The background radiation in microwaves, which can tell us about the moments when the universe was formed, has an aspect that is almost unexplored, and if we can observe it with a sufficiently precise instrument it will reveal new details about the early universe. This aspect is the frequency range, the spectrum, of the radiation
By: George Masser
Cosmologists often talk about the microwave background radiation, their window into the universe when it was a 400,000-year-old baby, until it seems that they have exhausted everything possible on the subject. After all, the mission of "Plank", the new satellite of the European Space Agency, is actually to extract "all available information" from the spatial patterns of the radiation. However, the cosmologists who think about the post-Planck phase say that the radiation has an almost unexplored aspect, and if we can observe it with a precise enough instrument it will reveal new details about the early universe.
This aspect is the frequency range, the spectrum, of the radiation. Astronomers routinely use the rainbow of colors emitted by the Sun and other stars to determine what they are made of. At a conference of the American Astronomical Society, held in January 2009, the well-known astrophysicist Rashid Soniav from the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Gerching, Germany, claimed that the successor of the "Planck" satellite may collect similar fingerprints from the background radiation, the spectrum of which appears, at present, to be general and unremarkable.
According to the accepted world view, the background radiation consists of photons created in the first moments of the Big Bang. They have undergone scattering from protons and electrons in the species
A game of cosmic flipper until everything cooled enough to allow protons to bond with electrons and create hydrogen atoms - a process called recombination or splicing. Because atoms are electrically neutral they are less likely to scatter photons. This is how the photons began to flow through space in more or less straight lines. The pinball game completely squashes their spectrum, so the only information cosmologists can glean from it is the total density of matter.
However, this picture overlooks two thin aspects. First, it took some time for the protons to become tightly bound to the electrons. At first, their grip was loose. An atom that was created had to lose energy, by emitting photons, to stabilize, and it did so in its spare time.
To further complicate the picture, a photon from one atom tended to knock an electron from another atom. Like crabs in a bucket, the atoms tripped each other up. Their mutual hostility was calmed by the cosmic expansion, which depleted the energy of photons and slowly tipped the scales in favor of the formation of atoms rather than their destruction. The time frame that is usually talked about, 400,000 years, is only a convenient point of reference; In practice, it took about two million years until the splicing was completed.
The other aspect is that although the universe was made up mostly of hydrogen, it also had a significant amount of helium. Helium nuclei, which include two protons, have a positive charge twice as large as the charge of the hydrogen nucleus, so they bind electrons more strongly. Hence helium nuclei formed atoms earlier than hydrogen nuclei: they captured their first electron at the age of 15,000 years or so and the second electron at the age of 100,000 years. More than that, they have managed to escape the crab bucket syndrome.
The vanguard of the hydrogen atoms acted as a dampener that intercepted the photon emitted by one helium atom before it could destroy another atom, similar to how neutrons are slowed down by heavy water in nuclear reactors. Helium atoms were therefore formed quickly.
The photons emitted by the hydrogen and helium atoms added some fingerprints to the Genesis soup that indicate its composition. Measuring the number of photons emitted from the helium will determine exactly how much helium the universe created - a quantity that today has no choice but to estimate through a difficult extrapolation from the amount of helium found in the stars. "This is a completely clear way to find the relative proportion of primordial helium," says Soniav. In addition, photons emitted from helium were created in the era before the cosmic background radiation was released. It is therefore possible that they bear the imprint of processes that are currently not visible to us, such as decays of exotic particles.
The problem is that for every photon of helium there are a billion primordial photons. Happily, the helium atoms were formed very quickly, so the photons they emitted are prominently concentrated in certain frequencies, known as spectral lines. Soniav and his colleague Jens Kaluba of the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics pushed to initiate a new frequency-scanning mission to look for peaks in the number of photons, like running a finger over a surface to detect a bump too small for a ruler to measure. "To observe these lines, it will be necessary to observe a fixed point in space and scan the frequencies," says Jose Alberto Robinho-Martin from the Institute of Astrophysics in the Canary Islands. On the other hand, the current missions, including the Plank satellite, scan the space with a fixed frequency.
In a way cosmological history repeats itself. For decades, the spatial measurements of the microwave background radiation appeared completely uniform until cosmologists recognized the spatial fluctuations. Now the spectral measurements look completely uniform. Once cosmologists see spectral fluctuations, they expect another flood of information about the early universe.
The article was published in the July issue of the magazine "Scientific American - Israel"
107 תגובות
No. Ben - Ner
My heart will be filled with happiness! It's not every day that a person experiences meaningful songs.
I, Yehuda Sabdarmish, with Jerusalem our city for generations!
But apart from that the main thing is to have a light fast
happy New Year
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Dear Yehuda
Reading your stunning articles, I can't help but remember the wonderful poem:
"And Judah forever…..sit down
And Jerusalem …..for generation and generation"
Which for our purposes means:
What was will be.
Look for new solutions
to problems that do not exist.
And the existing theories are not correct either.
Hence the first layers have already reached the maximum distance speed (and not minimum as written by mistake)
Tl
Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda:
First of all, the Shlaf Tunda will intervene for you.
After that the site did not guarantee the laughter of Einstein and his friends for the exact same reason that your ideas that focus on the pressure differences in gas did not guarantee the laughter of Michael. And for the same reason as yours, the dark soup is not very evening.
You already mentioned yourself that there are large scale limits to the gravitational fields. I argue that there is no point in exaggerating with the same idea for the entire range of the universe. That is, your ideas in a different form and in the right combination may be more suitable.
So that the universe can contain all the variety of seemingly contradictory observations.
There is another general point regarding theories in general that needs to be internalized. And it is that nature has not promised us that the legality operating on it corresponds or will correspond to intuition. This fact becomes more and more clear with the development and perfection of quantum theory for all its enormous variety of successes. It turns out more and more that the world is abstract mathematical rather than physical that can be easily seen and touched.
Higgs boson
Everyone knows how to pronounce "Ether Yuk", and when you ask them why Yuk they answer you that this is how it was proven in Michelson Morley's experiment. So I went to check if it was like that.
First of all, really, Michaelson and Morelli tried to test the speed of light relative to the site and in every direction, then what a surprise you were that the speed of light was the same in every direction. That's why everyone concluded that light is not ether waves as they used to call it and therefore there is no need for ether either.
Here I make it difficult - did the experiment really prove that there is no site? He only proved that light does not need a site! Why is it similar?, Mr. Higgs. I don't need your car to hang out but does that mean anything about the existence or non-existence of your car?, nothing!
The universe is full of moving particles. point.
They move from place to place and even collide with each other. point.
Therefore the entire universe is gas (ether?). point.
And so on and so forth.
It's ridiculous that people are dismissing my particle idea because it brings the site back.
By my life I'm not guilty!, the clickers are there whether I want to or not!
And hence if you are brave enough proceed to the idea of pressure differences. Remember - there are tiny differences in the background temperature of the universe, there is no reason why there should not be pressure differences (and apparently in correlation with the background temperature differences.
Regarding the Big Bang, I actually think that it existed, but it did not start at a certain point and in addition there was no explosion phenomenon, but first the outer layers and then the inner ones moved apart, and hence the first layers have already reached the minimum separation speed and the inner ones strive for it, therefore the speed is increasing. She continues to grow to this day!
So let's have a fun and cool sequel
I'm going to take a midday nap willow!
Good Day
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Sabdarmish Yehuda:
Two more notes:
A space with the above-mentioned properties has created some inventions that you like and some that you don't like as mentioned, such as mass or dark energy, but it is also possible that this may be a big bang that may not be necessary in such a situation.
After all, until a few years ago there was an "ether" until Einstein overestimated it because it was not pleasant to him as it was pleasant to others.
And now the "ether" comes back in the back door in the form of dark mass/energy. It's not as tasty a soup as you mentioned.
Another note. It is quite possible that in such a state of affairs that is that space has a basic dynamic curvature of which mass is only one expression.
The dimensions of this space are not homogenous throughout its length and width, meaning that in certain scales there will be more than three dimensions and in others there may be fewer dimensions. This feature may also explain many contradictions and difficulties.
