Studies of universe's expansion win physics Nobel (Update 3)

Oct 04, 2011
Saul Perlmutter and Adam Riess of the United States and US-Australian Brian Schmidt won the 2011 Nobel Physics Prize Tuesday for their research on supernovae, the Nobel jury said.

Three U.S.-born scientists won the Nobel Prize in physics on Tuesday for overturning a fundamental assumption in their field by showing that the expansion of the universe is constantly accelerating.

Their discovery created a new portrait of the eventual fate of the universe: a place of super-low temperatures and black skies unbroken by the light of galaxies moving away from each other at incredible speed.

Physicists had assumed for decades that the expansion of the universe was getting ever-slower, meaning that in billions of years it would resemble today's universe in many important ways.

Then, working in separate research teams during the 1990s, Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess found that the light from more than 50 distant exploding stars was far weaker than they expected, meaning that galaxies had to be racing away from each other at increasing speed.

The acceleration is driven by what scientists call dark energy, a cosmic force that is one of the great mysteries of the universe.

The Nobel-winning discovery implies instead that the universe will get increasingly colder as matter spreads across ever-vaster distances in space, said Lars Bergstrom, secretary of the Nobel physics committee.

He said galaxies that are 3 million light years away from Earth move at a speed of around 44 miles per second (70 kilometers per second). Galaxies that are 6 million light years away move twice as fast.

The research implies that billions of years from now, the universe will become "a very, very large, but very cold and lonely place," said Charles Blue, spokesman for the American Institute of Physics.

In contrast to the big bang, that fate has been called the "big rip" to indicate how galaxies would be torn apart, he said.

Galaxies will be flying away so quickly that their light could not travel across the universe to distant observers as it does today, making the sky appear black, he said.

"For almost a century the universe has been known to be expanding as a consequence of the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago," the citation said. "However the discovery that this expansion is accelerating is astounding. If the expansion will continue to speed up the universe will end in ice."

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said Perlmutter would receive half of the 10 million kronor ($1.5 million) award, with Riess and Schmidt, a U.S.-born Australian, splitting the other half.

Perlmutter, 52, heads the Supernova Cosmology Project at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley.

Schmidt, 44, is the head of the High-z Supernova Search Team at the Australian National University in Weston Creek, Australia.

Riess, 41, is an astronomy professor at Johns Hopkins University and Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland.

Schmidt said he was just sitting down to have dinner with his family in Canberra, Australia, when the phone call came from the academy.

"I was somewhat suspicious when the Swedish voice came on," Schmidt told The Associated Press. "My knees sort of went weak and I had to walk around and sort my senses out."

Riess said his "jaw dropped" when he received an early-morning call at his home in Baltimore from a bunch of Swedish men and realized "it wasn't Ikea," the Swedish furniture retailer. "I'm dazed," he told AP.

The discovery was "the biggest shakeup in physics, in my opinion, in the last 30 years," said Phillip Schewe, a physicist and spokesman at the Joint Quantum Institute, which is operated by the University of Maryland and the federal government.

"I remember everyone thinking at the time (that) there was some mistake," Schewe said. But there was no mistake, and in fact the basic finding was confirmed later by other measurements. For example, other scientists found evidence for it when they analyzed the microwave radiation left over from the big bang that still bathes the universe, he said.

Perlmutter told AP his team made the discovery in steps, analyzing the data and assuming it was wrong.

"And after months, you finally believe it," he said. "It's not quite a surprise anymore. I tell people it's the longest "aha!" experience that you've ever had."

Fred Dylla, executive director of the American Institute of Physics, said the prize confirmed an idea from Albert Einstein, called the cosmological constant, that Einstein inserted in his general theory of relativity, a cornerstone of modern physics.

Einstein later repudiated that idea as his "biggest blunder," but it did lead to a lot of theoretical and experimental studies, Dylla said.

The physics prize was the second Nobel to be announced this year. On Monday the medicine prize went to American Bruce Beutler and French scientist Jules Hoffmann who shared it with Canadian-born Ralph Steinman for their discoveries about the immune system. Steinman died three days before the announcement but since his death was not known to the committee, they decided he should keep the Nobel. Since 1974, Nobels have been awarded only to living scientists.

