Researchers have developed a new model for understanding the universe that can solve the dark energy puzzle. In a new article, a new concept is proposed for the structure of the universe, which includes dark energy, for the universe moving in an expanding bubble in an additional dimension
Researchers from Uppsala University in Sweden have developed a new model for the universe - one that can solve the mystery of dark energy. Their new paper, published in the journal Physical Review Letters, offers a new structural concept for a universe revolving around an expanding bubble in another dimension.
We have known for 20 years that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. The explanation is the "dark energy" that drives this expansion. Understanding the nature of dark energy is one of the most significant puzzles of fundamental physics.
Scientists have long hoped that string theory would provide the answer. According to string theory, all existing matter is composed of tiny entities, similar to vibrating strings. This theory advocates the existence of additional dimensions beyond the three dimensions we are familiar with. For 15 years, there were models in string theory that were thought to provide an answer to the dark energy issue. These theories have received increasingly harsh criticism, and a number of researchers now claim that none of the proposed models, as of today, is applicable.
In their article, the scientists propose a new model that also includes an explanation for the question of dark energy. In this model, our universe rides on an expanding bubble located in another dimension. The entire universe is located on the edge of this expanding bubble. All the existing matter in the universe is adapted to the ends of strings that extend into another dimension. The researchers also show that expanding bubbles of this type can exist within the theoretical framework of string theory. It is conceivable that there is more than one bubble and these bubbles are linked to other universes.
This model for understanding the universe by scientists from Uppsala University provides a new, different picture of the creation and future fate of the universe, this model may also pave the way for methods to test string theory.
63 תגובות
Response to Hihiel Mosholam..
You treat human beings as if they have always been here when there is evidence of many creatures that were here long before us, and therefore the question of whether the universe or God created the creatures can be misleading because even if God exists, the universe itself can create life in the processes and indeed God created us with a specific intention, The building blocks such as the atom are ultimately a living anomaly that we have not yet been able to interpret, and therefore everything in this universe is actually alive and well, so to come and say that humans are the highest living beings in the chain of the universe is a somewhat arrogant thought...
in the world when it was created,
In chaos-without order it was created.
Without laws it is impossible to predict tomorrow,
And even the present cannot be understood.
In order for life to be created there needs to be a cycle, the world needs to run according to laws that will repeat itself.
It was created by the first living creatures that were created,
A new reality unique to them.
which relied on high level mathematics.
This is how the laws we know were created wrapped in each other.
Because first living creatures invented everything,
We are left to forget and try to reinvent the wheel.
Until we reach a touch between the lack of order and the order created by life.
Then we will understand life more but not yet but life was created.
Because life was created out of order, randomly and with a slim chance.
If we manage to understand the lack of order, the randomness and its slim chance, and when it will occur, we will understand the creator better.
But not how the creator was created. Maybe if we return to being human energies - without physicality - we can once again wander in chaos, understand.
But then we won't be able to be in the world we created - the physical, if all the pleasures of the emotions - and the senses.
But was the transition created? Is it through the snap, birth death?
Human energy is created and receives a physical body through birth in our world - a person is created, and then the journey begins in the pleasures of the emotions - the senses.
But, if the human energy demands from the physical body
What it cannot do, the physical body is quickly destroyed and the journey is impaired - a person is sick - and even interrupted - the person dies. Human energy goes into chaos and its laws.
And heaven where?
With us or there?
And God, the creator, will he be found in each and every one of us?
Is it permissible for human beings to harm one another, seemingly in the name of God and his mission?
to hurt the god inside man.
Aren't the observance of the mitzvos by a man to his fellow man a prerequisite for the acceptance of the mitzvos by a man to a place by God?
Every person has a humanoid monster, there are companies that turn a person into a humanoid monster in small percentages. But there are companies that do this by tens of percent.
Is it allowed to destroy these companies?
What is that humanoid monster?
Is this a human energy that does not want emotion? Are they that disturbing?
Does the fact that death exists for my whole life indicate?
About the fact that human energy wants more than the physical body can provide? That the emotion and the senses bother her? Is someone in the world of chaos telling her to come to the world of chaos?
Is human energy already whole and perfect
When the embryo is created? When he leaves his mother's womb? If the human energy is perfect before the fetus leaves its mother's womb, there exists a state of human energy and its physical body, inside the physical body of another human energy. What are the possibilities and results of this situation?
Perhaps man - the physical body in our world - can make use of one of the features of human energy?
Or does the human energy take with it some of the experiences and qualities of the person?
Was there an evolutionary development of living beings, of human energies, of man?
The creator who created other creators who created creators - so other worlds were created, but with different needs so that we cannot distinguish them and identify them, from our point of view we are unique and so from their point of view.
In the same way, the world of chaos is made up of many individuals who do not know and are aware of each other.
The one and only creator is aware and knows everything,
The other creators according to the degree of their creation - less than what was created before them.
Everything affects - reciprocally - one on the other, therefore even the things that we cannot distinguish or recognize affect us and we affect them. Is it dark matter, dark energy?
The one and only creator who created our universe with all the worlds in it that were created by creators created by the one and only creator, that one and only creator lives with other creators like him in his world and they created their own universe, so apparently there are more universes. Do different universes influence each other and what?
Who created those creators of universes?
Is there a beginning or an end to the story playing in your head?
Yehuda
You claimed that the fact that they are already looking for 80 what dark matter is is evidence that it does not exist.
How long did it take from Einstein's prediction of gravitational waves to their measurement? 100 years
How much time passed from Newton's prediction that light is particles to discoveries? 180 years.
Just don't say you didn't know.