Sabdarmish Yehuda:
As you mentioned before, this idea makes it possible to give everyone a place to express themselves. It doesn't cancel what exists but it definitely makes room for a universe structure that behaves differently on different scales. You yourself preach against the extremism of going all the way with the ideas. Finding the golden path seems to me to allow a more fruitful dialogue and not a deaf debate. After all, the problem with all scientific theories starts with this. that the ambition is to apply a very small number of simple laws that will always work from one end of the universe to the other. This is the ambition of every scientist since ancient times and also, forgive me, of all religions. But if we proceed more carefully and also look at the development of thinking and science. We can understand that extremism is the mother of all mistakes.
In my opinion, the first law in designing theories of laws is: there is no final law. That is, each collection of laws will be stable and suitable for a certain scale up to certain limits. Beyond these limits, another set of laws will exist with proper stability, which will be compatible in certain ways with other sets of laws, but will also be separate from them.
Just as it is with the opinions of men. Each one is a world in itself and unique in itself, but also a part of society and communicates with society.
Higgs boson (yock)
My knowledge on the subject of curvature is lacking and therefore regarding the curvature of cosmology I need added knowledge.
You may have something in your hand.
I will get back to you on this topic when I learn and understand more.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Higgs boson
I saw your post
I would still prefer the idea of tiny particles and pressures, over the curvature of space. If both give the same thing, why not prefer a normal three-dimensional universe full of particles (as it really is)?
Every second, billions of neutron-like particles pass through every square centimeter of our body!
Food for thought for me and others
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda:
In my opinion the Higgs Boson is Yoke. I bet he won't.
meaning "MY NAME IS NOBODY"
Sabdarmish Yehuda:
The curvature of space has many advantages. This geometric solution, which Einstein was the first to use, is very elegant and explains many things. The combination of mathematics and physics on a simpler geometrical basis clarifies many things better.
The change I proposed is, as you mentioned, not to go all the way with it as it is in general relations. Rather, start from geometry itself as independent of masses and see space itself as an independent body with its own geometry. The masses fit within the geometry according to the dynamic self-curvature of the space. That is, the masses themselves can be defined as another type of space, say a denser space. According to this description, the curvature is an orchestra in which several instruments are played in combination. So they are actually different expressions of the same space.
Higgs boson
First of all, I must warn you, you will become a member of a small group of academics whose opinion is different from the accepted one and because of this they are bitter every day. Isn't it better that you act like our friend Michael who swallows smelly fish because he thinks it's the worst in the minority? Michael is a smart man, does he know what he's doing?
But that's your problem and I'll address the rest of your words.
First of all I am afraid that Einstein was not completely right. He himself was also not satisfied with a number of conclusions that arose from his theory beyond the measurable limits of his theory.
It is not possible to take without any doubt the correctness of any theory beyond the ranges in which it has been measured and proven to be correct. In the area of the singular point, the physical formulas are not assumed to be correct, therefore there most likely "slightly" different formulas work there. This "somewhat" can already cause each gravitating body to have a minimum volume so that it does not concentrate to a singular point.
Einstein in his "general theory of relativity" found that acceleration is equivalent to gravity. It doesn't bother me, but what bothers me is that he decided this comprehensively for every size of mass and distance, which is something he won't do. Because you can't prove something about everything, I can't measure things that are to the end of the universe.
The only one to whom I am willing to give up on this kind of statement was Newton who claimed that his gravitation works to the end of the universe, and the reason, Newton's universe was finite up to the planet Saturn, beyond that there are the Saturn stars that stand still and do not move. This was his opinion and therefore he could claim the "everything" claim as he claimed.
I claim that comparing acceleration mass to gravitational mass can only be done on tiny scales, a little above the solar system, beyond that it is very possible that gravity fades in space.
It remains for me to check the idea you expressed regarding the curvature of space. Why would the space be curved? Why do we need it? Maybe it's a product of formulas not bound by reality and then maybe we can give up this curvature.
I have no data to decide in this case.
If there is an obligation in curvature then your solution may be legitimate.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda:
I abbreviated it a bit, so for the sake of clarifying the above idea, I propose to replace the gaseous pressures with something more basic, that is, the fundamental geometry of space that behaves a bit like the gas you suggest. And it is not a result of the existence of a mass, but exists even without apparent masses. The masses contribute to the curvature and integrate into the space/field this.
Sabdarmish Yehuda:
You know what I got! but…
A few things bother me, for example that on a smaller subgalactic scale of solar and star systems it is not possible to see how the gaseous properties and pressures are expressed and measured. And there are some other problems.
But let's take the idea of these pressures on the one hand and the idea of the curved space of relativity on the other and connect them.
That is, instead of assuming that the masses curve the space. Perhaps we assume that space itself, even without mass at all, is curved. And not only curved, but this curvature is dynamic and turbulent.
Let's assume that the curvature is not only a result of the existence of mass but from such a combination. in which the curvature of space is a type of primary field and the masses actually adapt themselves and contribute to the operation of this field.
In this way, we will be able to eliminate the existence of dark mass and dark energy, and we will also be able to characterize solutions that will suit both small and large scales. And as a bonus, you will be able to swallow relativity, which means that Einstein was not right until the end, but only partially.
So what do you think Yehuda?
Higgs:
In the past I have already pointed out several flaws in this idea, but I don't have the energy to search right now.
I'm sure you'll see for yourself how ridiculous it is.
Laighs
For the umpteenth time
For me, there is only one option that is a priority, and it is the last option that I defined - the equation is not defined correctly, meaning that we compare the movement of the galaxies to gravity instead of another force that operates in space.
In this option, all the measurements I measured are correct and there is no need to redefine the measurements
That is, since gravitation is not sufficient to rotate the galaxy, therefore another force is needed to be in addition/instead (apparently in place)
This force is created by the nature of the collection of particles that exists in the universe.
Tiny particles such as netrins for example that move in the universe from anywhere and everywhere define the universe as a huge gaseous body (whether we like it or not it is a gas definition - a collection of particles that move from anywhere to everywhere)
So since this massive gaseous body has pressure differences, it will create forces that will cause the galaxies to move.
If this pressure difference is a billionth of a billionth of an atmosphere for every light year on the radius of the galaxy, it will create a sufficient amount of force without any need for additional gravitation. This force is linear along the radius of the spiral galaxy, and therefore creates a speed that is maintained almost throughout the radius of the galaxy at about 220 km per second .
For example, the Great Attractor is, according to my idea, a region of high pressure towards which the galaxies rush, and not a concentrated place of mass (dark again?)
Since the regions of the galaxy are regions with a different pressure from their environment, they will bend the light moving in their environment without the need for gravitational manipulation and additional mass (of course it is dark again)
The universe is expanding in an accelerated manner and this time without the need for dark energy (vacuum energy?)
In short my idea, it all comes from the fact that in the universe tiny cosmic particles are moving in every direction in every direction. You just have to be brave enough to conclude from this that it defines a gas with all the properties of a gas.
But leave it, why do you get involved?, everyone is looking for the Higgs boson and I say you don't exist?, that's really unfriendly of me. Now Michael will yell at me and say that I am misleading and wrong and the souls of our dear students are being harmed, so what do you think Higgs, we will delete the comment and enough?, I will tell Michael that it is because of you, and I am not to blame.
Maybe my father will delete the comment??
Not bad
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda:
I would appreciate it if you could detail or provide a link to the three options out of eight that are a high priority for you. Thanks.
Higgs:
Right.
This is the solution I once saw in a book.
Yehuda:
Since you didn't say anything, I just want to say that I saw your response and was not impressed - neither by the content nor by the sarcasm, but, as I already told you, maybe in the Nature system or the Science system or the system of some other scientific journal there will be someone who knows how to appreciate your pearls.
Successfully!
Michael
From a "pure" topological point of view according to the rules there is actually one.
That is, two rings connected are equivalent to a tube or a ring with a hole in the side.
And this can be turned back into two connected rings by bending the wall at an angle with the hole.
In this way, you will receive the two methods of connection as it is in the drawing in your link.
Yehuda
I will read again later and respond have a good week
for everyone
So I understand, Mr. Michael, that you reject the assumption of three options, and that you already agree that there are eight options?? Well, well, then it's already an achievement!
We will try to move forward a little more.
Beyond the beautiful words that Michael uses: "internal contradictions", "external contradictions". You must decide and choose, after all it is not possible that "I found contradictions in all the ways Yehuda presented", after all one of the options must be correct and without contradictions!
So what to do Michael, one option must be correct!
That's why I'm afraid, Mr. Michael, that you are wrong and misleading!
Or maybe Michael will see a way that I mentioned?, I find it hard to believe, there is no other possibility!
