that would later form under the influence of gravity. The spatial map of the differences in the background radiation, spread across the sky, encodes the basic properties of the universe, such as its overall density and composition, and also hints at its first moments. Careful study of the differences revealed a great deal of information about the universe.
From this point, as we project further back the film of the evolution of the universe, we see the primordial plasma becoming hotter and denser. Before the universe was 100,000 years old, the energy density of radiation was higher than the density of matter, and this prevented the matter from clumping together. This point in time therefore marks the beginning of the gravitational organization of all the structures we see in the universe today.
Answers in the quark soup
Earlier than a microsecond, even protons and neutrons could not exist and the universe consisted of a soup of nature's most basic building blocks: quarks, leptons and force carriers (photons, W bosons, Z bosons and gluons). We can be sure that the quark soup did exist because experiments with particle accelerators have created similar conditions here on Earth today.
To study this era, cosmologists rely not on bigger and more powerful telescopes, but on powerful ideas in particle physics. The development of the standard model of particle physics 30 years ago led to bold hypotheses, including string theory, which attempt to answer the question of how elementary particles and seemingly completely different forces come together.
As it turned out, these new ideas have cosmological implications just as important as the original idea of a hot big bang. They hint at unexpected connections between the world of the biggest things and the world of the smallest. Answers to three key questions: the nature of dark matter, the asymmetry between matter and antimatter, and the origin of the lumpy quark soup itself, are beginning to become clear.
It now appears that the early quark soup phase was the birthplace of dark matter. The identity of dark matter remains unknown, but its existence is well established. Our galaxy and every other galaxy, as well as galaxy clusters, are held together by the gravitational force of invisible dark matter. Whatever the dark matter is, its reaction with normal matter must be weak. If not, he would have manifested his existence in other ways.
Attempts to find a unifying framework for the forces and particles of nature have led to the prediction of the existence of stable, or long-lived, particles that may make up dark matter. These particles should be found today in the remains of the quark soup and have weak reactions with atoms.
The early quark soup phase also holds within it the reason why today's universe is composed primarily of matter rather than a mixture of matter and antimatter. Physicists believe that the universe originally contained equal amounts of both, but at some point a slight excess of matter was created: roughly one more quark for every billion antiquarks. This imbalance ensured that enough quarks survived after the annihilation that occurred when quarks met antiquarks as the universe expanded and cooled.
More than 40 years ago, experiments conducted in particle accelerators revealed that the laws of physics slightly favor matter, and that in a series of reactions between particles that occurred in the very early stages of the universe, and which we still do not understand, this slight bias resulted in an excess of quarks.
It is believed that the quark soup itself appeared in an extremely ancient time, in a burst of cosmic expansion known as swelling, or inflation. This swelling, caused by the energy of a new field (roughly equivalent to the electromagnetic field) called the swelling field, may explain basic properties of the cosmos, such as its general uniformity and the bumpiness that seeded the galaxies and other structures in the universe. As the swelling field decayed, it released the rest of its energy into the quarks and other particles, thus creating the heat of the Big Bang and the quark soup itself.
The swelling leads to a deep connection between the quarks and the cosmos: quantum fluctuations in the swelling field on a subatomic scale swelled in this rapid expansion to astrophysical sizes and became the seeds of all the structures we see today. In other words, the pattern we see in the background radiation is a giant picture of this subatomic world. Observations of the background radiation confirm this prediction, and this serves as the strongest evidence that a bulge, or something similar to it, did occur very early in the history of the universe.
The birth of the universe
As cosmologists try to go further back and understand the beginning of the universe itself, the ideas become less solid. Einstein's general relativity provided us with a theoretical basis for a century of progress in understanding the evolution of the universe. But it does not coincide with the second pillar of modern physics: quantum theory.
The biggest challenge of the field is to unite the two teachings. Only through a unified theory can we approach and handle the earliest moments of the universe, the era called the Planck era, which occurred when the universe was less than 10 to the minus 43 seconds old and space-time itself took shape.
Temporary attempts to create a unified Torah have led to some fascinating hypotheses about the very essence of our existence. String theory, for example, predicts the existence of additional dimensions in space and the possibility of other universes floating in this vast space. The event we call the Big Bang may have been a collision of our universe with another universe. Combining string theory with the idea of inflation resulted in perhaps the most daring idea yet, the idea of the multiverse. According to this idea, the universe consists of infinite units, disconnected from each other, and in each of them local laws of physics prevail.
The multiverse idea, which is still in its infancy, brings with it two theoretical findings. First, the equations describing the swelling show very clearly that if the swelling has occurred once, it should occur repeatedly and over time create an infinite number of swelling areas. Nothing can move between these areas, so they do not affect each other. Second, string theory suggests that in each such region other physical parameters apply, such as the number of spatial dimensions and the type of stable particles.
The idea of the multiverse provides new answers to two of the biggest questions in science: what happened before the big bang and why the laws of physics are the way they are (or as Einstein put it in his famous saying "Did God have a choice" in choosing the laws). The multiverse eliminates the question of what happened before the big bang because there were endless beginnings in big bangs, and each bang created its own burst of inflation. Similarly, Einstein's questioning is also pushed aside: in the infinity of universes, all the possibilities of the laws of physics have already been tried, and therefore there is no special reason for the laws that govern our universe.
Cosmologists have mixed feelings about the multiverse. If there really is no way to communicate between the disconnected sub-universes then we cannot hope to test their existence - they seem to lie outside the realms of science. A part of me wants to scream: One universe at a time, please! But on the other hand, the multiverse solves many conceptual problems. If the idea is correct, then Hubble's achievement, which enlarged the universe only 100 billion times, and the removal of the Earth from the center of the universe in the 16th century by Copernicus, appear to be only small steps in understanding our place in the cosmos.
Modern cosmology has taught us a lesson in humility. We are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons, which together make up only 4.5% of the universe, and we exist only thanks to weak connections between the largest and the smallest. Equally, cosmology is inherently arrogant. On the face of it, the idea that we can understand something as vast in space and time as our universe is a ridiculous idea. This strange mixture of humility and arrogance has advanced us greatly in the last century in our understanding of the universe as it is today and its origin. I am confident of further progress in the coming years, and firmly believe that we are living in the golden age of cosmology.
Michael S. Turner (Turner) was the pioneer of the interdisciplinary union of particle physics, astrophysics and cosmology and headed the research of the American National Academy that laid the foundation for the vision of the new field at the beginning of this decade. The full article appeared in the latest issue of the magazine "Scientific American - Israel" published by Ort
More on the subject on the science website
- Has scientific research been harmed as a result of the Bush plan to divert resources to flights to the moon and Mars? (One Turner quoted in it)
- The particle accelerator works at one-seventh of its power but has already broken the power record for particle accelerators
- Watch the formation of the universe using microwaves
95 תגובות
The star explodes
in an explosion of stars
90
It is possible to produce long steel rods only in parts and not as one complete part with a length of 40,000 km.
You write "Is it theoretically possible to create a completely straight and balanced steel rod with a length of 40,000 km as the circumference of the Earth"
Theoretically you can.
Practically - no!
Because first of all if you could you wouldn't ask this question.
Besides, you can't make anything that long without considering gravity pulling it down.
"...and place it, so that it should circle the ball and meet its own starting point."
For this you will have to bend the rod, and this has nothing to do with the circularity of the KDA.
In order for the force of gravity to bend the rod in such a way that the rod bends exactly according to the circularity of the rod from the force of gravity alone, the force of gravity must be applied at different pressures in each section along the length of the rod - which is impossible because the force of gravity (or the gravitational constant) has a constant value and does not change.
I have not yet found an answer to the question of whether the earth is really round?
