The theory holds that all matter in the universe consists of tiny one-dimensional threads called strings
Well, one cosmologist has an idea, and it's a very big idea.
Benjamin Waldent, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Illinois, says that the ancient light created at the beginning of the universe was absorbed by neutral hydrogen atoms. By observing these atoms, certain predictions derived from string theory can be tested. But in order to take the necessary measurements, it is necessary to build a huge array of radio telescopes that will be built on the ground, in space or on the moon. And it will be really huge: Waldnet proposes an array of radio telescopes that will be spread over a distance of 1,000 square kilometers. Such an array could be built using existing technology, Waldent says, but it would be too expensive.
So for now, both string theory and the way to test it are completely hypothetical.
According to Waldent, what they will look for in the huge array of telescopes is absorption signatures in the 21 cm spectrum of neutral hydrogen atoms.
"The highly redshifted 21 cm observations provide a rare observational window to examine string theory, to delineate its parameters, and to show whether or not it makes sense to include a certain type of expansion - brane inflation - within string theory," says Wendlett. "According to the prediction, if we insert the expansion of the membranes into string theory, a network of cosmic strings should form. We can test this prediction by looking for the effect that the cosmic string network has on the density of neutral hydrogen in the universe."
About 400,000 years after the big bang, the universe contained a thin shell of neutral hydrogen atoms (each atom contained a single proton around which a single electron moved) and was illuminated by what today we call the cosmic background radiation.
Because neutral hydrogen atoms easily absorb electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of 21 cm, the cosmic background radiation carries a kind of signature of the density distortions in the hydrogen shell, which should be possible to detect today, says Wendlat.
Cosmic strings are threads of infinite length. Wandelt compares them to the boundaries of crystal crystals in frozen water.
When water in a bowl begins to freeze, the ice crystals will form at different points in the bowl, in varying orientations. When the ice crystals meet, they are usually not aligned with each other. The boundaries formed as a result of two misaligned crystals are called discontinuities or defects.
Cosmic strings are such an anomaly in space. String theory predicts that a network of strings formed in the early universe, but this has not been verified so far. Cosmic strings create fluctuations in the density of the gas they pass through. Their signature, according to Wendlat, will be inherent in the 21 cm radiation.
Like the cosmic background radiation, the 21 cm cosmic radiation stretched as the universe expanded. Today, the remnant radiation has a wavelength closer to 21 meters, and it belongs to the long radio wave wing of the electromagnetic spectrum.
If such a giant telescope array is eventually built, measurements of distortions in the density of neutral hydrogen atoms may also reveal the value of string tension, a fundamental constant in string theory, Wendlatt says. "And that will tell us about the energy levels at which quantum gravity starts to be important."
But the validity of the experiment remains in question. In addition, is it possible to "shrink" the array to search for small areas of the 21 cm radiation? Or alternatively, is it possible to build a device similar to the Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe satellite (WMAP - Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) in order to scan the entire sky to find this radiation?
Wendlet and his student Rishi Khatri describe the proposed experiment in an article accepted for publication in the journal Physical Review Letters, and it is still not approved for public viewing.
39 תגובות
Theory Of Everything Without Strings Attached.
Embarrassingly Obvious And Simple.
See the signature links.
Life's Genesis Was Not Cells But First Gene's Self Reproduction.
Life Is Just Another Mass Format.
Since July 5 1997 I have developed and been proposing the following scenario of life's genesis:
* Life's genesis was not cell(s), but the self reproduction of yet uncelled ungenomed gene(s).
* There was NOT any "Pre-History Of Life" evolving in an archaic pre-modern life cell.
* Cells were definitely NOT life's genesis. Cells were products of evolution of Earth's primal organisms, of Earth's first stratum organisms, the RNA genes that have always been and still are running the show of life, the energy-storing biosphere survival, since Earth life's day one.
* A gene's self reproduction was distinctly an evolutionary, enhanced energy constraint event, above the earlier, random, radiated-energy-induced gene formations.