Yehuda
At least don't lie to yourself. you wrote
"Regarding turbidity to the movement of light, you claim that the determination of its existence is unscientific, but I claim that precisely the determination of the pure clarity of the universe to infinity is unscientific and has nothing to rely on."
And regarding your proficiency in physics - I stand behind what I wrote. Newton's laws of high school prevent any attraction between bodies due to elastic collisions. I have explained it to you over and over and over again.
Your response - "I don't think so".
And it's true - I don't pretend to be a trailblazer in a field I'm not well versed in.
Miracles
I got to know your response method. At the end, when you have nothing to say, comes the section of moving on to personal injury to the commenter, for example:-
"Your understanding of physics is irrelevant", "Open a XNUMXth grade physics book"!!!,
So I'm pretty tired of your impolite way of speaking. You will never be a trailblazer and with people like you we would still be with Phlogiston or Aristotle.
You also have a way of putting words in my mouth that I never said. such as:-
” Photons are equal to energy. You claim they are swallowed up in the void" Where did I say that? You just stated that I said that because it fits your "plot" about the energy disappearances.
I showed you an explanation of why motion in space should be seen that does not arise from gravity. Instead of addressing this, you prefer to slander?, so I'm tired of it.
Good Day
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
Your understanding of physics is irrelevant.
Photons are equal to energy. You claim they are swallowed up in the void. You claim "ghosts" in space.
you are welcome! Open a XNUMXth grade physics book!!!
To Judah:
Given a metal ball A whose mass is M.
Given a metal ball B whose mass is M, made of an outer layer that is 1% of its mass, centered on an inner ball whose radius is the radius of the first ball.
The radius of sphere B is 100 times greater than the radius of sphere A.
. Calculate the force exerted by pushing gravity in the presence of the earth on the two spheres?
Is it the same?
. Does pushing gravity predict that both balls will fall in free fall with the same speed
Or at a different speed? Prove your answer.
. Does the Gabiti Pushing "see" only the outer layer of the ball B
And we don't notice a mass that is concentrated in its center?
. How the pressure difference of the pushing gravity should affect or not affect the
The inner ball inside B?
. Does the shape of the object affect how gravity pushing works? why?
The answers must be proved as in geometry. Start from binding assumptions, draw conclusions that will be expressed in formulas, and show an unequivocal result that is not implied in any way.
Newton's formulas should not be seen as self-evident proof of gravitational pushing for short distances. which is holding the stick at both ends.
You must assume that you know nothing about Newton's formulas, and prove Newton's or other formulas from the assumption that there are particles whose mass is just "about ten to the power of minus forty kg".
Miracles
If light is swallowed by fog then the principle of conservation of energy has gone???
And as for my experiment?, we'll wait and see.
Good night
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
If empty space absorbs radiation, then the principle of conservation of energy has gone. is not that a loss? Canceling the principle of conservation of energy for a theory that contradicts Newton's laws - does it make sense to you?
And again - light is not made of waves. Photons are particles. not waves…
You claim that the curvature of space-time (not space) does not explain gravity. So please explain to me - what is the source of your particles? If you don't have an explanation, then what did we do? Did we throw away a theory that explains the slowing down of time and the bending of light with another theory that does not explain these phenomena?
You are constantly hiding behind your experiment - but this experiment shows nothing. Take two thin plates and put them in a vacuum. If they are attracted to one another - what did you prove? How will you prove that the attraction is not due to electrostatic forces?
Miracles
Turbidity is an obstruction to passage, to flow. For example, turbidity to the movement of light can be fog or haze that interferes and impairs the passage of light.
For example :- A type XNUMX supernova explodes. Since we know how powerfully it explodes, we can use the intensity of the light reaching us to know at what distance from us it exploded because we know that the light reaching us will decrease according to the square of the distance. But this is provided that there is no turbidity - interference with the movement of light in space, because if there is turbidity due to gas or dust (or something else) that is in the way, some of the light will be absorbed, and the super nova will appear as if it is at a greater distance.
I argued that one should also look for "turbidity" for the movement of other waves in space, for example gravitational waves. and the like.
The concept of "turbidity" was introduced to me by one of the respondents and "it seems to me" that it is appropriate.
And regarding your second question about the essence of gravity pushing, know that this is the only attempt to explain gravity. Newton did not explain it at all and the explanation of the curvature of space which gives the essence of gravitation to space, is a "pagan" explanation. It's just like giving a fluttering flag the flutter feature.
Wait patiently for my experiment, then we will see if the simple universe is a successful attempt at explanation, or not.
good day everybody
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
What dirt are you talking about? Do you even understand what turbidity is? I'm asking seriously.
Yehuda
I didn't understand - isn't pushing gravity the theory of gravity anymore?
wave
The calculation of the movement of the galaxies does not have to be done according to the theory of relativity. At a speed of hundreds or thousands of kilometers per second, there is almost no difference between the relativistic results and the Newtonian results. In most books that explain the movement, they do it according to Newton's simpler laws. So Andromeda approaching the Milky Way at the "small" speed of several hundreds of kilometers per second can be calculated by the theory of relativity or according to Newton the result will be almost the same, in both cases we will have to add a lot of dark matter and in almost the same amount. But if we give meaning to the pressure difference then we can give up dark matter and the pressure difference will take its place.
Mind you, Gal, the pressure difference will exist even without anything to do with the particles of my simple universe. Of course, if the particles of the simple universe existed, we would not need gravitons and perhaps the pressures would be more significant.
Is the fact that I still allow Newton's laws to exist a change of heart?, maybe. But why argue, refer to the idea of the pressure difference, is it acceptable to you or do you prefer to ignore it? It seems to me that it is a "nice" idea.