According to common sense and the facts it is certainly one, but is it theoretically possible to create a steel rod
perfectly straight and balanced with a length of 40,000 km as the circumference of the earth, and place it, so that it should circle the sphere and meet its own starting point.
A. Will the steel rod bend and round according to the spherical structure of the earth?
B. If the rod was made of glass would it break?
third. If the rod is created in space, and as mentioned 40,000 km long, and we slowly land it on Earth, what will happen?????
Wow very interesting
This is what I'm talking about, man, wait for the results of the LHC experiment, as soon as they understand what they will discover, they will start inventing new laws for physics (probably also new) that will be based on nanotechnology that already exists today.
It will be possible to manipulate atoms like we have not done until now.
Technology is going to jump a step as he read in the last 100 years and in the last 60 years with the computers.
(Continued) As you in the laboratory look through the lenses of the microscope at the term on the glass surface on which there is some substance to be tested (blood, bacteria, etc.) This is the way to look to distinguish and understand - you cannot be smeared there under the microscope to understand who you are and what you are doing there. Despite all the progress and efforts, man is still "smeared" on the inspection glass and tries to decipher the riddle of his being there - if you find a way to be the observer through the microscope lenses then maybe there is a chance to understand.
(Continued) As Archimedes said - that he needed an external fulcrum and then he could move the world - we also need a theoretical or other external fulcrum... to really begin to understand. We need a kind of "island" where the known laws of physics do not have an effect - an observation point - an objective external view. Is the point where the known laws of physics collapse also the point where other and unknown laws of physics begin their effect?
(Continued) And as long as we are in the spaces that obey the known laws of physics, our understanding of our formation and the universe is limited - to understand we are supposed to be outside the spaces of time and others outside the universe that obeys the known laws of physics for its various theories rabbi generalizes the theory that eliminates multiple universes and so on - as long as we think about The Big Bang as the point of creation of all matter is time and that point in the space of time is the point where all the laws of physics both begin and collapse and we have no idea what caused that event to form the universe and what preceded it - the calculations of the distances whether it is 13.5 or 27 billion years is secondary.
We all hope to find an explanation, but my feeling is like a person born inside the body of a giant whale or another giant creation and as long as he is inside he cannot understand what he is inside and how he got there and so on - you have to be outside the whale's body to see the whale and even then it will be The beginning of the road to understanding.
I came across this video after I had already written the things above, so I suggest you watch the short video in the link and maybe you will understand what I'm talking about (there is a cute girl who explains briefly so it's worth watching)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAiUnDEwhZo&feature=related
Ruby
I will not disprove your claim about the rabbit but on the contrary justify it as it exists and I will explain:
If in that "compatible universe" there is more matter that is transferred from our universe, then the matter is composed of a rabbit and the matter is composed and can be transparent and also knows how to perform the act of drinking and also has a carrot and also knows how to sing and knows Yiddish.
And since the compatible universe is filled with matter up to 100 percent by volume, then a situation can arise in which a transparent rabbit lives that drinks carrot juice and sings in Yiddish (because all the matter mixes with itself).
Regarding the second question:
Between my "thesis" and Hezi's it is impossible to distinguish observationally because my "thesis" has not been proven (neither the standard model nor quantum mechanics have been proven) and no tools have yet been built to prove my "thesis".
But, my "thesis" is almost entirely if not entirely physical theory (perhaps even bordering on fiction)
Today, physics is mostly theoretical, and mathematics comes to the aid of physics to prove it with the help of mathematical equations which, after the proof, enables the construction of scientific equipment and tools or new technology.
More and more equations are always added to mathematics to scientifically describe physical reality.
Advanced physics has always bordered on fiction whether it was 500 years ago or 200 years ago or today with the subject of teleportation or time travel and such...
Physics needs new mathematical equations to describe "new" processes in nature that are based on physical behaviors in nature. It's always worked that way scientifically.
Today, as I see it, mathematics has reached a limit where it has difficulty proving the "new" physical phenomena observed, for example, in measurements of subatomic particles. That is, the measurements are conducted on a physical basis and proven with the help of mathematical equations, but there are physical phenomena that are still not explained from a mathematical equation point of view because the equations do not add up and they do not know how to calculate the data obtained empirically in the measurements. For example, what is that disturbance in measuring devices that prove it mathematically but from a physical point of view it is very complicated to explain like a particle or rather an anti-particle.
What I have presented here as my "thesis" is an attempt to theoretically explain from a physical point of view what this antiparticle or particle is and how it works out in our universe, but not only that, my "thesis" does not stop there, it continues a little further and also logically and simply explains how This connects with string theory and with the multiverse. in a way that you too can understand,
The thing is, if you haven't understood by now, then everything will be mumbo jumbo for you.
I'll try to explain the idea a little more, maybe it will make you understand better what I'm saying:
Try to imagine that our universe consists of a singular point from which the big bang takes place.
I claim that there are two singular points that interact between them. The two points are like two parallel universes where one universe is a drop (let's say a particle) different from the corresponding universe.
Imagine that a line runs between the two points - a "string" and on the "string" there is a transfer of particles from one point to another (singular point) and thus the string interacts between point A and B.
If you look at a point and a string and another point on the X-axis then -inverting the axis- you will be able to see that the point turns into a line (string) and the string into a point and the second point also into a string.
A situation is obtained where the point connects to the string and the string connects to the second point. And each point connects to a string and each string connects to a point and thus a "network" is created that consists of a line, a point, a line that maintains an interaction between the two points on the string. And the strings also interact with each other.
I can go on but you have to be crazy to understand it (I hope they don't steal my thesis and make a PhD on it) 🙂
Ruby,
It turns out she didn't understand what I was thinking...
I am actually claiming that science must rely first and foremost on observations...
Ghost
Disprove the fact that there is a parallel universe in which a transparent rabbit lives that drinks carrot juice and sings in Yiddish...
You see, contrary to what Hazi thinks, science is built not only on "theories", but mostly
On the observations that lead/disprove/prove and confirm theories...
Not that I understood what you were claiming at all, but between you and yourself, if what you say is true, how
It is possible to distinguish from an observational point of view between your "thesis" and that of Hazi for example...
ghost moon:
First of all, try to understand yourself what you are writing.
Anyone who can refute my "claims" is welcome, but in as scientific a way as possible, even if my descriptions are unscientific and may seem delusional. I am sure it will be complicated because it is difficult to refute such claims. So please.
Robi, as I understand in the times of two thousand three four and five thousand years ago and maybe more they used to calculate the time before movements of celestial bodies. When science developed and with it technology, they started to calculate time more precisely, but still based on celestial bodies for measurement. Today, as I understand it, time is still based on the measurement of the celestial bodies, but there is also advanced mathematics that explains time in the best way to date.
From a philosophical-scientific point of view (as I understood from the Wikipedia definition of the concept of time) it is when an object is in state A and the same object is in state B, then the difference between A and B is measured on a time axis (probably in some mathematical equation) as I understood the definition of the transition from state A to state B, Creates a gap that is measured in "time" and called (perhaps philosophically) "process".
That is, "time" is a type of "process", a type of action, interaction.
What you claim: What is speed without time? (For example) I say this: I'm not saying that there is no time, I'm saying that time exists and it works the way it works today mathematically and philosophically and physically.
And in my opinion, time is a type of interaction between particles and other particles (eg anti-particles).