* Every evolutionary step is inherently an event of an enhanced energy constraint.
* Genomes, RNA and DNA, are functional organs evolved by the primary RNA genes. Cell membranes are also functional organs evolved by the primary RNA gene.
* Life is but one of the many many mass formats in the universe, and its evolution is driven as the evolution of all cosmic mass formats, to gain temporary enhanced energy constraint, ie to survive as long as possible.
Dov Hennis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
03.2010 Updated Life Manifesto
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/54.page#5065
Cosmic Evolution Simplified
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/240/122.page#4427
Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/260/122.page#4887
PS:
This Theory Of Everything, with definition of evolution, also covers ALL aspects of anthropology. DH
=============
TOE: Religion Or Science?
(Fwd from the-scientist.com:)
I.
[quote=BobTS1162939] This is the Theory Of Everything In A Nutshell (TOEIANS):
Basic construction of the universe: 1. Particles 2. Strings 3. Frames.
Each particle has a string. They combine with each other into quantum and physical objects.
Particles' travel along their strings appear to us as: 1. Gravity. 2. Properties. 3. Forces.
String-particle travels/lives within a frame seen as: 1. Waves. 2. Feelings 3. Influence.
Time is a one dimensional string whose constant value is 9. The universe is constructed on the number 3. Time moves outward dragging space with it. This outward expansion causes space which is a string to distort / stretch which we see as repairs / deterioration / aging / etc.. If the strings were decreasing we would see the reverse. Things would essentially become younger until they simply disappeared as opposed to dying / being not repairable as we see / experience now. The development of language and the effort to define things means particles / strings / frames have different names depending on the discipline.[/quote]
II. My comment
A) Since Life is, by our sensory conception, a virtual reality affair, religion is a legitimate virtual reality tool for going through life. But I am not religious. My senses do not become affected by the above TOEIANS. I embarrassingly admit that as hard as I try I am unable to comprehend the above TOEIANS.
B) My own conception of TOE is scientific, not religious, based strictly on data recorded and observed, of ubiquitous cosmic phenomena. And in presenting my TOE conception I do not deal with mechanisms but with the base processes.
Dov Hennis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Thanks everyone for the comments and links
I am studying the subject.
why new
I understood what you meant by eddies in the movement of the galaxies, well, it won't happen because this is not about the movement of rigid bodies through gas, but the movement of bodies through particles, most of which, like the neutrino, do not harm the bodies. Therefore there will be no swirls and light spots between nearby galaxies.
I agree with the reference that Michael referred you to the article in Hidan where we discussed the subject. I of course do not agree with his strong conclusions and as you can see from the links I referred you to, many others also do not agree with the existing theories of gravity. Read and decide for yourself.
If you still want to find out something, you can contact me through the website or through my email attached:
sevdermishy@gmail.com
Let us all have a good and quiet week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
תיקון
In section 4, the intention is that a vortex will be created between the background particles
Galaxies nearby or between binary stars.
Laftar and Yehuda
1. I did not at all refer to or mention gravitational evaporation, that's not what I wrote about.
2. My reference is to Judah's theory only.
3. My intention was to verify or not his theory.
4. Derived from his particle theory is that when a pair or several bodies close to each other move in relative motion, a vortex of the background particles will be created, in other words a different density of the particles or a different gravitational force.
The stars I mentioned before will shine through their particle vortex and create a spot of light.
5. Therefore, the theory of Judah between galaxies is warranted
Close to each other or binary stars will always be spots of light as a result of the particle vortex caused by the motion of the galaxies
or the binary stars.
a question
Do the scientists perceive or not the spots of light according to photographs that undergo processing or computer outputs?
Why new:
I've been away for a while and haven't seen your questions until now.
In the meantime, I also saw that Peter answered, but I haven't really read any of it yet and I don't know if I will.
For me (and for the rest of the scientific community) we have enough evidence to disprove Le Sage's theory that Yehuda is trying to sell and some of it appears in a long and arduous discussion after which (until your comment) Yehuda refrained from trying to sell it again.