Regarding turbidity to the movement of light, you claim that the determination of its existence is unscientific, but I claim that precisely the determination of the pure clarity of the universe to infinity is unscientific and has nothing to rely on. You cannot determine such a thing. At most you can say that you checked for example up to a distance of so and so light years and saw that they were clear, and beyond that you don't know because you didn't measure. The same goes for the spread of the force of gravity in the universe, you cannot state that there is no disturbance in space ad infinitum. But Newton and the theory of relativity established that the universe is transparent to the passage of gravity without any interference to infinity. Sorry, this is not a scientific statement. There can't be any scientific assertions at all because it cannot be verified. Because there are simply no measurements in infinity.
By the way, if I refer to gravitation according to pushing gravity, a phenomenon of "turbidity" will immediately appear which results from the average free path of the particles of the simple universe. What is the size of this road, whether it is a light year or more, I do not know.
I hope I answered at least some of your statements. This is how it "seems to me"
Go to Idan and you will see new articles
Good night Gal
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Corrected explanation
Not only did you not answer the question, you also contradicted yourself
I repeat the question
Eavesdropping
"Miracles
Let's find out once and for all what I agree with about relativity and what I don't agree with:-
For short distances up to a distance of hundreds of thousands of light years or even to a distance of a few millions, I agree with all the conclusions: - GPS, clocks, attraction, slowing down, pollution, etc., etc.
Well, you changed your mind, and now you say that only Newton's laws/relativity determine the speed/acceleration of the collision between the Milky Way galaxies, Andromeda.
I would ask you to please explain mathematically why you changed your mind?
Have you read new research on the subject?
Another question
If the laws of relativity reach a few million light-years away, then the galaxies do not rotate according to these simple universe particles according to Newton/relativity
Yehuda eavesdropping
"In my opinion, there are two dominant forces in the expanses of the universe. The first is gravity, whose formula must have a component in the formula created as a result of a disturbance in space. Just like the light moving in space spreads according to the square of the distance, but you also need to have a member that shows the disturbance of space to its movement. A kind of turbidity in the space that interferes with the movement of light. Likewise, turbidity for the progress of gravitation or magnetism, etc. "
On what do you base that there is turbidity in space that interferes with the movement of light? You say in my opinion, to say in my opinion is not scientific
Yehuda eavesdropping
"The known universe contains in its expanses masses of particles such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, Higgs bosons and of course photons and perhaps also gravitons and more that move from place to place and actually behave like gas. Therefore, in this gas I must encounter pressures (as in any gas), and hence the pressure differences and hence also winds. "
On December 7, 2018, you say exactly the opposite
"The gravitational pushing particles of the simple universe have an approximate size of ten to the power of minus forty kg, which is much smaller than a proton and there is no reason why it should not act on it. (Explanation on my website)"
So what causes the pressure difference, the pushin particles and gravity or particles such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, Higgs bosons and of course photons and maybe also gravitons???
In conclusion,
You use these words to prove the correctness of your statement
,
"In my opinion", "her formula must have a component in the formula", "can't be ignored", "could be",
"Maybe", "I don't think so",
....if these words alone include the contradictions in your words, and without any basis of in-depth academic knowledge in the field, it is impossible to build a physical theory
Not only did you not answer the question, you also contradicted yourself
I repeat the question
Eavesdropping
"Miracles
Let's find out once and for all what I agree with about relativity and what I don't agree with:-
For short distances up to a distance of hundreds of thousands of light years or even to a distance of a few millions, I agree with all the conclusions: - GPS, clocks, attraction, slowing down, pollution, etc., etc.
Well, you changed your mind, and now you say that only Newton's laws/relativity determine the speed/acceleration of the collision between the Milky Way galaxies, Andromeda.
I would ask you to please explain mathematically why you changed your mind?
Have you read new research on the subject?
Another question
If the laws of relativity reach a distance of a few million light years, then the galaxies do not rotate
According to the particles of the simple universe, the pressure difference for their rotation!!
"In my opinion, there are two dominant forces in the expanses of the universe. The first is gravity, whose formula must have a component in the formula created as a result of a disturbance in space. Just like the light moving in space spreads according to the square of the distance, but you also need to have a member that shows the disturbance of space to its movement. A kind of turbidity in the space that interferes with the movement of light. Likewise, turbidity for the progress of gravitation or magnetism, etc. "
On what do you rely that there is turbidity in space that interferes with the movement of light? You say, in my opinion,
To say in my opinion is not scientific
"The known universe contains in its expanses masses of particles such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, Higgs bosons and of course photons and perhaps also gravitons and more that move from place to place and actually behave like gas. Therefore, in this gas I must encounter pressures (as in any gas), and hence the pressure differences and hence also winds. "
On December 7, 2018 you say
"The gravitational pushing particles of the simple universe have an approximate size of ten to the power of minus forty kg, which is much smaller than a proton and there is no reason why it should not act on it. (Explanation on my website)"
So what causes the pressure difference, the pushin particles and gravity or particles such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, Higgs bosons and of course photons and maybe also gravitons???
In conclusion,
,
"In my opinion", "her formula must have a component in the formula", "can't be ignored", "could be",
"Maybe", "I don't think so",
....if these words alone include the contradictions in your words, and without any basis of in-depth academic knowledge in the field, it is impossible to build a physical theory
Miracles
We should have had trouble explaining complete equilibrium in temperature and pressure in all parts of our universe.
What is expected is actually non-uniformity and changes in a "vibrant" universe like our cute universe, with its super novae, gamma-ray bursts, racing gravitational waves, "warm" galaxies and more, are the expected thing and not complete uniformity that is only suitable for a utopian universe.
Therefore miracles, it "seems to me" that there will almost certainly be non-uniformity in temperatures and pressures in different regions of the universe.