Therefore, dear Mr. Michael, one of them must be the right one
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
for everyone:
Meanwhile, in all the ways Yehuda presented here I found both contradictions with reality and internal contradictions.
for everyone
I woke up not long ago after a night of wonderful observation under the sky of the Jerusalem mountains which were incredibly clear.
So let me tell you that it was fun to notice the constellations the Big Dipper, Cassiopeia, Aquarius, the Scorpion's tail and we even got to see Andromeda with the Andromeda Galaxy, the most distant astronomical object that can be seen with the naked eye, and which is about to collide with the Milky Way in so-and-so billions of years. And I will even mention the Harp group with the double-double found in it, which I mentioned here in science as an object with the help of which it would be possible to prove/confirm Newton's formula at a distance of ten thousand astronomical units. So I also remembered the science respondents and even explained to those present the importance of double-double.
And regarding the recent comments of my friends Higgs and Michael, I must point out again that there are eight possibilities in trying to solve the problem of the movement of the spiral galaxies:-
Five related to the letters that appear in the formulas
two related to the formulas themselves,
and one related to equality/inequality itself,
SA eight options.
I'll just point out that most likely, only one of them is correct and seven are incorrect.
So again my opinion differs from yours on three options maximum
Or in the opinion of most scientists who worship only the dark mass
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Higgs:
Have you read Yehuda's words?
Missing components is a gentle expression in relation to a theory that does not stand up to the test of experiment and that no way (however imaginative it may be - even a dark mass) has ever been proposed that would allow its settlement with experiment.
Higgs:
I know of three solutions:
The one I found, the one I saw later in some book and another solution that someone once showed me to whom I asked the question.
Send me the solutions you know about and we'll see if there are more.
Yehuda
All these things that bother you I'm sure you're not the only one. There are certainly quite a few astrophysicists who do not get along with dark mass, dark energy and the like. It is very possible that relativity is not a complete enough theory. So far no one has come up with a better alternative. Your theory is also incomplete in all respects or I am wrong. If we take this theory seriously, it is clear that some main components are missing here. For example, how do you introduce gravity or curvature, that is, the geometry of space.
Michael
It seems to me that there are 2 solutions or even 3, only that 2 are very similar.
Yehuda:
I really don't care what you think.
I was merely responding to your claims about me and the other scientists (which, of course, stemmed from the fact that you don't care).
To Michael
Hurry hurry,
Understand that I don't care about the other scientists and they can do what they want, luckily science has stopped being a democracy and the majority does not decide. Happily, he is also not a dictatorship of religion like in the Middle Ages.
But maybe you'll stop caring about my opinion? Why do you want me to eat something stinky? I don't mind what you eat!, but you have a desire to trample and impose your opinion, if somewhere there is someone whose opinion differs from yours, then you don't sleep well?, I sleep very well and I don't care about the opinions of others.
Now I am going for an astronomical observation in the mountains of Jerusalem, in the whole country there are 100 crazy people to speak of, members of the Israeli Astronomical Society, who are going to go tonight to the mountains like me (Pilots Mountain) to lie on the ground and look at the stars. Tell me dear Mr. Michael, do you think I care that seven million others in the country are not going to watch the stars tonight? I really don't care!
Good Day
And you will begin to understand that :- "Dark mass yuk!!"
Always with a smile!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
Hurry hurry!
All scientists have a different opinion than yours but you cannot agree with them even though the solution you described has been refuted in many independent ways.
Of course, this situation can only exist because all scientists are just stubborn and unwilling to adapt their opinion to yours.
You are actually willing to adjust your opinion to theirs but only on the condition that they adjust their opinion to yours first.
Higgs
You asked because you didn't know
My answer is divided into two parts
A. why i don't like her
B. Try another solution
Everyone can offer their own solution unless they like being fed stinky things!
And regarding Michael's opinion, Michael cannot agree that someone has a different opinion than his. For my part, he can say what he wants, and that it has been refuted countless times, you Higgs and others will decide, if there is logic in my approach.
But, if as a result of Michael's words, your love for the dark mass blossoms, there is no problem and you will find yourself in a club where most of the academics, including Michael, are members. All the best and to your health, I also appreciate those who have different views than mine.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Higgs:
Do you understand what he is talking about?
These are exactly the same theories he put forward in the past, each and every one of which has been disproved in many ways.
The dark mass is so hateful to him that he prefers to it a theory that has been proven wrong!
Laighs
I have no objection to the theory of relativity although I don't like the illogicality of it. "Inflating" masses and the speed of light which is like "God" - there is nothing greater than it.
The debate between me and Michael is about how much we dislike the dark mass. Michael says "It stinks but it's kosher and you can eat it" and I say "It stinks and you shouldn't eat it"
It should be understood that we are wrong in a number of things in the decision to accept the dark mass as a solution.
A. I proved that there are seven other possibilities to solve the problem of the irrational rotation of the spiral galaxies.
B. Choosing the dark mass solution perpetuates our decision as if we did not measure well
third. Consecrates the formulas instead of the measurements
d. requires us to decide on a follow-up solution in the form of "vacuum energy" (?) to explain the accelerated universe.
God. Obliges us to use a gravitation formula that has only been proven for distances of a thousand light years (the solar system)
I have a solution that accepts all the results we measured as accurate including the mass and explains all the things I brought up only by the assumption that is accepted by everyone that the universe is full of particles that move from place to place.
You just need to know how to draw the simple and correct conclusions from this.
Didn't add because I have a feeling that people who die on a dark mass love it and you sleep so why should I disturb everyone's sleep? Why bother Newton Einstein Hawking and Michael?
So I won't add
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Higgs:
I really didn't present anything non-conformist.
I wonder if you don't remember the debates surrounding the alternative presented by Yehuda at the time. I really wouldn't want to go back to these arguments.
I haven't seen this puzzle in many places. In fact - after my friend introduced it to me - I found it in some book that presented a different solution than mine (and in my opinion less elegant).
I would appreciate it if you emailed me the solution you know.
Before the topological puzzle I presented the other puzzle which is much more difficult than it.
Michael
Oh the topological conundrum I noticed now. Simple is also in my opinion quite famous as well.
By the way, you saw that the chief scientist is demanding 13 million dollars from Sapiens.
Michael
I saw a bit of the argument with Yehuda tending to go against the direction. I didn't see that you wrote anything unusual and non-conforming. It seems to me that Yehuda has an alternative theory to general relativity and it's actually interesting to hear.
There are too many patches according to the observations in recent years and it is possible that sponsorship is not the end of the story.
Higgs:
Just one of the questions I asked is simple.
I didn't just say it was an elementary school question.
I would expect you to deal with the others.
Sabdarmish Yehuda:
Your zeal against the mainstream in astrophysics is admirable.
In my opinion, there is a lack of people with the point of view of Ifka Mastrava.
Regarding the matter itself, I understand that something is very wrong with the existing theories. Do you think relativity is not a sufficiently closed or complete theory? If so, how and in what manner. By the way, Michael's question is quite simple but is designed to mislead in the way it is structured.
Yehuda:
I didn't notice that you gave the answer in the previous answer and that's because you didn't give it in your last answer either.
And regarding the dark mass - we really talked about it and you should already know that it solves many other problems such as gravitational dusting around areas that have almost no visible mass, such as the center of gravity of celestial bodies that does not coalesce with the center of gravity of visible matter, and more.
After all, even the people who opened MOND and its derivatives admit today the existence of dark mass.
The observed phenomena do not have spherical symmetry and therefore cannot be explained as the result of some kind of change in gravitational force that is a function of distance.
You are welcome to refresh your knowledge on the subject here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Again, if you offer a better solution - everyone will be happy to abandon the dark mass.
To Michael
Thanks for allowing me to answer the question but if you had read my previous answer carefully you would have realized that I actually gave the answer.
I have no particular love for backgammon, I just hinted that the answer is backgammon (five), which means 65 minutes.
He walked for an hour until his wife started to Jesus and he spared her another five minutes when they met on the way so that she arrived back at their house ten minutes before time.
And in terms of physics
I'm sorry Mr. Michael, but the function of the dark mass is only to answer the inaccuracy in the calculation of the movement in the spiral galaxies. I don't think that entering data to fit any formula is a proper thing to do.
