An analysis of more than 70,000 galaxies by physicists from the University of California at Berkeley, Princeton and the University of Zurich proves that the universe - at least up to a distance of 3.5 billion light years from Earth - behaves according to the rules established 95 years ago by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity
An analysis of more than 70,000 galaxies by physicists from the University of California at Berkeley, Princeton and the University of Zurich proves that the universe - at least up to a distance of 3.5 billion light years from Earth - behaves according to the rules established 95 years ago by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity.
According to a calculation carried out on the galaxy clusters that stretch almost a third of the way to the edge of the universe, and the analysis of their velocities and the distortion created as a result of materials in the way, the researchers proved that Einstein's theory explains the nature of the nearby universe better than alternative theories of attraction.
One of the main implications of the new research is that the existence of dark matter is the most likely explanation for the observation and from which it appears that galaxies and galaxy clusters move as if under the influence of a hidden mass, in addition to that which astronomers observe in the form of stars.
The nice thing about testing on a cosmological scale is that we can fully test any alternative theory of gravity, because it should predict the things we see," said Urus Seljak, professor of physics and astronomy at UC Berkeley and member of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory faculty. and a professor of physics at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Zurich. "These alternative theories, which did not require the existence of dark matter, failed these tests."
In particular, they point out that the tensor-vector-scalar gravity theory (TeVeS), which tweaked general relativity to avoid the presence of dark matter, failed the test.
The results contradict a report published at the end of 2009 according to which the very early universe, 8-11 billion years ago, behaved differently from the behavior described by the theory of general relativity. Seljack and his current and former students, including his co-author Renabel Reyes, a PhD student from Princeton, and Rachel Mandelbaum, who recently received her Ph.D. from Princeton, reported their findings in the March 11 issue of the journal Niter. Other research partners are Tobias Baldoff, Lux Lumbrisser and Robert Smith from the University of Zurich and James Gunn - Professor of Physics at Princeton and father of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Project.
Einstein's theory of general relativity holds that gravity distorts space and time, and this means that light is bent when it passes by a massive object, such as the core of a galaxy. The theory has been successfully tested and validated countless times on the scale of the solar system, but the results on a galactic or cosmic scale have been inconclusive.
"There have been some rough and imprecise tests of general relativity on the scale of galaxies, but these tests have not had good predictions from alternative theories." Seljack said. Such tests have become important in recent decades because the idea of an invisible mass dictating the behavior of the universe has bothered some theorists because it required them to distort Einstein's theory of relativity to get rid of dark matter. TeVeS for example holds that the acceleration of bodies is caused by gravitational forces that depend not only on the mass of the body but also on the value of the acceleration caused by the gravitational force.
The discovery of dark energy, an enigmatic force that causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate, led to other theories such as dubbed f(R) designed to explain the expansion without needing dark energy.
Tests designed to distinguish between alternative theories are not easy. According to Seljak, a theoretical physicist, cosmological experiments, such as the detection of the microwave background radiation, involve measurements of changes in space, while gravitational theories predict interrelationships between density and velocity or between density and gravitational potential.
"The problem is that the size of the fluctuations in itself does not tell us anything about the cosmological theories. This is a nuisance that we must get rid of," Seljak said. "The innovation of the technique we used is that it looks at a certain combination of observations that does not depend on the strength of the fluctuations. Quantity is a smoking gun for a standard deviation from general relativity"
Seljak comments that these experiments do not reveal anything new about the nature of dark matter and energy, but only their very existence.
35 תגובות
I wanted to know what could be an explanation for the phenomenon that one galaxy from a galaxy cluster moves away from its companions in the cluster at a significantly lower speed?
A. רע' (XNUMX) [Akkadian: ru'u, for female: ruttu; Phoenician: rai]
1. Friend, colleague, friend: "And the three sons of Job heard all this evil that was coming upon him" (Job XNUMX). "Kneeling to me, I walked" (Psalms La Yad). "My love and my flock shall stand against my touch" (Psalms XNUMX:XNUMX). "When we sat down with our people at a gathering of people, one of the slaughterers Rabbi Aharon" (Bialik, Yona). A conversation of people.
