Researchers who have examined through new observations the gap theory which says that we see the universe as accelerating its expansion because we are in the middle of a gap in the universe, and discovered that it fails to be a real alternative to dark energy as the cause of the acceleration of expansion
Researchers from the University of British Columbia said that the position of the Earth in the sky is completely unique, despite the theories that suggested that the Earth is in the middle of a huge gap in space.
A decade ago, it was discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. This acceleration is caused by The dark energy, the mysterious repulsive force whose true identity still needs to be discovered. However, some scientists have recently proposed an alternative theory in which the Earth is near the center of a gap or bubble in space, which is mostly empty of matter. New calculations actually strengthened the assumption that dark energy penetrates and spreads in the universe.
While dark energy seems quite elusive due to its mystery and undetectability, its alternative - the gap theory that explains why the universe is expanding forever - contains a problem and also contradicts an old principle of Copernicus.
In Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus' 1543 book, he moved the Earth from its place at the center of the universe to just one planet orbiting the Sun. Astronomers have since expanded on the idea and created the Copernican principle, which says that our place in the universe is absolutely simple. Although the Copernican idea has become a mainstay of modern cosmology, finding conclusive proof that our environment in the universe is really not special is not a simple matter.
In 1998, studies of a distant explosion known as a type Ia supernova indicated thatThe expansion of the universe is accelerating, due to a repulsive force known as "dark energy". However, there were cosmologists who suggested that the Earth was in the center of a gap, and that gravity creates the illusion of acceleration, mimicking the effect of dark energy in supernova observations.
Now advanced analyzes and models carried out by two postdoctoral students at the University of British Columbia, Jim Zibin and Adam Moss, and astronomy professor Douglas Scott, show that the alternative thesis - the "gap theory" simply adds nothing.
The researchers used data from the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) satellite, some of whose members were from the University of British Columbia, as well as data collected from a variety of instruments and surveys obtained from ground observations.
"We examined the models proposed in the gap theory with the latest data, including subtle formations in the cosmic background radiation - the glow left over from the big bang as well as ripples in the distribution of matter on a large scale," said Tsybin. "We found that the gap model does a poor job of explaining the combination of these data."
Instead of proving the gap theory, the group's calculations reinforced the conventional point of view that the enigmatic dark energy fills the cell of the universe and is responsible for its acceleration. "Recent advances in data collection have brought us to an era of cosmological precision" said Tsybin. "Gap models are terrible when trying to explain the data with them, whereas the standard model of dark energy works well."
"Since we can only observe the universe from Earth, it is difficult to determine whether our place is in a special universe" said Tsybin. "But we have now learned that our location is much simpler than the dark energy that fills the universe."
16 תגובות
For commenter Itzik, maybe the big bang is an invention, but God is also an invention that man invented about 6000 years ago.
We will never know everything is a mystery that only God knows. The idea of the big bang is just an invention that has no proof!!!
How do you know the position of something in space? Where do the coordinates start? from earth? Where did the big bang come from? In relation to what is it? To the limits of the visible universe? To the limits of the actual universe?
Chen T:
The title expresses the fact that, contrary to what the ancients thought and according to which the earth is at the center of the universe, the earth is not at the center of the universe. This does not mean that the universe has a center. What would you say if I asked you if the earth is at the heart of the flying spaghetti monster? Say you're not in the heart of the flying spaghetti monster. You might also add that apparently there is no such animal at all - would that contradict your answer? Wouldn't both things be true?
The gap theory is an attempt to present an alternative to the accepted theory and according to the findings described in the article it turns out to be a wrong theory - just as it turned out that the original theories that placed the Earth at the center of the universe and interpreted the stars as light bulbs on the sky are wrong.
The fact that there is a dominant theory does not mean that there are not people who occasionally come up with other theories. She only says that so far other theories have not been able to stand the test of the findings.
The subject is difficult to understand. This is obvious, but think again about the balloon shell and think that it started as a single point.