But, we have already talked about it a lot and in fact as far as I understand you also not who knows what likes the dark mass but you see it as the evil in its minority. I, on the other hand, see it as an act that he will not do.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I also understand Uri.
I understand you too.
But I think you are both wrong.
You asked if that person is capable of thinking about giving up dark mass.
In case you really don't know - the answer is "Yes! Without batting an eyelid! As soon as he finds a better explanation for the set of phenomena that dark matter explains!".
I've already answered this before but you probably need a refresher.
Now you are welcome, if you feel like it, to also think about the questions I presented (by the way - I have already presented them here before so you could have solved them a long time ago).
By the way - the last question is really an elementary school question so don't think you will get points for it.
Laurie
Why do I understand you?
A person has studied for four years about a dark mass, he lives and breathes it and knows all the tricks it performs, the question that arises is whether this person is capable of thinking about giving up a dark mass.
Can a person who has studied all his life about a big bang starting from a point easily give it up?
The attitude that says that once that scientist was also ignorant is an attitude that ignores the few possibilities that the lack of knowledge gives.
And Michael, your question makes sense and we haven't heard riddles here in a long time and I won't give the answer because I wasn't asked and also because I prefer to play backgammon right now.
Good night and with a smile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael,
I did not mean to hurt or offend and I have a feeling that this is how you feel - I apologize.
I'm not debating my common sense or yours. All your questions surely have simple healthy solutions and cannot be debated with or without mathematics.
Sorry for contacting you personally - that was not my intention.
Ori:
And now I will risk even more and ask you what your common sense says about a simple question in elementary school material:
One man finishes his work every day at 16:00 p.m.
At the end of work, he gets on the train (exactly at 16:00) and gets off at the station closest to his home.
His wife leaves the house with her car and arrives at the train station with him.
He gets off the train straight to the car and they go home.
One day (on the holiday) there was less work and he left work an hour earlier (ie at 15:00 PM).
His wife did not know about this and left the house at the usual time, so when he reached the train station, he started walking towards the house.
At some point along the way he met his wife, got in the car, and they returned home.
When they got home he looked at the clock and saw that they had arrived 10 minutes earlier than usual.
Assuming that the speed of the train is constant, the speed of the car is constant, the walking speed is constant and no time is wasted on stops - how long did he walk?
Does your common sense mean there is enough data to answer the question?
Ori:
If you want another example of your common sense tricks - consider the following question:
A "topological material" is a material that can be stretched and shrunk without limit and without bouncing back to its previous state (somewhat reminiscent of plasticine).
The two bodies in the following link are made of this material.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgz8mg3w_338gpbx35fr
Is the task described in the drawing possible?
Know that your own common sense says yes.
Ori:
It's just plain pretentiousness on your part to claim that someone knowledgeable about the subject is locked on something. All the more, it is presumptuous to the point of underestimating intelligence to claim this about all scientists without even understanding what they were thinking about and how they reached the conclusions they reached and without realizing that each of them was - at the beginning of their career - as ignorant as you and had all the (zero) advantages that lack of knowledge may confer.
You should know that what you call "common sense" is something that the possibility of trusting is extremely limited.
for example:
Does your common sense tell you that it is possible to build a planar area smaller than one square centimeter within which a straight section of a thousand kilometers long can be rotated in any possible direction (without exceeding the planar body in question at any moment during the rotation)?
Know that a saner logic than yours says it is possible.
Michael: Look how much you "those who know the subject" are locked into a fixed and limited concept (like the universe?!?!) - I didn't claim that "precisely because you don't know the subject you can talk about it smart things...". That's not what I said. What I said is that maybe because I don't know the accepted theories and don't understand too much of the mathematical infrastructure behind them, I can think and propose ideas without limitations and traces.
But, because of your understanding of the material and immersion in the various facts, observations, and currents in science circles, you did not notice that I proposed (not established) these ideas here alongside people who have the knowledge to think about these "undeveloped" ideas so that they can contain their knowledge of them and perhaps come out From the intellectual limitation that the great knowledge they hold has created for them. And at the end of a long sentence also to hear their learned opinion on such proposals.
That's the whole idea - without the intention of contradicting or belittling the value and genius of any of the various researchers and scholars.
And back to the point:
Common sense does not understand what it means that the universe is closed on itself. What is the spatial meaning of this thing - that the universe is a ring? It doesn't make sense to me. What causes it to curve in a "ring shape"? And how can it even be said about "empty" that it has a form if it is not contained inside something outside of which there is no void? It is no easier to think of the universe as "all there is" - period. There is nothing beyond it because if there is something it is part of that universe.
Doesn't it make more sense to think that there was no inflation of space since, in my opinion, like time, space is constant and what changes is our perspective on it? It was not the space that expanded, but what was inside it that expanded and created the structure we see - the content in it and not itself.
It doesn't make sense that at greater distances there simply won't be enough light or any other radiation which will create for us the feeling that there is nothing there and for the same reason we will think that space does not exist there? In the meantime?!?!
It is written here that the expansion that came after the bang was at a speed much greater than the speed of light and then it stopped. As far as I understand, such movement and stopping is supposed to create a wave of radiation moving at the speed of light which was supposed to wash over the entire space at the speed of light while gaining more and more power - similar to the ultrasonic boom created by an airplane. Are there any observations on this? Evidence? theories?
Lair
Aristotle knew that every body has a desire to join the concentration of its fellows, therefore, the smoke goes to the clouds, the rivers flow to the sea and the stones fall to the ground, but since it is a matter of desire, then a heavy body has more desire to reach the ground than a light body, therefore the heavy body will do it faster.
Galileo climbed the tower in Pisa, dropped a heavy body and a light body and showed that both reached the ground at the same time.
So how can this be included in Aristotle's theory?
I still think you should stop including old theories in the news. Sometimes it works but sometimes it doesn't.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Year:
I also emphasized that the results obtained through previous theories are largely valid and defined this as instrumental.
This does not change the fact that the theory of relativity explains gravity in a way that is fundamentally different from Newton's theory.
Science is built on refutation through experiment and what is "refutation" if not "contradiction"?
I am aware of the malicious use of these expressions by the various science detractors, but the fact that someone makes malicious use of true facts does not make the facts untrue.
As I tried to explain in my previous response - science has two sides - the instrumental side and the philosophical side.
In the instrumental aspect there is indeed a bride, as you describe.
In the philosophical aspect there are sometimes revolutions.
The unfortunate fact is that we can only test the instrumental side, and therefore we will never know if the explanation we found is correct (in the full sense of the word) or only works (within our ability to try it), but our urge to keep searching comes - not only from our need to find a collection of formulas that works, but also from The desire to truly understand things.
Yehuda, Michael,
The meaning of inclusion in a very specific and precise sense:
The set of empirical results corresponding to Newton's theory are in fact a subset of the set of empirical results corresponding to special relativity.
In exactly the same sense, this also applies to the comparison between the geocentric and the heliocentric Torah.
To what extent do these things apply to the "theory" of the flat world. In the limitations of mobility and measurement accuracy of the primitive man - a small piece of the spherical shell on which we live - is soon excellent - a plane.
From the other direction, this can be seen as a constraint when trying to develop a new Torah. Within the limits of the distinguishing parameters leading to the old Torah - the equations of the new Torah must reproduce those of the old.
This, by the way, is Bohr's matching principle formulated as a tool for examining the early developments of quantum theory.
The attachment to the discussion of teachings only through the group of empirical results allows for a clean technical examination of the inclusion relations. An attempt to examine the "philosophical aspect", as interesting as it may be, is complex and perhaps even impossible. In any case, that's not what I was aiming for.
The discourse of scientists on the philosophical side, for example in the context of the motivations for new lines of thought - perhaps frustrates scientific progress.
But popular writing that makes use of loose formulations such as "Science contradicts itself is news to the mornings",
Without an adequate emphasis on the consistent and systematic process of accumulating knowledge in a monotonously ascending path (in the inclusive sense I described),
Gives the wrong impression that "everything goes" - even the professionals don't know right from left.
Yair
post Scriptum.
Not knowledgeable enough about Aristotle's theory to examine the claim in its context. In any case, as far as a scientific theory was formulated in the face of empirical facts - my argument is valid.
to the point
Isn't it time for you to become a bang already??, are you enjoying staying in your singularity so much?
I laughed
Good Day
Yehuda
Yehuda,
Your objection that the entire universe lies within a point is not to my liking, please repeat yourself.
Laurie
I enjoyed reading your comment.