2. The Zulat, another, every person with whom he comes in contact - in terms of neighborliness, work or trade, etc. "And I judged between a man and his neighbor" (Exodus XNUMX:XNUMX). "Let no one beat his neighbor" (Pah XNUMX:XNUMX).
[Rea-, Reo... Your people: Reim, Rei-, Reaiyo]
For Tsili and "Gili":
Does the rooster have "carbola"? And if not "then" why?
When a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one, why!
There are and there are as well. But when it gets dark... the prevailing hypothesis. Destructive photosynthesis.
Ko Ko Ri Ko “?”
Yes, have you ever wondered why a barking dog doesn't bite (after all, the nose is farther than the mouth).
The comparison and similarity between a tiny dog and a Boeing 747 airplane and Mount Miron takes place, all moving and moving, in the air of their sister and...
We should not take teeth for granted, they are evil themselves.
Maybe there is a divine "foundation", maybe his name has already been published as "Bonzo" and maybe the fur is so dense that the comb doesn't go through it? Maybe she herself is a rooster. (-?
Bombs collect
Some of the comments (28) are getting weirder and weirder...
Thanks Michael for the clear explanation.
What is this nonsense?
Yes, have you ever wondered why a stone doesn't collapse into itself (after all, the non-existent exceeds the existing).
The comparison and similarity between a tiny atom and a solar system and a galaxy and clusters exists, all moving and rotating, in their relationship to...
We should not take rotation for granted, it is itself bad.
Perhaps there is a divine "foundation", perhaps its name has already been published as "site" and perhaps the name
So crowded that the imagination brings it up? Maybe he himself is a force. (-?
Great
questionnaire:
I haven't read everything that is written here, but I guess you can find a detailed explanation of things in the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution
I will give you a summary here:
It wasn't interaction with external matter that caused the galaxies to rotate and I don't know what you're deriving that from.
The giant gas cloud from which the galaxy was formed had rotational momentum from the beginning.
Although there were particles that moved in every direction, one cannot expect that the average would actually be the absence of rotation.
There was a certain excess of rotation components in one direction over the others.
This initial excess is the angular momentum you find in the galaxy today except that in the process of its formation it became a more or less coordinated rotation of the entire galaxy.
Why did it become a coordinated turn?
Because when the rotation is not coordinated there are collisions and in these collisions energy is lost and in general - the movement of the colliding components gets closer and closer to the weighted average of their movements.
On that occasion - due to the loss of energy - the particles also fall a little inward - towards the center of gravity of the galaxy - but due to the conservation of angular momentum - their angular velocity increases.
Thus, during the billions of years of formation of the galaxy, coordination was achieved (more or less) between the particles that make it up.
All the angular momentum that remains is in the direction where there was excess angular momentum to begin with.
Due to the reduction in the volume of the gas cloud - the average angular velocity increases.
The movement components in directions other than the direction in which there was an excess to begin with have been almost completely eliminated.
As a result, the galaxy is also more or less planar (because any rotation that is not in the plane is suppressed due to collisions with components in the plane - this is a special case of what I have already said).
The speed of rotation of each star (the stars and their planetary systems were formed by a similar process on a smaller scale) balances its centrifugal force with its pull towards the center of the galaxy.
That's it!
The truth is that all this was already predicted by Newton's theory of gravitation and relativity also explains it.
thanks for the correction,
I probably didn't ask correctly about the other things.
If I understood correctly (SPACE.COM) it is explained that the rotation of the galaxies was created in the essence of their formation when matter was formed
From their surroundings it gathered into their contents and thus an angular momentum was created which caused the center of mass to move (in a simplistic description).
If it is true that the interaction with matter external to the galaxy is the reason for their initial rotation, therefore
It is not clear to me (especially in galaxies with spiral arms) who is responsible for their axial rotation: the center of mass
Or the material sucked in?
The second question was whether general relativity predicted how mass (as a galaxy) is in the process of its formation
Do you get the angular momentum?