The discussion appears HERE.
And it has everything you need to leave this theory and not bother with it anymore.
I will address each phenomenon you mentioned separately:
- There are many areas in space that do not contain any matter, there is an empty space (vacuum).
- Gravitational dusting does not create spots, it makes celestial objects appear as if they are moved a little to the side from what they really are - this is due to the curvature of space-time near heavy masses. Gravitational dust does not collect or create light. He just bends the light aside. Apart from that, you must have some kind of light source behind the massive object for the gravitational dimming phenomenon to take place, since space is black.
- When two galaxies pass by each other, a gravitational pull is created and a sort of bridges of matter may form between the two galaxies. That is, one galaxy can attract material from the other galaxy and then there will be a transfer of material.
- When two stars revolve around a common center (i.e. a binary star system), there is no spot of light in the middle.
If there is a star behind them you will see the star shifted, or maybe you will even see the same star multiplied by four because space-time is curved around that massive object and the light moves on top of the curved space, but no spot of light will be formed.
why new
I haven't gotten to the bottom of your mind about the spots of light you're talking about
Near galaxies, their concentration will be different, therefore the light rays that pass near the galaxy will be bent, therefore a star that is behind the galaxy may even appear several times and even in a ring shape, just like in the case of gravitational clouding. I don't understand why there should be light spots between two galaxies?
This does not seem to me to follow from my words about particles.
Another thing, basically this is not my theory. The theory of particles that cause gravitation has been talked about since the days of Newton, and since then attempts have been made to verify it.
It is called pushing gravity
It does not seem to me that with the help of Idush's light bulbs it will be possible to prove the correctness of the theory.
Various experiments are offered in an attempt to verify, for example one of them:-
The Gravity Cannon Experiment
For those interested:
http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/gravcannonexp.html
Have a good weekend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
fire
explanation
Yehuda has a theory that says the whole universe is full of tiny particles that influence the movement of galaxies among other things.
Let's assume galaxies close to each other that move in relative motion to each other without any material connection between them.
The particles between the galaxies will be in different vortices or densities so that the light passing through them will bend accordingly and create a spot of light as required by Yehuda's theory
a question
Do you always see a spot of light between galaxies close to each other regardless of material connection between them or binary stars
About photos that are being processed or computer outputs?
Company,
Some order in the mess.
Gravitational bending (gravitational bending) - light is bent when it passes through a strong gravitational field. For example, if there is a star behind the sun and we look at the sun during a solar eclipse, then we can see the star because the light that came from the star has been bent, and then it seems to us that the same star is a millimeter to the side of where it really is. That is, it appears as if it is near the sun, but it is actually behind the sun.
Binary stars - two or more stars that revolve around each other or around the same common center.
What exactly were you trying to argue with these two concepts?
Please make a distinction between a scientific theory and a theory that you personally derive from private logic.
A scientific theory is neither a guess nor an informed guess of reality, but a mathematical conclusion that corresponds to an experimental conclusion that the best scientists have tested and are testing using scientific tools.
If you make any argument, try to back it up with theories or phenomena that science does recognize and support.
And another note regarding what "what's new" said,
Many times the photos that are put on news sites are computer simulations or photos that are processed and not the real thing. In scientific photographs on which theories are tested, there are no beautiful colors and cute shapes, it is mostly computer outputs with lots of numbers or just dots on a page.
It's not like the scientist looks at some astronomical photograph and says "Ah.. it looks like a neutron star to me and it looks like a supernova to me, here I have solved everything!" It's a little more complex than that.
תיקון
In the question to Michael first line I meant galaxies close to each other.
Is it possible to test Yehuda's theory with the help of photographs of galaxies and binary stars?
To Judah
Thanks for the reply and link.
To Michael
a question
Is there a spot of light in all photographs of nearby galaxies that move relative to each other regardless of material as required by Yehuda's theory
Do distant binary stars (let's say neutron stars) always have a spot of light between them.