What I tried to explain in response 73 71 is that time is not curved and stops working in the way it works today, nor is the description of the concept changing, but the longest distance in space from point A to point B changes time from a "mathematical" point of view (in equations and all kinds of measurements) in a way that time gets Instead of the highest value - the lowest value and vice versa. I tried to explain it with a "stupid description" that our universe has an anti-universe (like anti-particle to particle) and our universe is made up of more anti-particles than particles (ie more anti-matter than matter). And that these anti-particles destroy the particles in our world (which we see as radiation) and turn them into legislators in our "anti-universe" which gradually fills with matter while our universe is emptied of matter until our universe becomes a singular point and the "anti-universe" becomes all (100 percent by volume) ) to matter and at this point time equalizes until what was our universe turns from a singular point into a universe that has more matter as a result of the transition of matter from the anti-universe to our universe. Being exists in such a state only in a universe that has more antimatter that destroys the universe every time anew and creates a big bang regularly (for example forever).
anonymous,
I'm not an expert,
I'm just trying to beat the expert…
Hezi
We want to hear your opinion as an expert
To my chest and ghost, believe it or not I even get the general spirit of what you two are saying.
I agree with Hazi's assessment of the matter-antimatter equivalence (and many scientists agree)
except that in practice (observations) there is a huge lack of equivalence, I also have a harte barte theory that can
to explain it, but I'm not a scientist... and it's clear to me that it's quite likely that it's a harte barte...
Regarding your definition (ghost) of time...the truth is that there is no connection between what you say
for some definition of time.
Whether time is a basic concept or whether it is a result of other basic concepts, there is no situation
which you can define by using actions/interactions/speeds/movement etc
Because all these concepts are based on the concept of time - meaning that the definition of circular!
You define time (engraver...) in terms of movement/speed/action and then the question arises
What is movement without time, what is speed without time and what is action without time...
Hope you understand…
Beyond that, it is important to note that in my opinion this whole discussion and in fact also the serious scientific discussion
There is not even a hint of a physical explanation for the existence of a present point!
How difficult is the situation? critical!!! Even a clever philosophical attempt to call a feeling
An illusory present still does not solve the need for why the illusion is of a certain moment...
Hey look at least I'm trying to back up my "craziness" with "silly descriptions" and "even sillier" conclusions. At least for me it is understandable and I try to explain my idea. what are you doing I do not know.
Matter may have been created as you say from separation into anti-matter. But before that he was separated from something that caused him to separate and what I am saying is that what causes this separation is the antimatter of this substance. He caused that matter to separate into matter and antimatter. And what you call "is from nothing" then the "nothing" is the same antimatter. If our universe had an equal amount of matter and antimatter then the universe could not exist in its state.
If there is one more particle than antiparticle in the universe, then there is more matter in the universe. If it is the other way around in terms of particles, then there is more antimatter (that is, a type of radiation) and a situation where there is an equal amount of particle and antiparticle cannot exist in the state of our universe because the universe in such a state does not Creates matter and does not destroy matter and does not change.
Ghost:
"I say something like this":
In our universe there is an equal amount of matter and antimatter...
The logic is simple: matter is created "from a source" by separating into matter and anti-matter.
Therefore their quantity must be equal..,
I say something like this: in our universe there is more antimatter and in the parallel universe of our universe (hereinafter "anti-universe") there is more matter. In such a situation, the anti-particles in our universe "destroy" the other particles (describe a situation where a living organism destroys itself at the particle level) and those ("the destroyed") move at a speed that is above the speed of light in a vacuum and become matter in our parallel universe. In such a situation our universe disintegrates until it becomes a singular point and the parallel universe (our "anti-universe") becomes 100 percent matter and after it becomes such it explodes like in the big bang and starts from the beginning.
Ruby, look what I wrote down was an attempt to describe Harte Berta. In my opinion, the term "time" is regrettable.
My idea of "time" is this: in my opinion the antiparticles are particles that produce other particles they also produce mass for them. Those particles that is - "anti-particles" move at a speed that exceeds the speed of light by many values, perhaps astronomical values, which are many times more than the speed of light in a vacuum.
Because the anti-particle travels through space at such a speed, the human eye cannot see it, because even if the measuring device detects such a particle, there is no way for the human eye to rely on even a scrap of information.
The anti-particle moving in space distorts time because the particle appears in a measuring device, but this is before we have time to receive information about it. And when you try to test it, then the anti-particle reveals the nature of a particle and then the particle gives an indication that it exists in space. But that particle is actually the anti-particle of the particle that is "in space" closest to us, and actually in terms of "time" is at the other end of the universe as far as possible from the place of measurement. Therefore, I think that time does curve beyond the speed which is the speed of light in a vacuum and the antiparticle actually appears in the universe we can see and its antiparticle is at the farthest end of the universe.
In my opinion, what we see is actually the anti-particles of the particles that exist beyond our universe (like a "mirror image" that is obtained when looking at "our universe") and when an anti-particle travels at a speed that exceeds the speed of light in a vacuum, it is not visible but is detected when it collides with the exact same particle (ie its anti) and in the exact same space in the universe, only having an astronomical distance from us in terms of time.
What is good here,
that there are "experts" who consider themselves qualified,
Just because they recited correctly in the university exams,
What those professors, who themselves do not understand...
And one more thing, when we see a body moving away from us, for example a comet, we don't think that it is moving away because space is expanding, but that it is moving in space, so why in the case of the receding galaxies is the conclusion that space itself is expanding?
Eddie, thank you for your detailed response - 59.
If one more ignorant question is allowed, you say that: "Space cannot be 'empty' - because then it is impossible to understand how the 'force' of gravity works. For this, a 'medium' is needed - the one that transfers the gravity. That's why they talked about 'Ether' in the past."
After all, light and electromagnetic waves do move in a vacuum, so why not think that gravitation is something similar? Why must there be a mediator?
Thanks in advance
sympathetic,
Regarding the big bang - when I said that "expansion is a fact that emerges from all observations" I also meant the discovery of the background radiation by Arno Pancias Wilson - dramatic evidence of the big bang. Today it is a bit difficult for us to understand the theory of the steady state from the beginning (because we have become so used to the theory of the big bang and the observational findings in its favor), but in my opinion it was not much less plausible than the hypothesis about the 'dark matter' of today...
As for the standard model - before the matter/fate of the Higgs boson became clear at the experimental level (and it will become clear within the next few months or the next two years), you are right that there is nothing to talk about 'cloudiness' in connection with the standard model. Indeed, I did not speak of such 'clouds' in connection with him. But there is room for discomfort (as opposed to discomfort - since indeed the model works perfectly), and I talked about that in the previous comment.
As for Prof. Higgs himself - the British intelligentsia (and not only it) is partly anti-Israel, not declared anti-Semitic - because today it is not politically correct to be anti-Semitic.
But let there be no mistakes here - very extreme anti-Israel rhetoric, especially among such educated and intelligent people, when there is no attempt to see things in proportion or in any kind of balance, is a sure sign of latent anti-Semitism, and those greater and better than me diagnose this. When Prof. Higgs refused to set foot on the soil of Israel to receive a prestigious award, and accompanies his failure with venomous rhetoric, and on the other hand, he does not bother to study history and we do not get to hear any criticism from him about the "righteous of the world" - not about Hezbollah, not about Hamas, and even Not on the Sudanese regime in the matter of Darfur, not on Russia in the matter of Chechnya, nor on the Iranian regime that seeks the seal and declares its ambition to destroy the people (the "Jews" by the way, which is not only just a "Zionist", because according to the Shia, it is impure among the impure !) – it means preaching. This is another covert anti-Semitism, like others from the cultural milieu in Britain (and not only there, but there the phenomenon is particularly noticeable).
Eddie
Regardless of what I say this is the Higgs' last stop.
As far as I know, the accelerator can also reach far beyond the Higgs.
Which surely won't stop anyone from building a bigger accelerator.