The Nobel Prizes were established in the will of Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel, and have been handed out since 1901.

Last year's physics award went to Russian-born scientists Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov for groundbreaking experiments with graphene, the strongest and thinnest material known to mankind.

The prizes are handed out every year on Dec. 10, on the anniversary of Nobel's death in 1896.

Explore further: How the hummingbird achieves its aerobatic feats

More information: Here is some information from nobelprize.org website:

Written in the stars

"Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice..."

What will be the final destiny of the Universe? Probably it will end in ice, if we are to believe this year's Nobel Laureates in Physics. They have studied several dozen exploding stars, called supernovae, and discovered that the Universe is expanding at an ever-accelerating rate. The discovery came as a complete surprise even to the Laureates themselves.

In 1998, cosmology was shaken at its foundations as two research teams presented their findings. Headed by Saul Perlmutter, one of the teams had set to work in 1988. Brian Schmidt headed another team, launched at the end of 1994, where Adam Riess was to play a crucial role.

The research teams raced to map the Universe by locating the most distant supernovae. More sophisticated telescopes on the ground and in space, as well as more powerful computers and new digital imaging sensors (CCD, Nobel Prize in Physics in 2009), opened the possibility in the 1990s to add more pieces to the cosmological puzzle.

The teams used a particular kind of supernova, called type Ia supernova. It is an explosion of an old compact star that is as heavy as the Sun but as small as the Earth. A single such supernova can emit as much light as a whole galaxy. All in all, the two research teams found over 50 distant supernovae whose light was weaker than expected - this was a sign that the expansion of the Universe was accelerating. The potential pitfalls had been numerous, and the scientists found reassurance in the fact that both groups had reached the same astonishing conclusion.

For almost a century, the Universe has been known to be expanding as a consequence of the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago. However, the discovery that this expansion is accelerating is astounding. If the expansion will continue to speed up the Universe will end in ice.

The acceleration is thought to be driven by dark energy, but what that dark energy is remains an enigma - perhaps the greatest in physics today. What is known is that dark energy constitutes about three quarters of the Universe. Therefore the findings of the 2011 Nobel Laureates in Physics have helped to unveil a Universe that to a large extent is unknown to science. And everything is possible again.

www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prize… ates/2011/press.html

For advanced information, please read: www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prize… sciback_fy_en_11.pdf

4.9 /5 (9 votes)

Related Stories

Dark energy -- 10 years on

Nov 30, 2007

Three quarters of our universe is made up of some weird, gravitationally repulsive substance that was only discovered ten years ago – dark energy. This month in Physics World, Eric Linder and Saul Perlmutter, both at the ...

$2.38 Million for Supernova Research

Sep 21, 2004

The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation of San Francisco has awarded $2,377,000 to the University of California at Berkeley's Space Sciences Laboratory, in support of the Nearby Supernova Factory (SNfactory). ...

Quantum physics is the focus of Nobel buzz

Oct 04, 2011

Three physicists whose research on entangled particles plays a key role in attempts to develop super-fast quantum computers could be in the running for the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics on Tuesday.

Recommended for you

How the hummingbird achieves its aerobatic feats

16 hours ago

(Phys.org) —The sight of a tiny hummingbird hovering in front of a flower and then darting to another with lightning speed amazes and delights. But it also leaves watchers with a persistent question: How ...

New terahertz device could strengthen security

Nov 21, 2014

We are all familiar with the hassles that accompany air travel. We shuffle through long lines, remove our shoes, and carry liquids in regulation-sized tubes. And even after all the effort, we still wonder if these procedures ...

CERN makes public first data of LHC experiments

Nov 21, 2014

CERN today launched its Open Data Portal where data from real collision events, produced by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will for the first time be made openly available to all. It is expected ...