Hope it's clearer this time,
Thanks
Eli, they dig around pressure and find the target..
questionnaire:
You are partially wrong.
I wrote that what is not understood is the reason for the spiral structure of the spiral galaxies - and this too - with a limited guarantee - there are theories on the matter but there is still no blanket agreement.
The reason for the rotation of the galaxies is understandable.
More than that: to measure the rotation it is not necessary to know the reason.
After all, you can also measure the speed of a car without knowing whether it has an electric engine or a gasoline engine.
I have explained the matter of dark matter many times and I do not have the energy to repeat it again.
I suggest that right now - either you search the answers I've already given or you check Wikipedia (in English).
General relativity also answered the question of the rotation of the planets.
More than that: the first confirmation of the theory of general relativity was its ability to correctly predict the movement of the planet Mercury which did not exactly match the predictions of Newton's theory of gravitation!
The question of whether the galaxies rotate around an axis or a point has almost no meaning because if the galaxy is close to a plane it is exactly the same.
Anyway - the galaxies revolve around their center of gravity which is a point and not a line.
If a century after the publication of Einstein's theories,
Still need long articles like this,
to "prove" them,
A sign that…
Michael,
If I'm not mistaken, you wrote in one of your comments in the recent past that the reason for the rotation of the galaxies
And the reason for the distribution of arms is not fully understood (correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore it is asked
The question is based on what the rotation speed of galaxies is calculated and how this calculation relates to its invention
Or the non-discovery of dark matter all while the mechanism or mechanics of rotation is not completely clear?
In addition to this, I was unable to understand whether general relativity in addition to explaining mass/time/space also
Did you answer the axial rotation question (planets, solar systems and galaxies)?
And one last question, do the galaxies rotate on an axis or a point?
Thanks.
Seljak's company:
You should actually be satisfied with the publication of the matter! You don't want him to overdo his attempts to impress other girls!
Decisive arguments against the theory of relativity starting about 100 years ago turned out to be weak, until today the theory of relativity has stood up to many tests that have been put to it and in the meantime the theory of relativity describes the universe in the best way based on what we know until our perception of the universe changes.
Great professors came out against the theory of relativity and finally stood by their mistake so that going against the theory of relativity is not the wisest thing, it is true that the theory of relativity is not perfect, but for those who have arguments let them come with facts or an alternative theory.
You have to be very brave to go against relativity without support.
to m. Rothschild:
It's a shame you betrayed my partner Seljak: he really invents things just to impress girls, for all his research he invites only female researchers (check the names above) and he is not a physicist at all. He doesn't even know how to measure 20 cm.
Yaniv:
What you're describing is an old idea put forward by physicists in the past:
http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/~kaloper/siegfr.txt
(This is an article dated July 5, 1999).
In my opinion (personal! I've never heard anyone else say this and I haven't had the chance to discuss the matter with others), the data we have today pretty much rules out this possibility.
The fact on which I base this claim is the diagnosis that dark matter does not interact with itself either, whereas if it were a universe like ours that is in a parallel dimension - the matter in it (which is dark for us) was supposed to interact with itself.
If our conclusion regarding the lack of interaction of the dark matter with itself was based only on the fact that we do not see it forming stars, this would not be enough to rule out the possibility of the parallel universe which in the first place speaks of a universe from which gravitation can pass to us but light cannot do so.
The point is that the conclusion also stems from additional facts such as those demonstrated by me the slingshot cluster where it seems as if the (dark) centers of gravity of the colliding clusters passed unhindered through each other.
Question for those who understand
I know that according to various theories the universe may exist in more than three spatial dimensions, string theory speaks of ten if I'm not mistaken, therefore my question is if we assume that there is another spatial dimension in our world that by the nature of being three-dimensional beings we have not been exposed to yet but let's assume that this dimension does exist In the universe, isn't it possible that that dark mass is actually the existence of the galaxies across this extra dimension? That is, if it seems that our world has only two dimensions, that is, completely flat, now if we place a sphere on the surface of this surface, we as two-dimensional beings are only exposed to that part that cuts through our space, that is, that small part that touches our world, which is actually a few percent of the general mass of same ball If we take the example I gave and imagine that this is also how our world is built, only that where most of the mass is in the third dimension, it is actually in the fourth dimension and therefore hidden from our sight..