It is upsetting that common sense is devalued for all kinds of excuses.
And really, why would all the matter in the universe be concentrated in a point? It doesn't even come from the existing laws of physics because they are not proven there and their use is at your own risk.... the user only.
Although it is true, there is a failure between quantum theory and parts of relativity theory with common sense, but this should not make us dismiss all common sense with one hand, and in the case of a contradiction between logic and measurements, one must think again and again.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Some notes:
The speed known as the limit of possible speed is the speed of light in a vacuum.
The above-mentioned attempts at slowing down light were made in a non-empty medium.
Your question, Nir, regarding the fate of the beam that reaches the edge of the universe, stems from a misunderstanding of the significance of the fact that the size of the universe is limited.
Even if the size of the universe is limited - it has no end. It is not necessarily a sphere but it is necessarily a structure that closes on itself.
You can get a little more intuition on the subject from the book "Poincaré's Conjecture"
Uri, science does not always fit with common sense and many times the observations obtained completely contradict it (as in the case of quantum mechanics it has already been said that those who claim to understand quantum mechanics do not understand quantum mechanics). Modern science is far from perfect (meaning there is more work for scientists) but the mathematical theories it created in the field of physics as well as in other fields are the best tools available to explain the information we have and to make predictions and predictions that do come true.
The theory of the evolution of the universe has undergone many transformations during the last century - starting from the static universe image, through the "simple" big bang that predicted that the universe would collapse in on itself under the influence of gravity, to the modern theory that built on the original big bang and added to it a stage of "accelerated inflation" in its infancy and that Mysterious dark energy that explains the observations that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate.
As for your specific questions, a number of experiments were done in which they managed to slow down a beam of light and even bring it to a stop (I think news about this was published even here in the science). Today there are several theories that try to answer the question "What is a photon", which of them is correct? We will only know that in the future.
According to current theories, the speed of light is the highest possible speed within the universe, if the equations do not "prevent" space itself from expanding at a speed that exceeds the speed of light (according to current theories, in the infancy of the universe, it expanded at a rate that exceeds hundreds and thousands of times the speed of light - it would "have to" "To do this so that we get the same tiny differences in the background radiation and not large differences as we would have gotten if this had happened).
Therefore, a light beam cannot actually reach the edge of the universe because it will always travel at the speed of light and cannot "acquire" the space that spreads at a greater speed (despite certain theories that nevertheless try to give an answer to this, but I am not proficient enough in their mathematics to have an educated opinion ).
Regarding the structure of the universe - a branch of them tries to answer the question of what the shape of the universe is. And there are several theories that try to explain what our universe is (when each one gives different predictions that as of today we do not have the possibility to conduct the experiments to confirm or refute them).
Hope I answered at least a few of your questions, I strongly recommend you try and look for books by Brian Greene. His books are very readable and he presents the material in a way that is understandable to anyone with basic knowledge of mathematics and science.
Okay, so assuming that the universe is 'spherical' it means that the light rays make circles around themselves and return again and again to the same places, but if it is not closed? What happens to a beam of light when it reaches the boundary, it has to either 'run in place' on the boundary line, and thus be out of our measurement range, or do something else, I have no idea what it is, in any case in order for us to measure the background radiation of the universe, it is necessary to be 'spherical', or cause the light to do an unusual thing
Regarding the expansion of the universe, 'faster than the speed of light', why couldn't the universe open up like a flower, slowly and calmly, if you are willing to believe that space itself is 'inflating', why not do it slowly and open everything that exists without explosions?
Ori:
The idea that precisely because you don't know the subject you can talk about it smart things is a bad idea when it comes to science.
This is not just about formulas but also about observations (from which the formulas were ultimately derived, after trivial models like the one you allude to were found to contradict the observations).
By the way, there is no mention here of the slowing down of the speed of light, but of changing its wavelength, and this phenomenon was indeed observed.
Li'el, B.Z and the rest of the correspondence for the purpose and not for idle debates -
I understand what you wrote regarding the different theories. I find it difficult to accept and perhaps even digest since I am quite ignorant of the entire mathematical infrastructure behind these ideas. But maybe for this reason I can come up with an idea that is completely outside the scientific consensus:
In the past it was written here somewhere that describing the structure of the Milky Way galaxy is about like being inside someone's stomach and describing what it looks like from the outside. This problem, this distortion, of those who are inside and are supposed to observe the whole complex from the outside exists many times more when talking about the universe. It is so big and dark on the one hand, and it has proven distortions of what we see or perceive - the distortion of the light rays or the other frequencies create a very distorted image for us.
My claim is that if something doesn't make sense on a too extreme level then there is probably a mistake in the path that led us to the same conclusion. Thus regarding the axiom that all the matter in the universe (infinite or unimaginable amount) was concentrated in a point whose size is infinitely small (almost) - even if it fits with the formulas - it does not fit with common sense.
Another point is the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no explanation for what light is, and since that is the case, how can it be claimed that it slows its speed at all, and in general has anyone managed to measure the deceleration of light? And even if it works out with the mathematical formulas - who said they are correct? Does the fact that the wording of those formulas fit several cases mean that we have to bend common sense in order to explain the distortions created by the possibly imperfect formulas that were formulated?
Many questions and one conclusion - there are two parallel discussions of mine here - Yael B.Z. And a few more, and there is the debate between Yehuda's and Michael's friends - it turns out that the discussions are very close to each other even though on the face of it they were distant and talked about completely different topics... Maybe the formula I entered the discussions into was wrong???
Good night,
Ori
Yehuda:
For a change, on this matter, my opinion is yours.
Newton's theory was also actually disproved and on a philosophical level the fact that his predictions are close to reality is of little importance.
Of course, this fact has practical importance and Newton's theory continues to be a good instrument, but on the level of the feeling of understanding the phenomena, it no longer provides the goods
Lair
Regarding your statement :- "In a very fundamental sense, scientific theories are never hidden. Scientific theories are generalized. Special relativity did not contradict Newton's theory, special relativity extended it to speeds close to the speed of light." End quote.
Indeed, the example of Newton and relativity is good, but what about Aristotle's theory that was contradicted by Galileo in the Tower of Pisa experiment?, and what about the heliocentric theory that contradicted the geocentric method? After all, Galileo will never contain Aristotle and the heliocentric theory will never contain the geocentric theory.
Your statement about the generalization is unacceptable to me. She is apparently too sweeping.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I understand, dear Michael, that you are sure that the scientific establishment is you and your information.
You will be perfumed
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
Indeed, each reader can judge for himself.
What is clear is that the scientific establishment has already judged a long time ago and here, unlike in Kochav Nold, SMSs do not help.
To Michael
You said "a court won't help - a pair of stars is a confirmation that is about fifty billion times weaker than an entire galaxy." End quote.
First of all, it is about four stars and not a pair.
And as for what confirms and what doesn't, I leave that to other commenters. The argument between us is over. Everyone made their claims and other commenters will decide which of us is right.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
The Hebrew Wikipedia is a very bad source for many reasons.
Even if someone succeeds in proving that in the days of Abraham, our father, the words proof and confirmation had the same meaning, then today they must be used as I described because otherwise we would lack a word to describe what I call "proof".
In science, there are proofs only when it comes to refutation, that is, refutation is, by definition, proof that the theory that predicted the results of a certain experiment predicted it incorrectly and therefore something in it is incorrect.
The more you put a theory to experiments that have the potential to disprove it and these experiments give results that are consistent with the theory and not those that contradict it - the more confident you are in its correctness.
Therefore, as I said - a court of law will not help - this pair of stars is confirmation that it is approximately fifty billion times weaker than an entire galaxy.
Experiments that cannot disprove the Torah also obviously do not confirm it (therefore an experiment in electronics will not usually disprove or confirm gravitation).
None of the known galaxies contradicts the known theory of gravity.
What most galaxies contradict - as I have said many times - is the assumption that is clearly wrong - that we see all the mass in them.
After all, we have not seen the stars of the solar system before and some of them were discovered precisely because of gravitational effects.
I guess in those days there was some other Sabdarmish who told the physicists that it was nonsense on their part to look for more planets because the observed disturbances in the orbits of the visible stars are a result of the orbits we observed being calculated using incorrect gravitation formulas.