I agree that celebrating the conspirators can be unpleasant.
The Devil's Advocate, at 61:
I assumed that 'two years' would cover the required energy gap (and 'injury' time due to the breakdowns - included in that).
Regarding the power of the energy that will be activated - I heard different numbers, and I may be wrong in my assessment. If it is as you say, it means that Sern is really the 'last stop' for his appearance, and it could be a matter of months (if the operation of the system will be normal).
Let's hope that the Higgs boson will indeed be discovered, otherwise our peace (and not only the peace of the Hawkings) will be destroyed... Imagine what conspiracy theories will be put into the air (it has already started - with the company claiming that the Higgs 'doesn't want' or 'cannot' allow itself to be discovered).
Eddie
Just a comment about your explanation of the big bang theory. The fact that the universe began at a point becomes clear from the fact that the cosmic background radiation has a uniform temperature (apart from quantum fluctuations). At the time, the big bang theory had a competing theory (the steady state theory) which assumed that the universe was constant and galaxies were adding matter at a constant rate, the rate of an atom per year if I remember correctly was enough to explain the redshift obtained from the galaxies. The observation that invalidated the transient steady state theory (of Fred Hoyle as I imagine) was the discovery of the cosmic background radiation by Penzis Wilson who received a Nobel Prize (1978) for their discovery. The uniform background radiation teaches us that the universe was at some time in the past in thermodynamic equilibrium and hence everything started at a point.
Regarding the standard model, I don't see any clouds on the horizon, the evidence that the Higgs has not yet been found does not show that it is gone, if it were found with certainty that it is gone, then a storm would break out, but in my opinion the horizon of the standard model is clear and cloudless. The Lord Kelvin Clouds are relative to Gravitation where there are at least three Clouds. By the way, why do you think Higgs is a latent anti-Semite?
For the ghost, about the time:
Look what you wrote:
"I think that time is definitely a type of "dark mass" that is wrapped in "a type of electromagnetism that works opposite to the electromagnetic force produced by matter" (perhaps "dark energy")".
Leave for a moment that what you said is quite mumbo-jumbo from a scientific point of view, but also from an observational point of view
A philosopher is tautological, you define time based on a description of an action
Can action exist without time? What exactly is action without time?
Or in short...still very far...
Eddie
According to the standard model, the Higgs has an upper limit to the energy it can be at. According to experience to date, it also has a lower limit, up to which they have ruled out an experiment. The "two years" you gave have no meaning, the "decision" that he was not discovered will be when they finish scanning all the energies in this gap up to the upper limit.
The amount of increase of the LHC also has no meaning, the only meaning from the point of view of the Higgs is that the new accelerator has enough energy to scan this entire gap. (For example, I understood that if each proton beam has TEV7 compared to one TEV per beam in the previous accelerator, this means that it was 7 times stronger, but as mentioned, this does not really matter for the search for the Higgs).
Far beyond "won't help the unification of forces" failure to find the Higgs will topple the standard model. The model really has no right to exist without the Higgs. The reason people believe they will find it is because of all the scientific theories, the standard model is probably the best and most accurate in its level of predictions.
Regarding response 51:
I did not claim that they would not find the Higgs boson in the axis. I said it was a 'wild guess', but thank you the fact that it hasn't been discovered until today is a bit distressing. And Sarn, as I mentioned, produces energies that are only a few tens of percent higher than those that have been produced to date - and not one that is orders of magnitude higher than the existing one.
It is true that the standard model is very successful in observations at the micro scale. Lord Kelvin's physics in 1900 was also very successful, on the scale of the low velocities of the past, - except for 'two clouds', and we know how the chronicle developed from that point.
This theory does not fit into a part of a complete picture of physics, and from a fundamental point of view we are still confused in all kinds of matters, and we do not 'understand' what is really going on there - with all that it cannot be denied that we know how to work with it very well, and it really 'works' from the operational and result point of view.
So there is some possibility that exactly what is missing from the model - and so far insists on not being revealed - is not a door to another room in the house, but a dead end, in front of which one must turn and look for another 'end of a thread' (perhaps some 'string'); Or is it at all an open door to something else - perhaps to another world of beings that are alien to the habitual certainty of the residents of the house, being too narrow to contain them.
But even if he is discovered - I would be very happy for us and for him (and not for Prof. Higgs - in my opinion he is a hidden anti-Semite).
Rah,
I saw your comment (Comment 43) just now. I think Ehud is better suited than me to answer, but I will try to tell you what I understand.
For the first point:
Space cannot be 'empty' - because then it is impossible to understand how the 'force' of gravity works. For this, a 'medium' is needed - the one that transfers the gravity. That's why they talked about 'site' in the past.
Today we understand that this 'site' is space itself, which curves in high dimensions and creates gravity. I will try to elaborate more
We can move in relation to other bodies - but not in relation to 'empty' space. This was proven in the Michelson Morley experiment (it was observed that the speed of light does not change, regardless of the speed of the observer - the Earth - relative to it). That's why Einstein came out with special relativity and assumed that the speed of light is always constant relative to any reference point and that there is no absolute motion.
In general relativity Einstein is more general. Each body of matter/energy itself is a 'bump' (or 'from the teacher'. 'Down' versus 'down' has no meaning in this context) in the sheet of space, and such a bump does not move here or there absolutely, towards any space, but only relative to the bump Other.
Furthermore, the larger and denser the mass - the stronger the stretching of the sheet of space (say, like a billiard ball on a rubber sheet) and the meaning is that the space surrounding the massive body stretches more and has a stronger gravitational 'force' towards the environment.
That's why Einstein established two fundamental things in general relativity: matter and energy distort space, and the distortions of space affect the movements of matter and energy
Therefore space-time does not have its own existence, but actually matter does not have its own existence either. The sheet of space is created by the very existence of matter/energy - and the curvature of space is the very existence of matter. John Wheeler calls such a view 'go thermodynamics'. The space is a kind of 'ether' - a continuous medium that curves in high dimensions (in the fourth dimension, and actually - according to quantum mechanics - a piece of matter is a 'lump' in the Hilbert space with infinite dimensions).
The expansion is a fact that emerges from all observations. But what expands? The medium we talked about is space - that is what expands, and not some objective 'empty' 'space' in which bodies (galaxies, for example) move at absolute speed like fish in a pond. Such a space does not actually exist.
In connection with the above topic, and with reference to the comments of several other commenters that I have managed to read in the meantime, perhaps there is room for two short comments:
Matter curves space, and thus, it turns out that if there is a sufficient amount of matter (constant p) in the universe, and the rate of curvature is constant on a large scale, the cumulative curvature will be enough to curve space around itself. A kind of spherical universe was created (here there is a strange result - everything on a sphere that expands will reach a maximum size, but the further 'expansion' trend will eventually bring it to a point size). - and a space with the geometry of a four-dimensional sphere - this is what expands.
If there is enough material, but the rate of curvature is not constant on the large scale - we will get some kind of hyperbolic space, that is, a space with four dimensions but in the form of a 'trumpet' / 'funnel' or some kind of 'saddle'. This four-dimensional body has sections that have a 'straight' or near-straight geometry (the middle part of the saddle, or the part that extends towards the mouth of the trumpet).
If there is not enough matter in the universe - in principle it is still a 'flat' space, i.e. three-dimensional Euclidean space - and that is what expands.
For the second point:
Regarding the big bang - according to what I said above, it is clear that the bang created a space (more precisely - a time space) which is the totality of all physical existence. Matter as bumps in the sheet of space is 'included' in this calculation.
I'm Tammy,
I thought science had already solved the problem over time...