User comments : 57

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

virtualetters
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 04, 2011
Does this seem in any way an attempt to reassure everyone that dark matter searches aren't a waste of time, money and effort? Even if so, a surprising but not unwise (for now!) result.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2011
1. It's dark energy we are discussing, not dark matter.
2. Dark energy is most certainly real, it is an observable effect we do not yet know the cause of. Something is making the universes expansion accelerate.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (52) Oct 04, 2011
Does this seem in any way an attempt to reassure everyone that dark matter searches aren't a waste of time, money and effort? Even if so, a surprising but not unwise (for now!) result.


They're speaking of dark energy above, which has no relation to dark matter. Dark energy might be vacuum energy, expressed as Einsteins cosmological constant term.

It's kind of amusing to think Einsteins added term was his 'biggest mistake',.. but then the removal of it was even bigger.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2011
a round of applause and congratulations to these men of science, keep up the good work gentlemen.
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
a round of applause and congratulations to these men of science, keep up the good work gentlemen.


and be on the lookout for neutron repulsion.
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
its kind of sad and funny at the same time but when i saw this story the first time and saw that 1 person had commented so far i fully expected it to be another nonsensical rant about conspiracy theories and big brother from oliver too. lol. its only a matter of time before he shows up.
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2011
Congratulations to the teams and all of the hard work and long hours that went into the confirmation and study of this groundbreaking discovery. Kudos to all involved.
yyz
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
"...i fully expected....another nonsensical rant about conspiracy theories and big brother from oliver too. lol. its only a matter of time before he shows up."

Perhaps oliver's busy flavor changing or rewriting history?
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said : "the cosmos will eventually freeze to ice." - Really? One big chunk, eh? I hadn't know there was that much liquid available.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
Is anyone else getting a tampermonkey warning on jsdarkdestruction's profile link. This is the second time in several weeks that this has happened.

He gets a ranking I don't quite fathom and when I try to find out who gave it I get blocked. In Chrome, last time with Firefox and Chrome, but I a not blocked in IE8.

Never had it with anyone else.

Ethelred
ZULUIII
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
So is that the end... I have an idea... What if there are other universes/parallel universes that freeze up much like our own will, and they collide with eachother... Would that create a new universe?...Llike heat up our universe again?
SteveL
5 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2011
We call it the universe, they call it an ice cube. Ice cubes expand as they freeze. Perhaps in just a few hundred billion years we, at the elemental level, will be cooling something's brewski.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
So is that the end... I have an idea... What if there are other universes/parallel universes that freeze up much like our own will, and they collide with eachother... Would that create a new universe?...Llike heat up our universe again?

you mean like in brane theory or something else?
eachus
not rated yet Oct 04, 2011
There is an error in the story. "The big rip" will only occur if the cosmological constant is less than -1. It would be a single instant when even atoms are torn apart by the expansion of the universe. Current evidence puts the CC much closer to zero. In that case, galaxies and even galaxy clusters can stay together indefinitely. Distant galaxies will increase their speed away from each other. (The Hubble constant will increase.) This will mean that some galaxies that are now visible will eventually move beyond visible range.* Of course, the effective visible speed away from us will never reach the speed of light. The light we continue to see will just get older and older--and more red shifted--with time.

* This happened during inflation as well. Since then the effective visible horizon has been increasing. Eventually this will reverse.
Simonsez
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
Congrats to the teams who earned this acknowledgement! Their work has certainly advanced the field and opened new areas of study.

However, the the article should read "perceived expansion."
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
Billions of years? Seems like it would take longer than that for the whole universe to end up so far apart that galaxies are not visible to each other. Misspelling? Did they mean Trillions?
Nanobanano
1.6 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2011
Billions of years? Seems like it would take longer than that for the whole universe to end up so far apart that galaxies are not visible to each other. Misspelling? Did they mean Trillions?


Inflationary theory is pretty inconsistent.

The numbers do not work, and the scientists know it, so they invented the "inflationary period", in which objects actually moved faster than the speed of light for some time, in the Big Bang model to make up for the fact that the BB model actually violates the speed of light postulate.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter are not the only "invisible patches" on the standard model.

The "Inflationary Period" is just as "invisible" and "mystical" as the invisible Dark Energy.