Yael, as far as I know the standard model, it does give a pretty good answer to the uniformity of the background radiation. Uniformity resulting from the same accelerated expansion of space that occurred in the infancy of the universe (although there is no consensus on the cause of this accelerated expansion). Under its influence, the differences in the uneven distribution of energy and matter in the early universe "flattened" but still remained intact and we can see their expression in the small differences in the background radiation.
To me personally this explanation sounds very convincing, but I can accept the fact that this is due to ignorance and this because I did not delve into the mathematics behind it.
To Michael
Admittedly, I saw a different reference to the concept of "proof" and "confirmation". That still doesn't mean I accept him. I also saw in the Hebrew Wikipedia that they do not give up the concept of "proof" in science. At Ben Gurion University there was a veto whether or not there was proof. It is difficult for me to express my opinion on this until I delve into the subject.
But for our purposes, I will use the words "confirmation" and "refutation"
You see the Saul galaxy as a confirmation of Newton's formula. Are you not taking the step of ignoring thousands of other galaxies that disprove the formula?, or does the explanation of adding as much dark mass as necessary satisfy you?.
Real confirmation will be done by my double-double stars up to a distance of a sixth light year, or alternatively it will create a refutation of Newton's formula.
And by the way, we are talking about two pairs of stars, that is, four stars.
Indeed, from all my teachers I have been educated
Good Day
and friendship (hopefully mutual)
Sabdarmish Yehuda
In a very fundamental sense, scientific teachings are never hidden. Generalized scientific theories. Special relativity did not contradict Newton's theory, special relativity extended it to speeds close to the speed of light.
Within the group of empirical findings that were used to establish Newton's theory and the measurement accuracy levels of the tools available to the scientists of the time - Newton's theory was and will remain valid forever.
To that extent, Ptolemy's geocentric Torah was and remains - a supremely scientific Torah. We are a theory whose predictions correspond to all the (relevant) reality data known until 1609. Galileo's telescopic observations provided the first data - Jupiter's moons, etc. As well as the theoretical breakthrough with the formulation of the law of persistence and the experiments that demonstrate it. Copernicus of 1543, outlined an alternative model whose only advantage was increased simplicity.
In principle - in Ze'ir Anpin, the period between 1543 and 1609 is similar to the cosmology of the current era. Both the Ptolemaic model and the Copernicus model suited the "experiment". Aesthetic arguments in favor of Torah are of limited validity.
Cosmology is a bold attempt by the human spirit to scientifically decipher complex questions using significant "intellectual extrapolations" and both principled and technical "experimental" limitations.
In any case, the scientific procedure regarding it is full of hypotheses, competing theories - and in the layman's interpretation - new "revolutions" for the morning.
Most of us are not afraid that the "refutation" of Newton's theory harms the reliability of the calculations of the engineers who designed roller coasters in the amusement park - based on it. Just as most of us fly without fear in airplanes controlled by computers with components based on quantum theory, which still involves a lively scientific debate regarding its philosophical interpretations.
On the science front, despite the use of the same impressive tools and abilities, the element of speculation is – naturally – significant.
It is the responsibility of popular science reporters (and even consistent talkback writers for that matter) to help the lay news consumer distinguish between the things.
It seems that some of the references here are guilty of blanket militant generalizations, without such a distinction and without substantiation, sometimes even misrepresenting the science itself.
Yair
Yehuda:
Proof is a term used to describe a process at the end of which there is no doubt about the truth of the claim.
This is the term used in mathematics.
You will never hear a math teacher say "Dear students, in your homework you are asked to confirm the claim that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal."
He will use the word "prove".
When a student comes up with a correct proof it will be clear that if the axioms of mathematics are correct then the claim is also correct.
In science - you can't prove things like that.
This is due to the fact that science has no axioms other than the axioms of logic and all the basic assumptions about nature require proof by themselves and therefore cannot be used as axioms.
This is the source of doubt in science: you can always question the basic assumptions.
That is why the term "confirm" is used which is less strong than "prove".
To confirm something is to come up with evidence that will increase the probability we attribute to that something.
The doubt will never be completely removed but it will be reduced.
Many times the results of spontaneous experiments or observations of a creature are used to confirm theories.
The Saul galaxy is an example to confirm the existing theory of gravitation.
It hints at something about the possibility that the laws we encounter in our short-range measurements are also true in long-range ones. It does not prove this, but it is clear that our tendency to accept the claim increases following this finding.
The double star you mentioned could be another example, but it is clearly a less impressive example than an entire galaxy (which contains at least tens of billions of stars, which is much more than two), and that's why I was surprised by your statement that what a galaxy in its entirety does not confirm in your opinion, a single pair of stars will succeed in confirming (not to mention "proving" which is the phrase you used).
I have already told you that in my opinion there is no value in standing at the gate while constantly warning that there is doubt.
This is exactly the same claim I make when I say there is no evidence in science.
There is no point in saying this to someone who understands what science is, but of course there is a point in saying this to someone who slams scientists who have no proof that X (because he shows, with this claim, that he does not understand what science is).
Yehuda, you do not understand science.
Science is not based on positive proofs, but on refutations
So here my dear friend we may have come to an understanding (honestly) about the controversy!
Regarding my poor Hebrew "to confirm" = "to prove". And I would be very happy if this is not the case, and I apologize in advance.
So please explain the difference
And a redeemer came to Zion
And remember, it's just science
Good day, and I hope we are still friends
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
And why did you bring these quotes?
Except for quoting them - you never referred to them.
I said you can't **prove** and you say I said you can't **confirm**
Is it so hard to understand?
BZ, you are right, but I will add a few more things.
First, I would like to point out that here we see that cosmology and with it the standard model of physics are not perfect. Today there is no cosmological theory that everyone agrees on and that can be proven or disproved - there is still a lot to explore and discover.
And for the theory itself - it is believed that the universe developed from a point of infinite density that spanned the Planck size (the smallest size of space that exists today). The universe began to expand by an accelerated "bloat" whose initial speed was probably higher than the speed of light (otherwise it is impossible to explain why the early universe did not collapse in on itself back to the singularity).
The laws of physics collapse when you talk about singular points, i.e. points with infinite density and zero volume like there was in the big bang and like there are black holes. So it is impossible to conclude what was before the big bang, simply because the laws of physics do not apply to this period.
as in He noted that space and time were both created at the time of the big bang, so the "time" that was before the bang has no meaning, because there was no time, at least not as we know it today. Despite this, space and time continue to expand as long as there is expansion, but one theory claims that if you reach the end of the universe you will return to the beginning. And by the same token, if you are an observer on Earth, look to the right deep enough into space, you will see a galaxy to your left. That is why it is claimed that space spreads in all directions equally, and there is actually no "center" of the universe because from our point of view it is simply circular and closed. This is a somewhat difficult concept to digest and really not trivial to grasp.
There are many problems in cosmology, for example what is the dark energy that makes up 70% of the energy in the universe, which causes it to accelerate its expansion instead of slowing down. Or what is the dark matter that makes up more than 20% of the universe, an invisible substance that can be seen to affect the motion of galaxies but we don't know what it is. Or what is outside the universe, this question will probably never be answered.
The universe pup theory claims that our universe is a "bubble" that sprouted from another universe, when the other universe also sprouted from another universe, etc.
Another theory of cosmology talks about the unipolar question. One prediction of Maxwell's equations predicts that we have an abundance of magnetic unipoles, just as there are electric unipoles, but no one has ever found a unipole in reality, so it has been argued that our universe sprouted from a small quantum oscillation that contained only a unipole.
No theory answers so well the question of why the background radiation is fairly uniform from any direction into the sky that we look at.
To my (imaginary) friend, dear Michael
You are an experience
Below are quotes from your words:-
"As you know - in science you can't prove anything"
"You're reinventing me"
If you say nothing can be proven then I say yes it can be proven. So now you start philosophizing that this is not what you meant and they don't understand you? It's really hard to understand you.
And with all the respect I have for you, my virtual supplier friend, you can't invent Michael, he is a very special product. little
In appreciation
Your friend and God forbid not your enemy
And between us everything is science and our knowledge is divided, let's not take it personally.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Nir, BZ and all the others
Indeed, something is not working correctly in the Big Bang and the initial (inflationary) expansion of the universe, and the explanations sometimes sound very forced.
It would be possible to fix the problems somewhat if we decide that the bang did not start at a singular point, and the speed of light was greater in the past. This will reduce the need for the invention of the inflationary universe and the expansion of space at a speed greater than the speed of light. But difficult questions will still remain.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Nir:
It is also possible that it will turn out that everything is not true, but what in B.Z. described is the scientific consensus.