Maybe you haven't noticed but, between the Earth and the Moon there is a sea of dark energy,
Both between the earth and the sun and between the bottlers the scientist site (-?
Right
deer
So, all we have to do is wait
Yehuda
The point about TeVeS is that even then it includes too many free variables. Making A0 also a free variable (when it is supposed to be a fundamental constant of the Torah), makes it completely forced and certainly no simpler than the simple existence of dark matter and dark energy.
I am familiar with Michael's arguments regarding the galaxy operating according to Newtonian laws and if I remember correctly (I remember correctly!) Michael mentions it (and rightly so) often in order to show that most physicists are probably right in their belief in the existence of opal matter and the correctness of gravity as it emerges from relativity The general/Newton's theory.
To also use this as proof that a revised theory of gravity is required would be real intellectual slaughter.
Yehuda,
The science website is not a professional journal but a science website for the general public (therefore you and I are able to read every article written in a reasonable amount of time and understand what is written). As such, he does not publish the entire article and that is a good thing. As stated in the article, the article was published in issue 11 of the journal Nature, so if it is important to you, you can read it there.
Personally I am not going to read the entire article and I rather doubt my ability to test its veracity. I will content myself with an article that will be published in science in the future and tell me what the people who do understand the subject think about the article.
Good luck Yehuda.
deer
I am not a follower of TEVES
And it is true that TEVES does not change its constant and therefore it fails to explain data on galaxies such as a galaxy that operates exactly according to Newton and the like. Ask Michael about the "Shaul Galaxy".
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
But what I'm asking if someone knows how they proved it to explain it to me. What is so difficult here?
That respected professors said it is not proof and I want to see the proof.
Can anyone show me how they proved this?
In the article, in my humble opinion, it is not listed
If not then not terrible
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Friends, the debate here is unnecessary. I'm sure a respected professor from Berkeley knows how to do his job. And he would not risk his name by publishing results without going over the findings several times.
Now that alternative theories have been floated that do not stand the test of galactic reality, theorists will have more precise tools.
Yehuda,
You opened well with a statement, which is difficult for you to respond to because you don't have any details. Beautiful, and modest.
Immediately afterwards you forgot modesty, and stated: "I think that they are actually of no value", and "I renounce such divine proofs"
In addition, you said: "They determined that if we add dark mass in whatever amount we need then we can explain everything"
Of course, it is an intolerable thing to add a dark mass required by the mathematical equations.
In your theory, on the other hand, there is not even one mathematical equation, and you add as many pressures as you need, even more than dark mass and dark energy, to explain with their help the whole universe, negating general relativity.
What is beautiful is your courage to present your story as a scientific alternative, and you even lecture and intend to write a book, and all this without writing a single medical equation.
Wake up Yehuda, wake up.
Good week Yehuda,
The TeVeS theory behaved in such a way that it would be an alternative explanation for the observations that have been made to date, instead of the existence of dark energy and/or dark matter. If such a theory is proposed that explains the existing observations, both the supporters of the theory and its critics will try to find a way to decide between the modified gravity and the familiar relativity (+dark matter and dark energy).
This decision was questioned by an experiment in which the two theories predict different predictions and it seems that (according to these scientists) they found that the modified theories of gravity do not hold.
As for your arguments about A0 being different from galaxy to galaxy, with such a technique you could actually say that there is a different law of nature for every weight that is ever dropped and thus in fact we will never be able to make any prediction (philosopher David Yum's claim) - I don't think that is your opinion because you are interested In science, and therefore probably, if the claims of these scientists are recognized by the scientific community, then we will have to accept dark matter and dark energy as the best explanation available to date.
By the way - if I'm not mistaken, one of the main criticisms of TeVes is the large number of free variables in it, so to also say that the important constant it adds is a variable would completely take the sting out of it.