In short, if I'm right, then soon a "Synoptic Astronomy" program will be introduced into the school system in which they will learn about cosmological weather, and synoptic (XNUMXD) maps of the universe will be an integral part of astrophysics studies. Just don't forget to update the maps, at least... once in a millennium.
Please respond with a smile. Thank you.
good week
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
A photon is a particle. It always behaves as a particle.
What causes these pressure differences?
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
wave
Let's explain my previous response in a simpler way:-
In my opinion, there are two dominant forces in the vastness of the universe: - the first, known, is "gravity", and the second, unknown, is "pressure difference".
A few words about "pressure difference". The known universe contains in its expanses masses of particles such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, Higgs bosons and of course photons that behave as particles, and possibly also gravitons, axions, gluons and more, these particles move from place to place, collide with each other, and actually behave as gas, with all the properties of gas. Therefore, in this gas I must encounter different pressure and temperature zones, (as in any gas), and hence the pressure differences and hence also winds.
a few examples:-
A. If galaxies move in a certain direction, it is not required that the movement be only due to the gravitation of an attractive mass, it may be that there is an area of low pressure that causes the movement.
For example, in our area there is a lot of movement of galaxies towards the area called the "Great Attractor" where you look for a huge attracting mass and do not find it because maybe the "Great Attractor" area is a low pressure area.
B. If a spiral galaxy rotates then it may do so not only because of gravitation but maybe also because of pressure differences and then we would not need the addition of dark matter in huge amounts, if at all.
third. If Andromeda and the Milky Way are moving toward a meeting, perhaps in addition to gravity they are doing so because of a pressure difference.
d. The expansion of the universe can also be explained by the pressure existing in the universe and then the need for dark energy can be reduced and perhaps not needed at all.
And more.
In short, it doesn't seem to me that the possibility of pressures in the universe can be ignored.
For those interested, my blog has several articles on the subject.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
wave
Let's explain my previous response in a simpler way:-
In my opinion, there are two dominant forces in the vastness of the universe: - the first, known, is "gravity", and the second, unknown, is "pressure difference".
A few words about "pressure difference". The known universe contains in its expanses masses of particles such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, Higgs bosons and of course photons that behave as particles, and possibly also gravitons, axions, gluons and more, these particles move from place to place, collide with each other, and actually behave as gas, with all the properties of gas. Therefore, in this gas I must encounter different pressure and temperature zones, (as in any gas), and hence the pressure differences and hence also winds.
a few examples:-
A. If galaxies move in a certain direction, it is not required that the movement be only due to the gravitation of an attractive mass, it may be that there is an area of low pressure that causes the movement.
For example, in our area there is a lot of movement of galaxies towards the area called the "Great Attractor" where you look for a huge attracting mass and do not find it because maybe the "Great Attractor" area is a low pressure area.
B. If a spiral galaxy rotates then it may do so not only because of gravitation but maybe also because of pressure differences and then we would not need the addition of dark matter in huge amounts, if at all.
third. If Andromeda and the Milky Way are moving toward a meeting, perhaps in addition to gravity they are doing so because of a pressure difference.
d. The expansion of the universe can also be explained by the pressure existing in the universe and then the need for dark energy can be reduced and perhaps not needed at all.
And more.
In short, it doesn't seem to me that the possibility of pressures in the universe can be ignored.
For those interested, my blog has several articles on the subject.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
wave
In my opinion, there are two dominant forces in the expanses of the universe. The first is gravity, whose formula must have a component in the formula created as a result of a disturbance in space. Just like the light moving in space spreads according to the square of the distance, but you also need to have a member that shows the disturbance of space to its movement. A kind of turbidity in the space that interferes with the movement of light. Likewise, turbidity for the progress of gravitation or magnetism, etc. It is impossible to ignore the Zatz possibility of "turbidity" therefore regarding gravitation there is a distance X where only half of the gravitation manages to pass. I don't know whether X is a light year or a million light years, but this kind of interference cannot be ignored.
The second dominant force in space is the pressure difference. What are things supposed to be? The known universe contains in its expanses masses of particles such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, Higgs bosons and of course photons and possibly also gravitons and more that move from place to place and actually behave like gas. Therefore, in this gas I must encounter pressures (as in any gas), and hence the pressure differences and hence also winds. Therefore, if galaxies move in a certain direction, it is not required that there will be an attractive mass in that area, it may be that there is an area with low cosmic pressure. And if a spiral galaxy rotates then it may not do so only because of gravitation but perhaps mainly from pressure differences and then we will not need the addition of dark matter in huge quantities.
If, for example, in our area there is a lot of movement of galaxies towards the area called the "Great Attractor" where you look for a huge attracting mass and you don't find it because it may not be a mass but an area of low pressure. And if Andromeda moves towards the Milky Way, maybe in addition to gravity they do it because of the pressure difference.
The expansion of the universe can also be explained by the pressure existing in the universe and then the need for dark energy can be reduced and perhaps not needed at all.
It doesn't seem to me that the possibility of pressures in the universe can be ignored.
So far. My blog has several articles on the subject.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Miracles
Sorry, wait for the experiment. Maybe then it will be understandable.
Good night
Yehuda
Yehuda,
A few months ago I asked you about the collision between the Milky Way Galaxy and Andromeda
She wrote that the cause of the acceleration of the Milky Way and Andromeda is the push of the particles of the simple universe, and also described rivers of particles and hurricanes that affect the speed and acceleration of the collision.
On January 10, 2019 she wrote
"Miracles
Let's find out once and for all what I agree with about relativity and what I don't agree with:-
For short distances up to a distance of hundreds of thousands of light years or even to a distance of a few millions, I agree with all the conclusions: - GPS, clocks, attraction, slowing down, pollution, etc., etc.