The process that expanded the universe is called inflation (appropriate to the image of the balloon we are inflating) and during it the universe itself expanded - that is - all the points in the universe were created from that single point - and therefore they are all incarnations of the same center.
It is, as mentioned, only an image, but that is all that can be done in such a discussion.
I will add and point out that overall this is a theory and that this theory fits well with all the observations but there is no certain knowledge here (as there never is in science). All in all, this is the only explanation we have found that does not contradict the collection of known facts.
Michael, thanks for the detailed answer but it raises another question. If the universe has no center, then how are we sure that it originated from one big bang? Because if there was one then the location of that bang is surely the center, isn't it? And if the universe is expanding according to all estimates and our galaxy has been moving at a speed of 2 million km/h since the big bang at an increasing speed (as I read in one book that analyzed the radiation left over from the big bang), could it not be doing this from the center of the universe outward? And again, there is no estimate of The location of the center of the universe, so what is the meaning of the title of the above article and the war between the theories?
Chen T:
We have no real knowledge of the shape of the universe but the popular opinion is that it has no center and no discernable boundaries.
That is why we talk about the cosmological principle according to which the universe appears similar in all its points (ie, for example, there is no point from which, because it is located on the edge, stars will be seen from only one side).
To illustrate the idea, a two-dimensional universe that extends over the shell of a balloon is usually used.
The center of the balloon is not part of that boundless but finite universe.
Here you can point to a center because it is a two-dimensional space that resides on the shell of a three-dimensional body that has a center, but you have to remember that this is only an illustration. There is no claim here that our space is housed within a space with additional dimensions and mathematics nevertheless allows for the definition of a finite universe, yet centerless and limitless.
In such a universe, our galaxy has no special position in relation to the center, in relation to the edge or anything similar.
Is it possible to put a drawing that evaluates the shape of the universe and the position of the earth in it?
The article begins with the location but discusses the conflict between the theories.
Also, it is not clear how dark energy causes acceleration from the center of the universe outward, and what is the position of our galaxy in it?
what? Aren't we at the center of the universe?? The sun does not revolve around the Earth? The Earth is not flat?
What will?
lion:
I agree with you.
I just tried to answer him kindly to avoid an unnecessary fight.
This reminds me, by the way, of the story about how someone said that Lot's name is actually an acronym derived from the fact that he got drunk "Lot Will Drink"
Michael R.
This is the first time I have to comment on your words.
Regarding your response 5. which refers to response 2. which was written by an impostor.
It's not that he didn't identify himself, but he impersonated your name. From reading the comment it is impossible to clearly tell that it was written by an impostor, therefore your clarification is important. But if the impostor had identified himself, the message he intended would not have been conveyed. And it would be different if he were to identify himself and write "Wrong, Michael R. is the center of the universe."
For clarity, "University of British Columbia" is better than "University of British Columbia".
I wonder why the impostor who responded in response 2 did not identify himself.
In my opinion, this is a nice joke that should not have been ashamed of.
I'm only commenting because I don't want to take someone else's copyright.
From "What's New in Science" Part III, by Meir Ariel:
It is also said that the sciences
In a little while they will arrive
to decipher the secret of life
And all the secrets of the universe.
But on the infinity line
They will labor to peel and peel,
without ceasing to carve and uncover,
And the point, where will it arise?
how many digits after the comma,
How many light years does each particle shed,
Send a beam, open a lens,
Near the Nigela - a new blockage...
Speed up your computer, you're still groping
And everything by hand.
So how far do you know, how far do you understand,
As far as you see - and from there you believe...
How does the gap cause it to appear as if the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate?
Does it mean that in a homogeneous universe the negative effect of gravitation is not felt compared to a situation where there is a low concentration of matter and then the person standing in the center of it sees that the near extent the effect of gravity is zero compared to the far extent where the extent of gravitation is significant. But in such a situation there should have been a slowdown and not an acceleration!!!
There is such a thing because I am the center of the universe
There is no such thing as the center of the universe.