Whether between galaxies over a billion light years away but relatively close to each other regardless of matter we will not distinguish between them because the particle light spot is required from Yehuda's theory.
why new
Light will be bent when it passes through a different concentration of particles and a fogging phenomenon will be created, which also includes light spots as you say.
There are many photographs that show such cosmological phenomena of Adus in which the same galaxy appears several times in the sky and with the addition of spots or even arcs of light.
But all these phenomena can also be explained with the help of the dark mass. Below is a nice and comprehensive site on Wikipedia in Hebrew:
http://astroclub.tau.ac.il/astropedia/Dark_Matter.html
Have a good weekend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Judah
a question
As you said, the particles floating in the universe are affected by gravity.
Suppose there are several nearby galaxies that move relative to each other, so between the galaxies, eddies of particles have been created and they will bend the light through them because of their gravity
In the vicinity of the eddies there will be a different density of particles
That is, when light passes through them, it will be scattered somewhat.
In conclusion
If we observe those nearby galaxies that are moving in relative motion, we will see a spot of light between them which is evidence of particles
is it true?
Well, we have come to an agreement.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I don't want to argue either because you really convinced me that you can't be convinced and it doesn't matter how true and clear the things you are told are.
Nevertheless, I will point out that the quote you brought from my words is not at all about the reinforcement of a mass and the fact that you associate it with the reinforcement of a mass demonstrates the worthlessness of the debate with you.
To Michael
A quote from your words
"It is worth noting that this situation, of a galaxy where the stars act according to the known laws of gravitation even at great distances..." end of quote.
On what basis do you say this?
The fact that you are trying to "increase" the mass of the galaxy does not completely prove the correctness of the known gravity formulas, but only proves one thing, that you, and most of the existing scientists, very, very much want it to be compatible with the known gravity formulas.
My opinion, which I repeat for the thousandth time:
Under no circumstances should the correctness of gravitation formulas at distances of millions and billions of light years be inferred from their proven correctness at distances of a thousand light years (the solar system).
and not only this.
Also the assumption that even in the case of the galaxies this is a movement resulting from gravitation, is a false assumption that is based on nothing but a poor soul, hope, and a poor cosmological principle.
In my opinion, it will eventually become clear that gravitation does not play a role in the enormous cosmological distances, and the spiral galaxies and intergalactic motion result from the pressure differences arising from the enormous amount of tiny particles floating in the universe. such as neutrinos, axions, cosmic rays, and even photons and many other particles yet to be discovered.
I actually agree with your last sentence: Quote:
"... there is still the possibility that dark matter is nothing more than ordinary mass that we do not see." end quote.
But I see in this material the pressures that it will add to the galaxy system and you see in it the gravity that it will add to the system.
Warning:- I'm really not commenting to start a "chain argument", and I know there is no way either of us will convince the other. So just in case someone wants clarification. you are welcome.
Have a good weekend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Judah:
It is very good that you are not a follower of Mond and that you understand that this galaxy, if it does indeed behave as observed bodies disprove it.
It is worth noting that this situation, of a galaxy where the stars act according to the known laws of gravitation even at great distances, indicates with the highest certainty that no theory based on a change in the laws of gravitation is correct.
That leaves dark matter as the only explanation anyone has even come up with that hasn't been disproved by observation.
Although previous observations already supported the same conclusion and therefore most scientists believed in the existence of dark matter anyway, but this is really overwhelming evidence (again, if the observations turn out to be correct).
I also mention that there is still the possibility that dark matter is nothing but ordinary mass that we cannot see.
what do i care
I am not a follower of MOND theory nor of the strings
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Saul and Yehuda:
I hope it is clear to you that if the story turns out to be true, this is the end of MOND
to ask
I'm not the only one who has doubts
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda Svardamish:
You may find interest inNext news
Bye
There are more attempts.