You can be a ray of light and move as fast as you want at the speed of light and still not cross the boundary of the universe which is expanding faster than you are moving.
What is limited by the speed of light is the motion within the universe but not the "motion" caused by the expansion of the universe.
Is it hard to understand?
I agree.
Is everything that is difficult for you to understand necessarily not true?
I don't agree.
What do you think: is it possible to take a straight section one kilometer long and turn it in any direction you want without exceeding the limits of a planar body whose area does not exceed one square centimeter?
I guess you're sure not, but it's actually possible.
This is a good example because here it is a mathematical statement that is more reliable than a scientific theory and yet it seems wrong to you.
Yehuda:
What I repeat is that you cannot be argued with.
You simply invent an imaginary Michael for yourself and argue with him and I am not needed for this purpose.
Would you please show me where I said that things cannot be confirmed in science?
Hint: you won't find it.
You know that, but you are re-inventing me only because you used many times and wrongly the concept of proof, which is what I said that science cannot do to a theory.
You also simply ignore the contradiction between the fact that an entire galaxy does not constitute confirmation in your eyes and the statement that a pair of stars will constitute for you - not just confirmation but actual proof.
I therefore interrupt the debate at this point.
You can continue arguing with your imaginary friend/foe as long as you like.
BZ, and all the others, I simply have to join Yair in his excellent questions, which I saw no attempt to answer, except for Mr. BZ
And to my question, I am Mr. Keren-Or, the firstborn of the children of the Big Bang, and since then I have been moving through space at the speed of light, since no matter can reach me, I must be far from everyone and therefore I cannot be measured... If Mr. Baz claims that I have nowhere to go, then I am I have to slow down and then my speed won't be the speed of light anymore
Even an inflatable ball has a midpoint, so the universe should have one too
And what is meant by 'space spreads faster than the speed of light', the light on space does not spread at the speed of space + the speed of light?
Uri, there is a certain failure in your staging of the big bomb and the universe collapsed.
What was created after the big bang is space itself - the universe has no "middle point" from which it expands, rather space itself expands in all directions when at the "boundary" of the visible universe the speed of expansion of space exceeds the speed of light.
Therefore, nothing can "escape" the boundaries of the universe because there is no space-time space to escape to. (Of course this is a simplistic formulation of things and according to string theory the force of gravity escapes from our space-time space to other spaces).
The background light existed in the universe from that moment described in the news, and it is actually the energy that fills the universe. As the universe expanded, the radiation spread along with it and short and energetic waves "turned" into long and less energetic waves. The small changes in the background radiation represent the non-uniformity in the distribution of matter and energy within the universe - the areas where the background radiation is stronger are the areas where more energy was concentrated and vice versa.
Yael is welcome to correct me if I made a mistake or was not precise in my explanation.
To Michael
You think that it is impossible to confirm things in science and I actually think that it is possible with the help of measurements, but the measurements have uncertainty and in addition they have a range, therefore any proof will only be within the range of the measurements and the uncertainty of the measurements.
Therefore if we prove the gravitation formula about a sixth light year then it will be proven up to a sixth light year with the uncertainty of the measurements.
Complicated?, then, never mind
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yael, thanks for the answer.
I have another question, you wrote that the radiation could not leave the universe and therefore it remained and continues to circulate within it.
Does it mean that this radiation is static?
Why can't you actually "get out of the universe? Who said it has limits that you can't get out of?"
If there is a limit - does it return the radiation like a mirror back in - into it?
If you think of the universe as a sphere whose center is the location of the big bang, then after 13 billion years this radiation should be at a distance of 13 billion light years (radiation) from its center, while we should be much less away since the rate of progress of our galaxy in the universe is much slower than speed The light - how does this fit with the statement that this radiation stayed here because it could not get out???
Yehuda:
not exactly.
I said that there is no proof in science and I said that the Saul galaxy is also not proof.
That is why I expressed surprise that you suddenly propose to consider a pair of stars as a proof-of-concept after an entire galaxy does not satisfy you.
Ei = she
Tl
To Michael
Fate wants it and sometimes we agree on what we disagree on
The Saul Galaxy or M94 as it is otherwise known is one of these things,
This galaxy was discovered to be a spiral galaxy that does not need a dark mass to explain its rotational motion.
What is the consequence?
According to Michael's words, it follows from this that Newton's gravitation formula is proven for distances of tens of thousands of light years, therefore there is no need for the double-double stars of Sabdarmish.
Unfortunately, I have a different opinion. Saul's galaxy is not a single case in which a galaxy behaves like Newton. Why is this similar to a factory that produces thousands of crappy watches and in one case one of them turned out to be accurate. What does this prove about the factory?, nothing.
Tens of thousands of spiral galaxies need one or another measure of dark mass in order to explain their movement, so one, by chance, needs zero dark mass, what does this prove?., nothing!! Therefore, the proof with the help of my double-double stars is still desirable.
But as I said, we are aware of the differences in the versions between us, you will claim that this is proof and I will not, and the commenters will decide who is right.
At least, you don't claim that the spiral galaxies as a whole are proof of the gravitation formula, I've heard that nonsense too.
Come and let others decide which of the two of us is right about the conclusions from Saul's Galaxy
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
As you know - in science it is impossible to prove anything.
But if you want confirmation - why would a poor system of a double star six light years in size convince you more than an entire galaxy (the Saul galaxy)?
I allow myself to assume that even if they bring every possible number from this system - you still won't see it as proof (and rightly so - because there are no proofs) and you will still continue to point out the obvious (that all the conclusions of science are never in doubt) and you will still think that you are renewing something in this to someone and that this statement has some value.
The question is over:
You are exactly demonstrating what I said to the skeptic in response 13. Precisely the claim that time has a beginning and/or an end is difficult for us to grasp and in this context precisely infinity seems completely intuitive.
The truth is that we don't know what was before the big bang and we don't even know if there was "before".
Does the answer sound frustrating to you? You are not the only one.
There are all kinds of ways to deal with the issue and one of them is described (in great detail) in Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time".
One of the reasons for the interest in the Big Bang is that it seems for various reasons (although not entirely certain) that what happened before it (if there was such a thing "before it") cannot affect what is happening nowadays.
And on a slightly different matter - see a link to a document that describes several independent ways of calculating the age of the universe.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
These ways confirm the standard model and in themselves are not based on any of its assumptions, including the assumptions about the expansion rate of the universe.
Lair
SA I wanted to show that a number of conventions that exist in the science of cosmology are not acceptable to me.
And I always think that the scientific way of thinking of taking something as true in the entire universe in every direction in every space and in general for every size is something sweeping and wrong, and if we continue from this and get strange things (dark mass, black holes, etc.) then it means preachy.
I always maintain that it is desirable that a greater part of the thought energy of science be directed to the purpose of increasing the ranges of the limits of scientific formulas and rules.
For example:- The gravitation formula that we believe to be correct for the entire universe and based on which we determine its fate (will shatter or finally collapse) has only been studied and verified up to a distance of less than a thousand light years - our solar system. Isn't it ridiculous that the fate of the universe will be determined by it (billions of light years?), shouldn't it be worth checking it at ranges of more than a thousand light years??
I showed a method how with the help of the double star system - double epsilon Lyra (ADS11635) it is possible to prove or disprove the correctness of the formula to a distance of one sixth light year (n 10,000 astronomical units), still a tiny size compared to the universe, but as a first step this is also a constructive start!
But why bother? Believe me, Mr. Yair, it's not fun to feel like Don Quixote fighting windmills.
Or get all kinds of giggles about engineers and their problems.
Come on, have a good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What was there before the universe was created, way back 13.7 billion years ago? Why are people so interested in the Big Bang, after all there was "something" before it too?
to Michael Rothschild.
It's clear that my words towards rmye were only joking. (Even if they weren't really laughing, my kids already told me that my jokes aren't funny and I put up with that). As for S. Yehuda, well you have to consider that the guy is....an engineer. And probably because as such, he is used to considering issues and matters
In terms of "right" and "wrong" only. A known and familiar problem of many engineers. Science, on the other hand, deals with the constant correction and improvement of scientific knowledge, which in any case means that the previous knowledge is found to be wrong.
Go explain something like that to an engineer.