I think that time is definitely some kind of "dark mass" that is wrapped in "a kind of electromagnetism that works opposite to the electromagnetic force produced by matter" (perhaps "dark energy").
to my chest
Mathematical theories are not theories at all if there are no observations, no theory is based on its mathematical correctness, but on its predictions - that is, observations.
So you don't really understand the scientific method either...do yourself a favor and do a little more research on the matters you're talking about, you need to open your mind after you understand what the existing theories are and how they arrived at them and I'm pretty sure you don't understand!
to love
It was always close and also the last result is on the threshold of the critical value, although like the rest it is smaller than the critical value, but because the whole story depends on the amount of matter in the universe and most of the matter/energy in the universe is probably unknown to us, we will leave the answer at the moment flat and infinite and see where we go with Dark matter and dark energy in the coming years...
to a ghost
Science's problem with time is indeed one of the more complicated problems in science (I won't elaborate at the moment), but the problem is not in the interpretation of the concept, but in the deficiency in describing its direction from a physical and mathematical point of view, and in a physical explanation that makes sense for the feeling of the present moment - and here I do not mean the intellectual action that causes the feeling of the present, but For a physical reason why "you" feel that you are at a certain point in time and not at any other that you have been and will be at...which may raise questions and reflections regarding the description of time as a "block" or dimension.
I think there is still a long way to go there...
sympathetic
I agree with you that there is a difference between science and philosophy and this is mainly because of modern philosophy. As I know science "grew" from Roman philosophy.
I read online about the concept called "CPT symmetry" as I understood it, a theory that explains with the help of mathematical equations how an antiparticle is created for a particle that exists in nature, for example the electron. In the theoretical equations it is said that the operator (coefficient) CP (charge, parity) causes the polarity of the electron to be reversed. The coefficient turns the electron with up spin into a positron with down spin. Thus the electron becomes an antiparticle and the particle - in this case an electron - becomes a photon. But there is a problem, the problem called "CP symmetry breaking" states that there is more matter than antimatter in the universe because of the weak nuclear force and this does not allow the theory to be complete, although there are several proposals for this solution. There is no doubt that the solution of the weak nuclear force will lead to significant results in the field of particle physics because it will confirm the theory of all the subatomic particles we know, including the antiparticles, and perhaps new answers will be received regarding the understanding of "time" and how it works in cooperation with the other forces.
Maybe you could give your opinion on the matter?
ghost moon
I'm sorry but I don't agree with you. In my opinion there is a fundamental difference between science and philosophy. These are two completely different methods. In science, hypotheses are made and their truth is tested with scientific tools: experiment or mathematical reasoning
or numerical models.
In philosophy, raising the question and discussing it is of great importance and there is almost no way to disprove or prove anything.
Those who wish to engage in science must learn their own language, mathematics and the specific tools for that science. upload
Claims that cannot be refuted or proven at least mathematically is not science in my opinion and therefore the article that appears above is also not scientific in my opinion.
The meaning of time can be discussed philosophically and this is also important, but this is not science! Einstein was not
In this sense a philosopher. From claims about time he drew conclusions about the world that could be tested experimentally.
sympathetic,
Your explanation makes sense. I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician. As I understand today's advanced physics and mathematics (the most advanced fields of them) are scientific-philosophical drugs. In the scientific part, it's about the mathematical equations, I personally am not that knowledgeable. But from the philosophical side there are many people who can take part in the "reflections". In fact in ancient Greece the "scientists" were called "philosophers".
Personally, I think the problem today in physics is understanding the concept of "time" and the interpretation of the concept.
I think that (again, I have almost no knowledge on the subject) maybe there exists in nature a "distance" shorter than the "Planck length" and the function (so called) "time" works differently at these distances. This means that when the distance is smaller than the "Planck length" the time function of that particle does not become "-" (or 0) but becomes a number of astronomical magnitude or something similar. Also the physical constant "the speed of light in a vacuum" can also be changed to have a much higher number (and maybe even by a lot). The "Planck length" relies on "time", the "time" relies on distance and electromagnetic force or something like that, as I understand it (I'm pretty weak in math and physics, sorry if I'm not familiar with equations). I think, and I don't know how true it is, that the concept of time is related to gravitation. Please correct where I went wrong.
I return to the topic of the article.
Sorry for insisting on an actual explanation...
According to the comments above,
There is no agreement on how we see the universe: whether in the shape of a cone or in another form.
So we have a new problem: how do you map distant galaxies with the Hubble telescope if no point on the horizon is fixed?
It sounds like "hocus pocus" to me...
Ruby
There was indeed a discussion that took place for several years whether the universe is open or closed, this was due to a lack of observational agreement regarding the Abel constant. Between the two groups there was a factor 2 difference in the Abel constant. According to the observations today it is clear that the result is between the two previous estimates and since the universe is flat and infinite.
Eddie
I, on the other hand, believe that they will find the Higgs in the shaft. The theory of elementary particles looks like a theory
Incredibly accurate and suitable for observations, there is no reason why the missing particle in the particle puzzle should not be found.
Gravitation is already a completely different story where it seems that there are fundamental problems, but in my opinion this has nothing to do with what will be found at the LHC. As you wrote, there is no reason for the Higgs boson to solve the fundamental problem of unifying gravity with the other fundamental forces.
ghost moon
I believe that you are confused about how many concepts the Higgs will give the particles their mass but not their gravitational mass! This means the spectrum of the particles and their energy momentum ratio. The Higgs is not related to gravitation because there is currently no unification of the standard model of particles with gravitation.
The difference between Einstein and Newton is not related to quantum theory (by the way, Einstein did not believe that quantum theory is a complete theory). The difference between Newton and Einstein does not involve a small correction but a fundamental change of perception. Newton saw space as an unchanging absolute and time as a parameter. First, in the special relations, Einstein showed that space and time are bound together in space-time and secondly, he showed that mass warps space-time. That is, in the presence of mass
Greatness The shortest distance between two points differs from a line of poetry or a mass changes the geometry of space-time.
Sorry for the lame explanation.
It's interesting, German, we can't even sense electromagnetic waves with a different frequency than the visible, and see what a miracle, they built a device that can sense them, it's called a radio. Even bacteria we cannot perceive with our senses and see what a miracle we built a microscope.
Even nitraten particles have been able to be detected by sophisticated methods. So why can't we measure or identify the same "power" that you are so sure of (and it is not clear why)?
Noam
The change is in thoughts, intentions, desires, you change your perception of the nature with which you were born
Noam
Equating the form to the same power... you build an additional sense within yourself, just as scientists built a microscope that only allows you to see bacteria and without it made it possible, this is how you change yourself, you are the "material", you are the "instrument" you investigate yourself, as I wrote That you perceive everything with your senses and all reality is within you and not outside you, you are the world and without you there is no reality, you see everything within yourself.
You become equal to the same force that created reality, you acquire its nature in addition to your own
German,
Where do you get this confidence from?
What exactly is this miraculous internal change?
The particle accelerator will fail because the same thing that the scientists want to discover cannot be perceived by our senses, because behind the "matter" there is a force that simply disappears from our senses, we have no grasp of it because we are limited by our senses.
No matter what external device is built, we will not discover this power, but only through an internal change made within us. And through the internal change we will begin to see these forces at work in our world.. and we will discover who we are and what we live for, why we were born and where all this life is leading us ..
Hezi
Your disadvantage is that you also do not know what is taught in universities.
The bigger downside is that you think scientists haven't researched and tested the multitude of ideas you come up with.
Your mistake is that you think that the scientists are the fools (and let's not say the non-scientists), and that you think that everyone is captive to perceptions, and only you are "open minded".
In the event that Einstein's theories turn out to be flawed, some of the systems you use will stop working, which may bother you, and you may have a problem.