Yehuda:
It's interesting how many deep insights you can derive from a study you haven't read.
Why don't you say they are just lying to impress their girlfriends?
It's a shame they don't explain how they came to their conclusion so it's hard for me to comment on something like this. Imagine if I wrote that I tested 170,000 galaxies and found out I was right, someone would believe me.
It seems to me that what they determined is that if we add dark mass in whatever amount we need then we can explain everything, and not only that, if we have too much dark mass then we can add as much dark energy as we need to balance.
Imagine that Professor Milgrom would say that in every galaxy he would change the term A0 that he added to Newton's second law as much as necessary, then he would also explain everything.
What is the value of these kinds of proofs?, I really don't know and think that they actually have no value. It's just like deciding that the one who rotates the galaxies is God who rotates them at whatever speed he wants by pushing (dark mass?) in the required size.
I renounce such divine proofs
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What about the Pioneer effect?
Get out of the box
Apparently, who doesn't know what reality is? After all, it is most likely visible - the surrounding houses, the people, the entire universe. Reality is what you can feel and touch, what you hear, taste and smell. This is the reality. What not?!
By: Dodi Aharoniya A tour of "Dialogue in the Dark" illustrates to us in a wonderful way the reality in the absence of a sense of sight. It's amazing to discover how the other senses are harnessed immediately to cover the lack, creating a picture completely different from the one we knew. But what does this say about our reality? Is it possible that the image of the external world, which seems so safe and stable to us, depends solely on our internal qualities? And what would happen if instead of losing a sense, another sense was added to us?
To try and answer these questions we will first understand how we "perceive" the reality around us.
For the purpose of explanation, let's imagine the person as a closed box with five openings: eyes, ears, nose, mouth and hands. Through these openings we receive bits of information from the world around us. This information enters the box and undergoes an internal processing process. This processing process creates the image we call reality.
In fact, we are surrounded by a huge variety of colors, tastes, smells and sounds, most of which are not perceived by our senses at all. We feel only that tiny part that our sensory box is able to absorb.
For example, the human eye is oriented to a wavelength corresponding to the range between the color violet and the color red. That is why we are unable to see a wave whose length is shorter than the violet, such as the ultraviolet. But if we equip ourselves with a suitable receiving device, which translates the waves that are around us along the wave that corresponds to our natural receiving devices - the ear, the eye, the nose, etc. - we will be able to recognize the existence of those waves.
The radio receiver is a good example of this: many radio stations broadcast during the day, but only when we calibrate the radio so that it receives a certain frequency are we able to hear their broadcasts.
To receive the desired frequency, the receiver creates a wave identical to the waves found in the air even before we turned it on. This is how he translates for us the transmitter created at the station, from an intangible frequency to a frequency that our ear is able to receive. In a similar way, we also perceive the frequencies that exist outside of us only according to the "internal frequency" that we produce within ourselves, according to the degree of our adaptation to them. The Kabbalists call this the "law of equality of form". Does this mean that if we know how to calibrate ourselves more correctly, we can "grasp" a wider reality? From the proven experience of the kabbalists, the answer is yes.
According to them, our world is surrounded by a higher power whose every desire is to fill us with infinite pleasure. In order to "receive" the same frequency of love and giving and enjoy its influence, we must resemble it in our qualities, that is, generate from within ourselves a similar "frequency" towards others.
The problem is that by nature man thinks only of his private benefit. As a result, on the spiritual plane there is a "form imbalance" between man and the power that governs his life. Therefore man is unable to absorb this power. But if we learn how to rise above our ego, if we acquire a new sense - a sense of love and giving, we can feel a new and wide world, a world that is all good.
The difference between the feeling of life we feel now and the feeling of life we can achieve, is tremendous. The Book of Zohar describes it as a thin violin or a small spark compared to the infinite light. He adds and says that each of us should and can realize the potential that lies in him as a person, and reach this feeling during his life in this world
Lali –
The new Israeli genius!
It takes a little courage - or a lot of stupidity - to write what you wrote.
But you draw beautiful circles…
Complete nonsense. Draw the target around the arrows