Well, you changed your mind, and now you say that only Newton's laws/relativity determine the speed/acceleration of the collision between the Milky Way galaxies, Andromeda.
I would ask you to please explain mathematically why you changed your mind?
Have you read new research on the subject?
Thanks
Yehuda
Isn't your experiment actually testing your gravity in a vacuum? You claim that these collisions are gravity, don't you?
Cavendish showed that gravity exists in open air. Are you arguing that his experiment would have given different results in a vacuum?
In connection with Idush. The gravitational force of a galaxy is equal to the gravitational force from a single point in the center of the galaxy, where all the mass is concentrated. Are you saying it's not true?
Miracles
What does my experiment have to do with Cavendish? Did Cavendish even examine the cause of gravitation?? He determined the gravitational constant G and from this deduced the mass of the earth.
We have another debate, (and I am quoting from my previous response):- "Can gravity be explained by colliding particles, (pushing gravity) and does it require plastic or elastic collisions". End quote.
Hope this is now understandable.
And regarding your question: "So you agree that gravity does work at distances of hundreds of thousands of light years". End quote.
My answer - one sun will lens to a distance of a few light years, hundreds of billions of suns concentrated in the galaxy will lens to a slightly greater distance. To me it seems logical, simple and clear.
Good Day
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
So you agree that gravity does work at distances of hundreds of thousands of light years... It is interesting…
And regarding the gas - I have no idea what you are saying. The force of gravity between bodies depends on whether they are in gas or not? Cavendish worked on us??
Miracles
Of course there is gravity in a gas. It's not even in doubt. We have another debate: - can gravity be explained by colliding particles, (pushing gravity) and does it require plastic or elastic collisions.
And as for "a few light years" I mean not billions.
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
So you're saying there is no gravity in a gas?
The galaxy is not "a few light years" - it is probably hundreds of thousands of light years. The entire mass of the galaxy caused the light to bend.
for miracles
Answer your last questions
Question:- Yehuda, how does Vacuum help you? When there is no vacuum does your method not work?
Answer:- The vacuum increases the outward free path of the gas molecules and then the attraction will be seen. In a tiny mean free path like between the molecules of a gas at normal atmospheric pressure, we will not notice the attraction between bodies in the atmosphere. The explanation another time.
By the way, this is the difference between Le Sage's Gravitational Pushing Theory and my simple universe….
Second question:- I am now reading about a quasar nearly 13 billion light years away. Its light is gravitationally filtered by a galaxy 6 billion light years away.
That is - we have evidence that gravity works at distances of many billions of light years. End quote.
Answer - The light passed by the galaxy at a distance of a few light years, not billions, and received a refraction. The light was bent and continued for another billion light years as it moved in the new direction. Again, the recycling action was created only when the light passed close to the galaxy.
And as for Albanzo, he really lacks a bit for the positive scientific atmosphere.
Good Day.
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
I did not understand the whole universe is a bubble? Or is the whole universe part of the bubble? By the way
Yehuda
By the way - I am now reading about a quasar nearly 13 billion light years away. Its light is gravitationally filtered by a galaxy 6 billion light years away.
That is - we have evidence that gravity works at distances of many billions of light years.
I thought you might be interested:
https://newatlas.com/brightest-quasar-600-trillion-suns/58020/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2019-01-14%20153559%20USA%20Daily%20Basic%202019-01-14%20154317%20Ford%20unveils%20all-new%202020%20Explorer%20SUV%20in%20Detroit&utm_content=2019-01-14%20153559%20USA%20Daily%20Basic%202019-01-14%20154317%20Ford%20unveils%20all-new%202020%20Explorer%20SUV%20in%20Detroit+CID_8fe2947a070ceeee5a2fc3a99b02b57f&utm_source=Campaign%20Monitor&utm_term=Read%20more
Yehuda
How does vacuum help you? When there is no vacuum does your method not work?
Ariel
Unfortunately for us, Albenzo has not responded for a long time. We learned a lot from him!
to Ariel
My simple idea may not work. Understand that every time I show something that proves my idea, then it is also explained in a different way, for example the friction in the Pioneer movement is explained with the help of heat and the movement of the galaxies with the help of dark matter or dark energy for the expansion of the universe.
To overcome the double explanations I planned an experiment and then we will see what it will prove.
Patience, looking for a vacuum device and then we will draw conclusions
Good night
Yehuda
Sound familiar..
Yehuda,
This debate has been going on for three years now. You keep repeating the same arguments and at the time Albenzo (question to Nissim: is he still active here?) refuted them again and again and each time you repeated the same arguments only in different wording.
The universe is not simple. Your model does not work either under laboratory conditions or according to observations.
The word "healthy" has no place in a scientific text, or in a popular science text. It's quite a shame that you've come to this site.
No. Ben Ner
"The question remains in the eye:
What is the source of energy for the inflationary expansion of the universe?"
Answer: the energy of the bang.
The energy in the fifth dimension is positive and originates from the Big Bang.
Describe points (matter) on the surface of an inflatable balloon (fifth dimension) that sink into a bowl (gravity) during its expansion.
Compare this to points that sink (gravity) inwards into a beaker, and move outwards across a spreading flat surface, at a constant speed (for the sake of comparison).
The slowing down of the speed of propagation of the points on the surface of the flat surface will be greater compared to the slowing down of their speed on the surface of an inflating ball at a constant speed.
The reason - the distance between points on the surface of an inflatable ball increases faster and therefore gravity decreases faster.
Hence there is no need for additional energy. The energy of the 5th dimensional universe at the beginning of its expansion is the cause.
This description is not accurate and does not illustrate an additional dimension but rather an energy addition as a result of an additional convex and non-concave dimension.