You can start developing new physics instead of complaining that no one is doing it for you.
Regarding your claims, it is not entirely clear to me what you are basing them on.
Robbie, Lagerman and the others trying to answer me...
In my opinion at least
Physicists ignore reality and develop mathematical theories.
In my opinion, this is a mistake because mathematics is not a substitute for observations and facts about processes in space.
Not everything can be tested in a lab,
And especially when it comes to space.
The failure (so far) of the big accelerator in Switzerland is proof of this.
My advantage is that I am not a prisoner of the concepts that are taught in universities.
I have no problem if tomorrow it turns out that Einstein's theories are plagued with serious errors.
Eddie,
Maybe you can answer a question that has interested me for a while. In my understanding, the consensus today is that the space itself is expanding. What is the evidence that this is the case and not that the galaxies simply progress in space? Why does the big bang theory hold that space itself was created and not just the material in it?
For those who want to get answers about how the universe, "man" was created, there is a book called the Talmud of the Ten Sefirot, which explains to us the sequence of creation up to this world, in a scientific way, this is the physics of the spiritual world..
Nothing was created before man, everything is inside man, everything he sees, if everything was created before man, there is no one who can say that it existed..
If there is no person there is no reality, if I disconnect from the 5 senses nothing exists, everything exists within our senses, the whole world and what we see around us (stars, black holes, etc.)
The reality we experience is subjective, meaning it depends entirely on the 5 senses and the inner state of the observer, everything we see is an external reflection of our inner desires.
Man is the world, he is reality..and without him or before him there was no one who could say something that exists
The branch of the exact sciences, physics, mathematics, etc., is starting to call philosophy
to my chest
Popular explanations are popular explanations
If you want to dig in properly, dig in
But to carry out a so-called scientific "discussion" when you
Bashing popular explanations is pretty stupid.
Regarding the beginning of the universe, I also heard about "the size of an orange"
And again and again, we are actually talking about a point
Singular, concepts of size space and time collapse
(this is the meaning of the concept), meaning that there is no definition
of some "size" that would fit the above situation.
Regarding the observable universe from your previous comments
The big bang didn't happen in a particular place, the big bang
is the formation of a place (the formation of space-time)
Therefore the big bang happened both here and in what you are
Calling "the edge of the universe"…
But there is an important question and it is about the shape of the space
A time that was created and continues to spread even nowadays.
It could be flat and infinite, it could be curved
and round (like the surface of a ball) and there is the cone version (more like a saddle actually)
All these "forms" are XNUMXD representations of a universe with XNUMXD space + time.
And you have to grasp the idea (which is formulated precisely in mathematics) before visiting
him.
If I remember correctly there are not enough observations to determine today
What is the correct version if at all, but your lack of understanding/perception of the idea
The general is not the problem at hand in the theory of relativity, any statement regardless
How "logical" it is perceived in your eyes is based on a precise mathematical definition
Before you declare "contradictions" based on your perception, try to learn
the mathematics that underlies these statements and how they fit or not
with the observations and don't try to be a sophist and rely on your ability or inability
To imagine what is said in popular science articles, and as you know I also sin
In "inventing" "theories" in the flapping wings of an avid science enthusiast, but
No need to exaggerate either...
in physics
So how was the universe created?
Of course: from the big bang...
It is interesting that the size of a "pinhead"
It is the starting point for all the popular explanations…
Why not smaller than the head of a pin?
So all the matter of the universe was there all along, or was it created new?
You don't have an answer to these simple questions...
Believe me, I don't know, but maybe there is a possibility that the Higgs boson will be found and maybe this particle that gives mass to other particles will be able to answer what gravity actually is (or the graviton particle) and how it produces mass for other particles (as I understand it correctly). And also what I noticed is that most of the leading theories today have a problem with gravitation and they have trouble solving it. What I understood is that Einstein's physics differs from Newton's in that Einstein explains the physics of quantum systems in his correction to the law of attraction. The thing in my opinion is that the whole subject of subatomic particles is still only in theory and has not yet been proven and this subject suffers mainly because it does not get along with the subject of gravity. Until the discovery, we only have to wait (it says that it is at least another six months).
Ghost,
It is not clear to me why an experimental discovery of the Higgs boson will solve the fundamental problem of the unification of gravity with the other fundamental forces.
By the way, the ratio of the energies produced at the LHC compared to the energies in other large accelerators is somewhat exaggerated. The difference is not in order of magnitude, but in a few tens of percent.
Just a bit of a wild guess, the Higgs boson will not be found - after it has not been found to date or let's say within two years from now. Suppose the guess is found to be correct; Imagine the embarrassment that will overwhelm all Hawkings of all kinds - those who think that the standard model only needs a small addition to provide us with 'perfect physics'... In a certain sense, when the mystery of the source of mass in the universe will intensify - we will return in the most plastic way to a period similar to that between the Michaelson Morley experiment and the appearance of special relativity ( In my opinion - in fact physics has been in this situation for several decades).
Eddie, I think we should wait for the LHC experiment which will hopefully lead to the discovery of the Higgs boson, which if found may be able to give a better answer to the antiparticle problem and thus also to gravity.
Ghost,
For a point of physics or mathematics:
Not exactly. Everyone will do what their heart desires. I just wanted to say that the problem today in physics is not a problem of mathematical tools.
Regarding the M theory:
The theory is physical because it comes to answer physical questions, and because it is based on a 'realistic' conceptual and argumentative system:
The basic claim of all string theories is that each 'string' - a tiny fiber of energy, constantly 'vibrates' in a unique way compared to another string, and by doing so it acquires characteristic properties, which are the same properties that the 'standard model' attributes to -54 ( or to 55, if the list includes the Higgs boson) the 'point' elementary particles (leptons, quarks, gluons). Witten in the theory of M states that space-time has ten dimensions of space (three 'stretched' and seven 'curled' in them on a tiny scale). He adds to the one-dimensional strings, two-dimensional vibrating bodies, membranes, as well as membranes with higher dimensions.
So M-theory is physical, but it is still special, because -
1. It tries to take control of all the physical findings, and offer a theory of 'everything' (and there is no other theory that aspires to this); and this -
2. By reaching and arguing in a relatively limited scope, but consistent and coherent, which is why it must use stronger mathematics than anything found in the standard physical theories.
The challenge of this Torah is twofold: on the one hand - to build a conceptual and argumentative system that is flexible and complex enough, but consistent and coherent, and on the other hand - to express and consolidate it in a consistent and complete mathematical structure.
The second challenge is complex, but it is ultimately more accessible, since the mathematical tools in principle exist, and only (and it is true that this 'only' is not a small thing at all) one needs to master them well (Witten is very capable in this field) and know how to adapt and apply them correctly .
On the other hand - the first challenge requires special creativity and even inspiration, and the building blocks of these abilities are not, as we know, readily available. Witten built the concept of the membrane with variable dimensions, but in order to solve various difficulties directed towards string theory - it is very possible that this creative act is only the beginning, and additional constructions are needed, requiring creativity and inspiration - each in turn. Because of this, the Torah is incomplete, despite its certain progress in the last 15 years mainly.
This is what I meant when I said that the problem today is not the lack of mathematics, but the lack of 'physics' - that is, creative and inspiring physical ability - which is strong enough.
It is true that string theory has not yet produced any prediction or observation that may confirm/disprove it. There are technical reasons why it cannot be put to an observational test (we are talking about tiny strings - extremely small entities that the existing machinery is unable to discover or track), but there is no doubt that it did not put any prediction to the test, and for this reason string theory cannot exceed, in the foreseeable time, any class 'hypothesis'. More than that - it is still incomplete, so it cannot even claim the status of 'explanation for the best conclusion', it is a good hypothesis.
but! Only string theory is demonstrated as a potential 'theory of everything', and over the past 40 years it has demonstrated survival and progress. It seems that it can guarantee greatness in the long term - even if its progress so far is slow. And thus her great right.