For example, there is a person named Lizzie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Lisi ) who sells the theory presented in the following links:
website newscientist.com
arxiv.org website
But a lot of criticism is leveled at his claims in the following links:
exceptionally-simple-theory-of.html
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001505.html
In your honor, I looked for the term on Wikipedia and was happy to find there both the above and a claim that I have been making for a long time and that I did not know had other supporters regarding the connection of the theory of everything to the Gadel theorem.
All included in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything "
Are there other serious attempts to unite the two theories (quantum and relativity) besides string theory?
I would love an interesting link on the subject.
Quantum theory existed before string theory.
String theory was created in an attempt to expand quantum theory in a way that fits between it and general relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
String theory is a derivative of quantum theory or vice versa or am I totally lost?????
String theory is very problematic to prove in this era, it requires problematic technological means, such as the example given by Benji which is a bit more logical than a particle accelerator the size of the sun in order for such small strings to be experimentally found, to string theory or any theory of "everything" that you link There is still a long time before you find all the powers, we are not yet ready for the theory of everything, I hope that in about 50 years there will be drastic progress on the subject and the people of our time will perhaps witness developments in this field, there is still a lot to explore (hopefully we are on the right path) because in the meantime Most of the efforts were invested in string theory/on strings.
In any case, the theory of everything will have a huge impact on the human race when it is found, and it will have tens of times more influence than Einstein's theory of relativity in almost every area of life when it has practical uses for the human race.
lion:
WMAP is a follow-up project to COBE
See for example b http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAP
Correction to my previous message.
The strings are massless and have only a length dimension.
splendor,
Thanks.
Aryeh Seter,
Of course we have heard about strings and cosmic strings, but the strings are a hypothesis derived from mathematical equations. This is not a proven theory but an interpretation and an attempt to include all the equations of science under one roof - that is, the theory of everything. That is, there is a good probability that string theory will be recovered and will turn out to be correct, but today it is considered mathematical and cannot be applied or tested in reality in experiments.
There are the followers of string theory, one of whose prophecies is the cosmic strings, and here the possibility was offered to examine the same hypothesis and thereby try to confirm or disprove it.
In principle, string theory holds that all "there is" in the universe is made of those thin threads (strings) that have one dimension, sizeless and massless as you said. From this theory branch several options for unifying theories of everything (the superstrings).
Yael. Is WMAP a COBE? Radio waves in the area of 21 meters are actually classified as short waves. All this in radio terminology where long waves are in the wavelength region of a kilometer. Of course, in relation to 21 cm, 21 meters is long. We already heard about cosmic strings twenty years ago, so it's not something Waldent invented. Right? And Yehuda - what do you think the three-dimensional particles that make up matter are made of? String theory claims that the most basic particles are Strings while before string theory (or those who don't accept it) they are considered points (dimensionless).
Nir. That's why it would be better if you spared us your "pearls"
And the opinion of the detractors is certainly not important
Yehuda, your opinion is not scientifically important at all.
To Judah:
All the good souls who argued with you are not among the "good souls" who want to know your opinion.
Regarding the question mark, I repeat and remind you that the doubt is always there and only you see fit to make a joke out of it.
And by the way, to all the "good souls" who want to know my opinion on string theory, well, I don't think that ""all matter in the universe is made up of tiny one-dimensional threads called strings", in my opinion, all matter in the universe has at least 3 dimensions. Line ( one-dimensional) is a mathematical and not a physical being.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
After the honorable gentleman, Benjamin Waldent, professor of physics, and his student Rishi Khatri, explained to us the required experiment, the conclusion of the article is expressed in the words: "But the validity of the experiment remains in question. "
Is it really necessary to spend such a huge amount of money just so that in the end we will be in doubt with the results.
Reminds me of the test for the existence of life that they did on Mars when in advance it was possible to know that the result would not be conclusive.
In short - a waste of money!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I think it would be cheaper to examine other theories.
It is also desirable that an area of around 350 square kilometers be required, then we can build it close by. There is a strip south of the boulevard that you can build it there...
Middle of the page, one paragraph after "400,000 after the big bang" – from nowhere –> sort of.