An inflatable balloon comes to illustrate the addition of positive energy to expansion in a negative gravitational field.
In the 5-dimensional model there is no need for additional energy, and this is its uniqueness.
It is possible that both the new model and another (finite) source of energy are together the cause of the slowing down of the expansion of the universe less than expected.
Yehuda
This is also a method…
Miracles
I do not agree with you that the experiment I am planning is not serious.
If I manage to show that there is an attraction between the boards, then I have done my part. Let's wait for my experiment and see what happens, then we will argue about the meaning of the results
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
We are making progress!
"I argued: - adding the second plate does change the state of the system because the initial state regarding the second plate is not that it is in an environment of particles only, but that it is in an environment of particles and a plate and this is already a completely different situation and its environment is not symmetrical on the one hand it has particles and on the other Two boards and particles!"
I hope you remember a little of the physics we studied in high school. To calculate the potential energy of an object in a gravitational field - the exercise is to start from infinity and bring the object to that point. The reason is that at infinity the object has no energy (because the force is 0).
Now - let's do the same exercise. We will bring a first plate from infinity and place it at point X. We both agree that it has no effect on the particles in space. No force will act on the board, at any point.
Now we will bring another board to point Y, at a certain distance from X. At a huge distance, of course there is no power on the other board. The plate moves in a field of particles that is the same as the particle field that was in the first case. You can put measuring devices on the board to verify this.
Even when the board approaches Y, the situation does not change. After all, we said that the first panel has no effect on the particles. Therefore - even at point Y - we will still be in the area where the particles are in the same state as if the first plate was not there.
Therefore - there is no attraction between the plates.
The experiment you propose is not serious. If the force you receive is the same as the force of gravity according to Newton - you did not show everyone. And if the force is different - then you contradicted the idea that your particles produce a force equal to the force of gravity.
Yehuda - Accept the explanation I gave. I think he is right.
Miracles
Regarding the concept of "the distance to the background radiation" I don't know what it is, and we will leave it for another comment.
I will mainly refer to your second question, the question of the particles and the board: - "Would you be able to tell that there is a board there by measuring the state of the particles where you are?" End quote.
I must mention miracles, which is a challenging and interesting question. (And it seems to me that I also know what the follow-up question will be....)
My answer:- Assuming a completely elastic collision that you assumed, and from the measurements of the particles themselves, it "doesn't seem to me" (you really like this concept...) that we can see a difference in the movement of the particles. I'm sure miracles are the answer you wanted to hear and you're currently happy.
Your follow-up question (if I'm guessing correctly) will be :- If we add another plate next to the previous plate, the addition of which also does not change the state of the particles, why would something like attraction be created? (Did I guess miracles correctly?)
I argued:- Adding the second plate does change the state of the system because the initial state regarding the second plate is not that it is in an environment of particles only, but that it is in an environment of particles and a plate and this is already a completely different situation and its environment is not symmetrical on the one hand it has particles and on the other Board and particles!.
You cannot change the environment and claim the same result
So what will be the result? Will the first board be indifferent to the second board that suddenly pops up? Will he ignore him??
The answer will depend on the distance between the boards. You will agree with me that at a long distance we both agree that there will be almost no effect, but, at a small distance?, wait.... Small relative to what?, well small relative to the mean free path of the particles
A bit complicated??, this is the experiment I want to make in a vacuum. The particles will be the air molecules and the average free path of the particles (gas molecules) will be determined according to the degree of vacuum.
What exactly will happen?? You are sure there will be no difference in the distance between the boards, and I claim they will stick.
I admit that in the analysis of the problem, there are sides here or there. The situation at the moment is that I can't find a device to create a suitable vacuum. But I will find, do the experiment, then (in a good spirit) and draw conclusions.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
The boundary of the universe is determined by the distance to the cosmic background radiation. This is a very uniform border, no matter where you look in space.
Regarding the pull, think about the following point. According to you - there are many particles in space that move in all directions and collide elastically with bodies (and perhaps with each other). You place a thin plate of some material in an empty space. Every particle that collides with the plate bounces off it - a change of direction only (the magnitude of the velocity does not change).
Now - you are in the space in the area of the board. My question is - would you be able to tell that there is a board there by which you will measure the state of the particles where you are?
Miracles
First of all let it be clear that I absolutely do not think you are stupid and I hope you think the same about me because if not there is no point in trying to convince both of us.
Let's not get confused and talk about a sphere - a XNUMXD universe. Where did you see that I measured my distance to the edge of the universe in every direction??, I didn't see that I did. Do you conclude from this that all the particles in my environment move away from me at the same average speed that I am at the center of the universe?? Take an example of a balloon, draw dots on it and inflate it, each point moves away from a point next to it at the same rate, nevertheless, you will not be able to say about any point on the surface of the balloon that it is the center of the balloon. Therefore, I do not understand how you determine that we are the center of the universe.
I don't know how the limit of the universe of about 46 billion light years will be determined, and the truth is, I don't know what that means either. And regarding the creation of attraction with the help of particles I said I would do an experiment and check it, I need a vacuum tank and do an experiment in it.
You will understand miracles that no matter how much you laugh at my "simple universe" I constantly expose it to refutation. I will do my experiment but it will take some time and then we will know if attraction is created or not. You are the first I will tell him and draw conclusions.
Time flies and it has already been a month since my dear sister's death, and on Sunday there will be a tombstone unveiling ceremony, so I will be somewhat busy in the coming days,
Good night miracles
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
Let's go to XNUMXD. You are inside the area of a circle and you are looking in different directions. You find that the distance to the edge of the circle is constant in every direction.
What does this say about your position relative to the circle?