Thus, the M-theory is not complete yet and does not go beyond the category of 'scientific hypothesis', for the time being; And in principle, there may be other teachings of 'everything'. But for now we only have what our eyes see - string theory that has good taste and is enough to give it the chance to prove itself.
Eddie, so what you're saying is that scholars today should focus more on physics than math?
And that M theory is a physical theory? In any case, it relies on mathematical equations that so far fail to give a complete answer, not even a partial one
Ghost,
Every year about 500,000 theorems are proven in the mathematical world. I do not have an exact idea of the number of new mathematical theories created each year - but it is many.
The problem of the world of mathematics is not (and in the last century and fifty years at least - it was not) a lack or lack of mathematical tools - in the hands of the elite human intelligence mathematics is stronger than the horizon of physical conceptualization and creative imagination is able to want or know how to use.
Today, we need a breakthrough in physical thought, and according to many, the generalizing variant of string theories (Witten's M-theory) points in such a direction (this hypothesis needs witnesses to complete it. It also needs to put a prediction to an experimental test so that it is accepted not only as a hypothesis but as a valid theory). And that doesn't mean it's the only direction.
Such a breakthrough is made when the 'physics' is at least as strong as the mathematics. This is a breakthrough that needs a unique genius on the scale of Newton or Einstein. Newton was a physical genius no less than he was a mathematical genius. Einstein was much more of a physicist than a mathematician. When Einstein was working on extended relativity, he had difficulty making progress in the development of the theory, because he lacked sufficient mathematical tools (in terms of tensors). He needed help from the Italian Jewish mathematician Tullio Wichita Levi (a student of Combastro). Through an exchange of letters between them, he acquired the missing mathematical tools, and was able to express the creative conceptual world picture he had, and promote it. But it was not the mathematical tools that created the physical insights for him!
(By the way, only with a short time difference of a few months, he managed to get ahead of David Hilbert, the mathematician, who knew how to absorb Einstein's creative mindset but had stronger mathematical tools of his own. But it is important for our purpose to see who 'got' physics from whom).
It seems to me that this is the case regarding the hacking of the quantum theory; Here, too, physics progressed not because mathematics made a leap forward - the mathematical tools were ready, and all that was required was a new and creative physical horizon of thought.
Today the situation is that physics is not strong enough, certainly not compared to mathematics, and therefore for quite a long time no progress has been seen in the creation of 'physics of everything' - and not because there is a problem with mathematics; And this is of course different from the case of the great breakthrough period of relativity and quantum in the first quarter of the twentieth century.
Of course, an elite like Witten, for example, may still turn out to be some kind of 'Einstein' if he completes the M-theory in certain aspects - although the business has been brewing for him for 15 years - which is quite a long time (but on the other hand - it also took Einstein ten years to build the extended relativity...).
And if not him - it will be someone else, perhaps much younger, perhaps one who is now a teenager, and will break out at the age of 19-28, as happened to relatively many scientific geniuses.
In any case, it is too early to mourn theoretical physics, and in general - one should never despair of mercy...
A few digs... if there is one global constant it is that the entire generation of society, the wise of the generation are sure that soon we will know everything... and then they open a Pandora's box of new discoveries who do not know where to start to understand the next truth...
Most likely the scholar is very wrong... and there is still a long, long time left between human progress and finding and deciphering the secret of our existential and universal magic...
That is, to be resolved from infinity, and also from zero, because physically there is no infinity and no zero. And the axioms of today's mathematics include these concepts.
In my opinion, in order to build a theory of everything, you need to use axioms that do not include the mathematical concept of infinity, meaning that the singularity of the big bang is not infinitely small or compressed infinity, as is the singularity of black holes.
I suppose that the need for the theory of "multiverses"
is the result of astronomical observations. not like that ?
Sorry. The link to the article:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/modern-physics-helping-predict-the-future-011205/
Eddie
One of the winners of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2004 claimed in an article (the article in the link) that string theory requires new mathematics. It has been five years since then and we still see almost no progress. I agree with that, and I don't think the theory will work with the laws of modern mathematics.
ghost moon There is enough material on the Internet that you can read on the subject.
Does anyone have an idea and can maybe explain a theory called "CPT symmetry"? And about the phenomenon in theory called "CP symmetry breaking"?
As I understood (and I didn't understand much) is it something related to creating an antiparticle from a particle? And if so, then I understood (from the explanation in Wikipedia as it says there) that there is a problem with "breaking the CP symmetry" because the universe has more matter than antimatter. Can someone elaborate a little more on the theory?
And what was before the universes collided with each other?
And maybe "what works doesn't need to be fixed"?
Strong,
I see a fundamental difference between the dark matter hypothesis and 'string theory' (and there are several variants in this regard).
String theory came to unify the theories of physics on the basis of a uniform and coherent conceptual infrastructure, in a very abstract mathematical framework. It does not need factual findings beyond what is known to science without actually having to do with it.
For now, no one treats it as a scientific 'theory' - it is a mathematical conceptual hypothesis at the broadest level of physics, which everyone admits that it needs to get rid of, in each of its variants, its internal problems and imperfections.
The dark matter hypothesis - relates to a specific field of observations, and comes to solve ad hoc the difficulties arising from them regarding the understanding of gravity. This hypothesis first of all requires new specific observational confirmation, beyond what is known in science in general. It seems that it actually receives the status of a 'theory' even though it innovates a new material entity without being positively supported by any evidence, and even though there are several theories, some of them successful, that provide answers to the difficulties arising from the observations. Turner's article even implies that the idea of dark matter is a kind of 'idea fix'.
The hope of reaching the unification of physical theories, including through string theory - as mathematical theoretical hypotheses that may in the future prove to be reasonable and fruitful - is to be welcomed. After all, no string theory will block scientific progress - it can only contribute to a more complete explanation of the findings and be a basis for new horizons of research.
On the other hand: for the time being, the idea of dark matter should be accepted with only a limited guarantee, if and to the extent that it is presented as a theory and even as an 'idea fix' and not as a 'mere hypothesis', and to the extent that alternative explanations are repressed from the scientific mind (since they are less 'sexy' and do not create Exploded 'headlines' and do not receive generous research budgets). This fashionable suppression of other research directions, without a justifiable reason - has the potential to cause damage to scientific research.
There are those who say (as I understood them) that today we need new and revolutionary ideas in physics and mathematics so that we can get results that will advance our understanding of the universe. Because the ideas that exist today do not provide the answers.
I don't know whether to agree to this or not because I have almost no knowledge on these subjects. But I think it's a matter of time until everything comes together and we see new answers in science.
Strong
Modern physics suffers from over-success. In the XNUMXth century its successes were great: from the special and general relativity to the quantum theory and the theory of elementary particles. The level of accuracy of the predictions is amazing! A coherent picture was created that describes the world from the smallest particles to the cosmic scales. As part of this great success, theories were proposed that at the time seemed to be on the border of science fiction
But today they received experimental and observational confirmation. I will mention only a few such theories: Who would have believed that the origin of the universe is in a single point? Who would have believed that gravitation affects the measurement of time in a clock? who would believe
Because the atom consists of a nucleus containing positively charged particles around which electrons move?
Due to this great success, physicists are trying to answer questions that were previously unthinkable
What is the origin of the universe why are the constants of nature the way they are. Since these are questions that are on the frontier of science, the answers are
The ones they have are mostly scientific drugs. The theories today are different from the theories I mentioned earlier. It is difficult to impossible to formulate an experiment that can disprove them. Their origin is often philosophical and not scientific.