A. Ben-Ner:
I think it's pretty obvious that his name is Yair if only because the name rmye is almost unpronounceable.
What is more important is that he said the right things. Such that only because I have said them to Yehuda a thousand times already, I have announced that I see no point in continuing the argument.
This is of course beyond the fact that a pious walk according to Yehuda's approach completely nullifies the value of science since there is no guarantee that the laws of nature that I confirm in the current experiment will remain valid in the next experiment.
to rmye
At the beginning of your words you identified yourself as rmye and at the end as... Yair.
This is another example of the inconsistency of a research result on the subject: "What is your name"?
which depends on the researcher's point of view: the beginning or the end of the article.
While science has already deciphered the age of the universe, opinions are still divided as to its name.
Yehuda Sabdarmish,
There is certainly room for less assertive language in the presentation of current products of ongoing research - in general, and of ongoing research in the fields of astrophysics/cosmology - in particular.
The professional scientific media - i.e. the peer-reviewed research articles - is edited factually, among other things, while systematically identifying the context and its weaknesses.
In addition, even without the cautionary language, the research colleagues, for the most part, are aware of the degree of speculation involved in each of the topics.
In fact, the weak point are the researcher's work tools, since they constitute the road map for planning future studies.
It is possible that a popular reflection of a current research topic should be accompanied by an emphasis on the degree of speculation.
A sweeping dismissal of ongoing research - as it seems to be reflected in your comments - is similarly sinful, but on an amplified scale.
Controversies in ongoing research contexts, violate and enrich the scientific discussion. But a researcher who undertakes to advance an alternative thesis - professionally, does so in front of his colleagues, and in a professional manner.
Namely, while systematically integrating the thesis against the entire body of theoretical knowledge and experimental information.
For example, until a little more than a decade ago, two independent calculation channels of the age of the universe were in conflict with each other. The age of the universe from cosmological calculations was younger than the age calculations of globular clusters.
None of the researchers slandered his colleagues - in the popular or professional press - with intellectual slime. On the contrary, it was a fascinating research challenge.
The scientific community works on systematic "self-failure attempts" in a consistent manner - that is, on putting each parameter to cross-examination from as many independent lines of thought as possible - as a central and essential part of its work.
Yair
Ori,
At the time of the big bang, X-rays and gamma rays were sent into the universe, but since this radiation cannot escape outside the universe, it just continues to fill it. Only now because the universe expanded, so instead of short wavelength rays, we received long waves (radio waves and microwaves) redshifted according to Doppler and at a very low temperature of 2.7 degrees Kelvin - and this is the cosmic background radiation.
We on Earth receive the same amount of background radiation from every direction, with tiny differences and inconsistencies as was also noted in the article above. This is a corroborating support for the Big Bang theory.
Amusing anecdote - if you tune a television (of the old type) to a frequency where no station is broadcasting, you will see "snow" and hear static noise. About a percent of this signal received on television comes from the cosmic background radiation.
Can someone give some wise words about this background radiation?
If her origin is 13 billion years ago, what else is she doing "here"?
Wasn't she supposed to get much further than "here"?
Maybe this radiation belongs to sources that we don't see at all because they are too far away?
Perhaps they contain additional large compensators, such as the one that "we" experienced a few billion years ago?
I tend to be on the side of Yehuda and Hazi... obviously and without disparaging the other opinion holders of course.
Yehuda:
I understand all the words so I know there is no point in getting into an argument.
To Michael
You don't have to be a great sage or a great expert to understand that laws and facts that we refer to today did not have to be like that in the ancient universe so that a determination based on the existing laws or the current speed of light in the very special moments after the big bang is completely unacceptable. You understand that I do not agree that any cosmological principle can change this opinion.
So, in fact, for the purpose of this determination, there is no need to enter any website.
But you were very nice and tried to please me so I won't let you down and therefore, in addition, I entered the website you sent me to.
And here it is, in the chapter [edit] Cosmological parameters
An interesting graph of the average distance of galaxies as a function of time appears. Each graph actually behaves differently
It is easy to notice which zero time point each graph leads to. The difference is expressed in billions!!
In addition, if we take the graph where the distance increases with acceleration, the one that is more accepted today (the uppermost graph), it is actually "forced and bent" towards the zero point by the fact that the graph took the shape of a kind of sinusoid.
If the graph continued naturally as a parabola, its zero point would be drawn at a much greater distance than 13.7 billion years.
And again, I still maintain that we will never be able to know exactly the behavior of galaxies close to the starting point of the big bang. So the deviation from the calculation may even increase.
But the truth is that I'm already tired of explaining that for the same reasons black holes, dark mass and dark energy are also standing on chicken's knees. so,
What is important, want 13.7 billion years?, so be it.
"Do you even understand all the words?"
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To the supplier:
This is not a question of logic but really a question of emotion and therefore every emotion is legitimate.
Personally, I find the statement that it is difficult for us to grasp the size of the universe a bit strange, because in my opinion the real difficulty is precisely in accepting the thought that it is finite - whether in the spatial sense or in the time sense.
Yehuda:
I have never specialized in the subject but neither have you.
There are, on the other hand, those who have specialized and their words are based on a lot of knowledge that you do not have.
Why underestimate without checking what they did?
Wikipedia has a brief description of the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Universe
Can you point out the error in it?
Do you even understand all the words?
Today I watched a recording of an article about the wonders of the Hubble telescope.
There they talk about an "operation" in which they photographed an "empty" area in space,
300 photos for a week, and attached them one on top of the other.
The area was only the apparent size of a grain of sand at arm's length.
It turned out that this empty satan,
There were 3000 galaxies…
Are you still dealing with the failed "big bang" theory?
incidentally,
I will not respond to comments,
They will not change the minds of "fixed" people...
to the point
Now I need to check if the measurements obtained on the big bang as a result of the background radiation can be calculated in an accurate way of 13.7 billion years.
Thanks for your comment
Yehuda Sabdarmish
And regarding the method of measurement, this exact result was obtained from the satellite results of the background radiation measurement and not from the Hubble constant
Yehuda, the result of the 13.7 is not accurate, it has an error range of plus or minus 0.2 (something like that...) is the result of placing numbers in certain formulas that express our current knowledge of the universe of course according to certain theories and certain measurements based on the theories. That's how science works. A few years ago the age assessment was different.
Yehuda. You're right, I messed up the calculation..
To all the "obsessed" of all kinds
I'm sorry, but I don't see in the article how the date of 13.7 billion years for the big bang is determined.
It should be taken into account that this was done by checking the Hubble constant for the expansion of the universe and "guessing" when everything was concentrated in a point.
But this calculation is flawed because it is very difficult to know what the spread of grief was over ten billion years ago and a small change would have changed the result by billions.
We should also not forget that physical formulas are not tested and measured in the extreme conditions of the early universe and a small change in them would again change the date of the bang by billions.
So I'm thrilled too, but speaking differently:-
Where do some scientists find the courage to determine an exact result of 13.7 billion years?
The same goes for the determination of 400,000 years.
I will not be surprised if next year or in two years other results will be acceptable.
Please respond gently, Saturday today
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to the point
Why did you decide on 13.3 billion years?
It is about 13.7 billion years minus 400 thousand years which is still almost 13.7 billion years.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to Arya Seter
I'm trying to speculate that maybe this is about black body radiation and hence the shape of the curve.
Just guessing.
Tl
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Regarding the spectral distribution of the cosmic background radiation. In the article, the proposal is made to check if there are certain frequencies where there is a tiny increase in radiation. And I wonder at all why the background radiation appears as a distribution (something similar to a normal distribution, although one side of the bell is higher than the other side) and not, say, concentrated at one frequency. Does anyone know what the mechanism behind this is?
Lol
Michael, apparently the logic is with you, but my emotion does not follow its own rules...
And the size of the universe in space and time is one of the things that every time I try to grasp them I am excited anew
I am also amazed every time - but mainly in front of the wisdom of humans.
On a book I received in my childhood as a school prize, the teacher wrote (in French - it was a NATO school populated mainly by Belgian children) a sentence by the philosopher Tagore, which in a free translation goes something like this:
"The most admirable thing is not that the universe is large, but that the mathematician manages to measure it."
Whoa whoa, now I'm hit with severe nostalgia - that was the teacher of my life!
Every time I am amazed anew when I think about the meaning of things.
In other words, this is living evidence from 13.3 billion years ago when the universe was barely born.