If it is not clear - we will try one-dimensional. You are on a long straight road. You look in both directions and see that the distance to the end of the road is equal in both directions.
Where are you standing relative to the center of the road?
Now, pay attention - what I say is true if and only if we see to the end of the universe. And see it's a miracle - such a border exists and it is 46 billion light years away.
Second thing - no matter how stupid you think I am - elastic collisions do not create attraction. My explanation is shockingly simple and I'll repeat it again if you want. If I don't understand….
Miracles
You can say all you want that we are at the center of the universe but we are laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa If that doesn't convince you then it turns out that even according to conventional theories we are at the center of the universe (almost).
You established a fact and you keep repeating it thinking that will make it true. You do the same with the gravitational pushing which is not able (as it were) to act on molecules. so you said
That doesn't make your words true.
Good night miracles
Yehuda
There is a phenomenon called "the relativistic Doppler effect". A phenomenon observed at great distances.
Gravitational dusting - the phenomenon happens even when there are huge distances between the galaxies.
And here is a link that explains it well: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3584810/Einstein-s-theory-general-relativity-valid-13-BILLION-light-years-Earth-reveals-new-research.html
Yehuda - we are not interested in how the universe began. We are interested in what he looks like now. And now it looks uniform in every direction with incredible precision.
According to your theory this means we are at the center of the universe. You can't claim that with more powerful telescopes we can see farther, because we know there is nothing to see farther (the cosmic background radiation).
You can ignore it, but in my opinion it (and not only that) invalidates your theory.
Your comment about homogeneity and changing the speed of light is beside the point. How does that rule out that we are at the center of the universe?
Miracles
Let's find out once and for all what I agree with about relativity and what I don't agree with:-
For short distances up to a distance of hundreds of thousands of light years or even to a distance of a few million I agree with all the conclusions:- GPS, clocks, attraction, slowing down, etc. etc. Will this be a contradiction to gravitational waves that reach us from a distance of a billion light years? Absolutely not!! Because what happened to gravitational waves? At a distance of a billion light years two black holes that were really close, I estimate at a distance of a few astronomical units at most, collided and the waves they created moved a billion light years away. You wrote in 6,7:
"6,7 We see the bending of light to a distance of billions of light years." End quote.
But you have to write:
We see the bending of light billions of light years away (in distance instead of distance)
If you show me proof that relativity works a billion light years away, I will sincerely apologize to you.
So far you haven't shown me any proof that relativity works at distances of billions!
Regarding 1 in your response, I do not blame the Big Bang at all and it is a somewhat problematic topic. I don't agree that the universe started from a singular point there is no proof that the laws of physics behave the same way near a singular point of the entire universe. In fact no one can know how they will perform in such an extreme environment. And don't tell me about a cosmological principle that I agree exists in a "normal" environment.
4 Regarding the homogeneity of the universe, indeed it looks very homogenous but that is because the speed of light changes and was greater in the past. We don't need the initial inflationary spread. The homogeneity does not contradict the words.
And regarding 9, here I agree with you - this also happens.
And regarding your last comment, see the beginning of my response.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
1. You describe the big bang as an explosion. The propagation speed of an explosion is constant (and in practice even slowed down). It's very simple.
2. You didn't pay attention to what I said. Your assumption is very extreme and contradicts the theory of relativity. But - sometimes you say that this Torah is acceptable to you... sometimes (it's really hard for me to follow)
3. makes sense.
4. Here you are wrong. We see to vast distances and the universe seems very homogeneous.
5. According to your claim we must be in the center. Otherwise, we should have had differences in great distances. Today we see a uniformity of 1 in 100,000 - aren't you saying that the observations are wrong?
6,7 We see the bending of light to a distance of billions of light years.
8 But you don't get the theory of relativity. Maybe study it before you write such things?
9 Again - please read a little about the subject...
10 don't know... so let's ignore...
Yehuda - your description does not describe the reality. And more than that, he dismisses all modern physics. I think it's worth getting to know what is rejected. No?
Miracles
1 The rate of expansion of the universe will increase and it will aspire to the high speed of the outer particles, which means the speed will increase but the acceleration will decrease.
2 I assume a space much larger than the universe, so it may be necessary to get a scientist to change it again like the cosmological constant
3 The gas ball is inhomogeneous and in its large ranges near its edge it is thinner and moves faster
4 This ball has a center. It will be difficult from an internal perspective to find out where this center is
5 We are not in the center of the sphere even though we see all our "neighbors" moving away at almost the same speed.
6,7, the slowing down of time and the bending of light near a mass does not belong to the subject in question - the expansion of the universe. There is no contradiction in what I say to the theories of attribution to distances of hundreds of thousands of light years and even millions
8 The shortening of length belongs to the theory of relativity
9 I don't know about bodies that move faster than the speed of light
10 Not familiar with the laws and equations of the fast gas, the maximum rate of expansion or acceleration will require correction according to your formulas
Good night Nissim and thank you for your learned response.
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
Your explanation is beautiful and simple. But he is problematic.
1 - The rate of expansion will not increase, but will remain constant. The reason - the rate of expansion is determined by the fastest particles, and this speed is constant. What you say contradicts the principle of conservation of energy. It is also not true for the simple reason that no force acts on the distant particles (after all, the fast particles moved away from the particles behind them.
2 - You assume that space exists everywhere, and this contradicts the theory of special and general relativity. Are you arguing that both of these theories are wrong?
3 – You describe a three-dimensional sphere in a homogeneous three-dimensional space. This creates several problems:
4 - This ball has a center - and this contradicts the cosmological principle. This principle means that the universe looks the same everywhere.