Not all physicists are engaged in speculative theories today and the great confidence that those who do are due to past successes. In my opinion, the opposite conclusion should be learned from past successes, and that is that we should adopt a degree of modesty in our statements and our theories.
Dark matter and dark energy are attempts to explain incomprehensible phenomena and have no basis.
String theory is a mathematical theory with which physicists try to present a uniform model for all the laws of nature, these theories also have no evidence.
The many universes are completely outside of physics as it is defined today.
Physicists talk about all these with great confidence, write articles and receive salaries, jobs, prizes and honors.
Moreover, the physicists declare, as in this article, that we are close to a solution to the main problems.
So it seems that today's theoretical physics has somewhat lost the north or moved to lines parallel to science fiction.
sympathetic,
I agree, including your conclusion arising from the reformulation of the question about the 'why' of the physical laws in terms of physical constants.
In the past we had a discussion on the question of dark matter (around the article 'A prototype of a detector for dark matter), then I stated that this is only a hypothesis, and any attempt to give it the status of a theory is a symptom of 'primitive science' and a solution of 'deus ex machina'. I then pointed to other solutions to the observational factual difficulties in the issue.
(By the way, the CDMS-2 experiment is inconclusive, and it is almost certain that the early announcements about any observational evidence for dark matter - were wrong, probably due to a failure to correctly assess the level of 'background noise').
I believe that bringing up the multi-universal idea as a 'scientific' solution, as done by Turner, is another symptom of 'primitive science', and in another specific context - as ideology in a scientific guise.
In this respect, Turner's words "that we live in the golden age of cosmology" require a certain qualification.
Eddie
I agree with you in my opinion that the multiverse idea is not a scientific idea. The problem with Turner's article is that it mixes science and wild speculation without distinguishing between them. The theory of elementary particles is a theory based on abel
Regarding gravitation there are many questions that in my opinion are open and trying to present them as mature theories is misleading.
Dark matter has yet to be experimentally confirmed and there are only speculations about what the particles that supposedly make it up are. No source of dark energy has been found, inflation is a collection of theories and not a single established model. A collision between universes is wild speculation. In my opinion, Turner's article is more political than scientific, and in my opinion, on the subject of gravitation, we are in the same situation where Lord Calvin stood and innocently claimed that physics was over except for two clouds on the horizon (from these clouds grew the theory of relativity and the quantum theory).
I have only one claim about your words, it is possible in principle to explain why the laws of physics are the way they are. The question is not presented properly and it is a kind of abbreviated jargon of physicists but the intention behind this question is why the constants of physics are the way they are. For example, a question that there is scientific hope to answer is why gravitation is a weak force
Much more (by orders of magnitude) than the triple of the other forces.
my father
A person can disobey the laws of gravitation and still understand that if he jumps in the air he will not remain suspended there, as one can disobey Newton's laws. Newton's laws work well in the area of low speeds, but when the other speeds approach those of the speed of light, it is necessary to replace them with special relativity. The question is again what is meant by someone who says that he disbelieves in the laws of gravitation.
Avi,
The attempt to present the three-dimensional icon as a cone,
It is an experience that I have encountered for the first time.
Is there a detailed document that tries to explain this?
"The multiverse idea provides new answers to two of the biggest questions in science: what happened before the big bang and why the laws of physics are the way they are"
- The idea of the multiverse does not provide answers, not even 'new' answers to any scientific question. Science answers questions whose answers can be confirmed/refuted, if only at the principle level. Questions like what was 'before' (what 'before' could there be the formation of some dimensional reality?) are not of this type. Similarly - even a question like 'why the laws of physics are the way they are' - are not scientific questions, since we have no Archimedean point outside of space - to evaluate them.
It seems that the 'great space idea' that Turner holds does not serve a scientific interest, but is a kind of 'belief', an ideological interest - one that says that universal reality does not have an absolute 'original' and it is not an 'innovation', it has no extra-dimensional existential source and is merely Everything is an 'accidental' product of a physical law that is not yet known to us, or that at least exists even if it is not known to us; And that 'everything' is 'scientific', meaning that it can be reduced to a scientific method and concept, at least at the principle level.
It is possible that Turner himself understands this consumption, when he says that "the multiverse solves many conceptual problems".
One can raise objections about the nature and effectiveness of this kind of 'solution' - a 'solution' that is completely speculative (and in my opinion is problematic in principle, and may actually harm scientific research), but what is certain is that it is not a 'scientific' solution.
It is possible that the solution of gravity will lead to the answer to the problem of the expansion of bodies in the universe (that the galaxies are moving away from us) and maybe "gravity" is also somehow related to the concept of "time"!?
Probably after there is an answer to what is "dark matter" and "dark energy" there will also be an answer to "gravitation" and this will provide new answers to science.
Always fall in the simple things:
"We are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons" instead of being precise, "My body is made up of..."
Regarding the idea of multiverses, this is probably a matter that can never be solved scientifically and therefore the riddle will remain eternal.
You can freeze in the theory of relativity and also in gravity, which the theory of relativity is, among other things, an extension of. I'm sure if you climb a cliff and keep going straight you won't fall into the abyss because of this heresy.
Regarding the cone, if it weren't for the problem of looking back in time, we could say that we are looking towards the origin of the universe (there is a problem defining it because of the same conversion in time for viewing) we would see 13.7 billion light years and if we were to look to the side we would also see something like this because we are on the edge of the cone and all Because we could see up to 13.7 billion light years.
This is where the problem of looking back in time comes into play. We see things as they were at the time the light from them reached us, so it includes a lot of galaxies that went out of the horizon - some of them in the exact opposite direction and most of them probably to the sides. This is why we still see them and that they are at the edge of the universe even though they were created hundreds of millions of years after the big bang.
Avi,
Please don't "smear"…
It bothers me that space does not agree with the theory of relativity,
And yet the public is put off...
I want a logical explanation of space without "relativity" and the event horizon...
Am I allowed to disagree with this theory?
How did the three-dimensional universe that we all see fit into your "cone"?
What bothers you so much? The distance to them is 27 billion light years and we can only see them as still on our horizon. This issue of combining distance and time confuses many people and is difficult to explain. We see a kind of cone but because of the time dimension its shape is distorted.
Avi,
Is it very peshont?
Reminds me that several years ago I entered the room of a senior lecturer in physics at Tel Aviv University,
I asked him "in which direction was the big bang"?
He blushed and started to get confused,
And finally said that it is impossible to point to the direction...
I was shocked…
So enough with these words.
Does this mean that those distant galaxies remained where the big bang happened?
And what about galaxies in the opposite direction, which are also 13 billion years old?
Very simply, they didn't just move together with us in the same direction but in all directions.
A few days ago it was announced that the upgraded Hubble telescope discovered galaxies on the horizon that were formed 600.000 years after the big bang...
So how did they manage to reach the edge of the universe?
Wizards of the attributional teachings are asked to excuse...
correction
a quote:-
"Then, up to the 1034th part of the first second, the ideas are indeed solidified but the evidence is not solid."
End of quote.
In my opinion it should be... up to the tenth part of the minus 34 power of the first second, etc.
Sorry if I'm wrong.
Happy new year to everyone and especially to my father Blizovsky for his blessed work.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
"Modern cosmology has taught us a lesson in humility..."
But Mr. Turner seems to have overlooked this chapter.
There are results only that they are trapped in time due to the gravitation of the black hole
nothing new. Why don't they say what results the LHC yielded? Or still no results?
An instructive article