5 - We are in the center of the sphere - and this contradicts the Copernican principle
6 - The bending of light near mass cannot be explained
7 - The slowing down of time near a large mass cannot be explained
8 - The shortening of the length cannot be explained
9 - We know about bodies that move away from us at a speed higher than the speed of light. If your assumption is correct - then there is a blatant contradiction to the special theory of relativity
10 – …. There must be more problems (you wanted to round to 10 points)
Oh yes - energetic particles cannot be treated as an ideal gas. And you don't need cosmic rays for that: already in fast flight the air does not behave like an ideal gas. In normal supersonic flight, the gas equations are very different from ideal gas equations.
The article presents a theory that claims that our 4-dimensional universe is the rim (edge) of a 5-dimensional universe, in which the fifth dimension expands, creating the inflationary expansion effect of the universe, which we see in astronomical observations.
but….
The question remains:
What is the source of energy for the inflationary expansion of the universe?
I think the explanation is really simple
A ball of gas in an empty environment will expand into it, and if bodies are found inside the ball of gas, they will spread outwards with acceleration because the outward force will always be greater than the force that pushes the body inward. This is exactly what happens in our universe, it expands and it does so at an acceleration, it remains to find out if the expanses of the universe with all the particles moving in them (neutrinos, cosmic rays, Higgs bosons and more) can be considered a gaseous body because if so it does not need dark energy for the expansion!
Please respond gently
Yehuda
The scientific article from the link
https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.261301
We actually gave the notebook a chance. Not only the topic she chose, and the quality of the material. praises the articles.
In my opinion, this is a new model of a universe expanding in space-time.
If we liken the current universe to the circumference of a circle, and its expansion, to the expansion of the universe, then the expansion of the (one-dimensional) circle in an expanding two-dimensional plane, will represent the expansion of the universe in 4 dimensions, one of which is time.
Now, if a dimension is added, then the expansion of the circle will take place in a 3-dimensional spherical space-time, instead of a XNUMX-dimensional plane.
That is, the expansion of the circle will take place on the surface of a sphere and not on a plane, similar to rubber that expands on an inflating balloon.
In terms of the inhabitants of the circle (which represents the universe) and the laws of nature, there will be differences between expansion in 2 dimensions and expansion in 3 dimensions, depending on the rate of expansion in the additional dimension, which is probably very small.
In the new model, the 3-dimensional universe spreads in 5-dimensional space-time, instead of 4-dimensional.
It has an added dimension of curvature. and curvature equal to positive energy.
This is dark energy.
In the model of rubber worn on an expanding ball, the rubber also expands in the direction of the additional curvature.
It means that the physical universe is expanding in the direction of another dimension that is almost imperceptible.
How does this affect the equations of general relativity, wave and quantum phenomena, constants, symmetry of laws and particles, black holes?
The new Torah will have to respond to this, calculate, and put its predictions to an experimental test.
-
Since many details are missing in the article, it is possible that the explanation here is not relevant to the new model, and it is about something else.
soup
The idea of the expansion of the universe is not an invention, but the result of many observations and many studies. This explains, for example, the cosmic background radiation.
The assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere is a basic assumption in science. And in the meantime - she provides excellent predictions. If we throw away this whole assumption, then there is no value to science - assume what you want. You can assume that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe 5000 years ago - and you will have no way to confirm or disprove it.
On the other hand - without modern physics - you wouldn't have a computer, phone or GPS.
An interesting article and a different look at the universe..
In my opinion all the calculations may be wrong because we rely on the light from a distance
Enormous as an indicator and we are not physically close enough to verify that the constant of light is even true as well
Light and physics may behave differently in the vicinity of our galaxy than elsewhere
And in general the universe is static and has only minor expansion and contraction
Stole this from an episode of The Big Bang Theory
The new model sounds very interesting, but it seems that this column does not meet the usual standards of the science site, perhaps because the writer is not qualified in the field (although there is no doubt that she is smarter and more talented than I am).
My English is too weak to refer to the original article, but it seems like too much popularization of a physical model. It is possible to write something that is not really technical but a little closer to the technical details. For example, I assume that this is the four-dimensional equivalent of a bubble (and the three-dimensional universe is its surface) and the bubble of course does not "come from another dimension" but is part of a location with more dimensions than our visible universe.
If I understand correctly, this is a significantly different claim from the string model, which does speak of additional but tiny dimensions, and here we are talking about a large additional dimension that needs to be explained why it has no observational evidence (for example, why we do not see the dispersion of energy outside of our three dimensions).
In addition, it should be noted that even if the dark energy comes from somewhere outside the visible universe, this still does not explain its origin. For example, is it an infinite source of energy that will cause the universe to expand further and further to infinity, or will at some point an equilibrium be established between the bubble and its surroundings and it will stop receiving energy?
I hope that something clearer will be published later.
Maybe the universe is simply one of the building blocks of some other universe with more dimensions, just like atoms make up our 3-dimensional universe..
Perhaps the universe is a completely natural and completely understandable phenomenon for beings of higher dimensions than us... perhaps there is a physical law called "the law of the formation of universes" that causes new universes to always be created..
Good Day .
Uppsala….
Little by little you will discover that this dimension is a divine dimension.
What to do without a creator there is no creation and there nothing can happen from which. without a creator who started the wave
1. "This model for understanding the universe by scientists from Uppsala University provides a new, different picture of the creation and future fate of the universe"
The word "healthy" has a strong religious connection, it's a shame that such terms are used in an article that is supposed to be scientific. Why not write for example: "This model provides a new and different picture of the way the universe was created"?
2. "The entire universe is located on the edge of this expanding bubble"
So the bubble itself is not the universe? Is the universe only located "at the edge" of the bubble? what is this bubble
If a certain theory cannot be disproved, then it is a "belief" and not a scientific theory.