None of them have any known self-consistent explanations, so they attempt to further patch the model through strings, branes, higher dimensions, M-theory, symetry breaking, etc.
Nanobanano
1.5 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2011
If you take the Hubble Constant at face value, then it's actually pretty obvious that the Universe's expansion SHOULD increase more and more.

73km/s/Mpc...

Well, this is a metric of the instantaneous velocity of expansion for any given distance.

It's obvious that an object must be ACCELERATING if being 2mpc distance makes it moving twice as fast as being 1 mpc distance. It must have accelerated during the time it traveled from point a to point b.

So Hubble constant automatically shows that objects outside of "galaxy cluster" range not only move away from one another, but that they accelerate away from one another.

In theory, if you ran this process indefinitely, you should end up with an "observable universe" which contains only one galaxy cluster, being galaxies gravitationally bound to one another stronger than Hubble expansion.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2011
But if you solved the parametric equation given by simply working hubble's constant backwards, in order to find out for how long it would take a Galaxy to move from the "origin" in an alleged universe that was "smaller than an atom"(Discover channel BB theory claims,) to being 14 billion ly from the origin, the solution is much, much greater than any 14 billion years.

It would actually take about 6 billion years for the ENTIRE universe to go from 7.5 billion ly radius to 11.25 billion ly radius.

Going from 3.75gly radius to 7.5gly radius should have taken about 10 billion years.

So right away, that already shows 16 billion years to go from 3.75gly to 11.25 gly.

Going from a number arbitrarily close to 0 radius to a radius of 3.75gly should have taken 30 billion years.

going from 11.25 to 14 gly should be another 3.2 billion years.

Bringing our total to at least 49.2 billion years just to get the objects to where they appear to be now...continued...
Nanobanano
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2011
Finally, you have to figure how long it would take for LIGHT, according to relativity, to move from where the galaxy APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN to our telescope to see it.

If the object was 14 gly distance, then it would take 14gly for the light to get here(well, not quite, because universe is expanding away, so it actually takes longer still, but I digress.)

So just using flat numbers, that gives 49.2 billion years to "create" the existing universe, within the hubble expansion anyway, and then 14 billion more years for light from the most distant objects to travel from where they appear to be to us.

gives a total of 63.2 billion years.

This assumes that the "entire" universe is no bigger than the "observable universe" which is clearly a naive assumption.

If the universe is larger than the "light horizon" then there is no logical way to tell how old it is within the standard model, because you run into vertical assymptotes on both ends of "time"...
omatumr
1 / 5 (16) Oct 04, 2011
Congratulations!

Your discovery merits a Nobel Prise because it

1. Negates the need for:

a.) A "Big Bang" origin of the universe,

b.) "Dark Energy" to keep it expanding,

2. Confirms that in our infinite, cyclic cosmos [1]:

c.) Neutron-emission from the surface of neutron stars - driven by neutron repulsion [2] - occurs faster from smaller fragments of parent neutron stars, just as

b.) Water evaporates faster from expanded surfaces of smaller water droplets!

Again, congratulations!

References:

1. "Is the Universe Expanding?", Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...g102.htm

2. "Neutron repulsion", APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09


Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
Spam is not a reasoned response to my questions. Nor do the Nobel prize winners support you nor does their research support you.

Indeed it DISPROVES you. Can't have a cyclic universe that has ACCELERATING expansion.

Ethelred
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (48) Oct 04, 2011
.., so they invented the "inflationary period", in which objects actually moved faster than the speed of light for some time, in the Big Bang model to make up for the fact that the BB model actually violates the speed of light postu


This is incorrect. Only objects moving through an existing space are subject to SR speed limit.
Nanobanano
1.6 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2011
.., so they invented the "inflationary period", in which objects actually moved faster than the speed of light for some time, in the Big Bang model to make up for the fact that the BB model actually violates the speed of light postu

This is incorrect. Only objects moving through an existing space are subject to SR speed limit.


You are so used to quoting rules of the "patch" that you no longer recognize it as a patch...

Of course, that's part of inflationary theory and symetry breaking, but at the end of the day, it's just as much a "patch" as Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

"Dark Energy" could be anything, a hidden force or energy, etc, or nothing at all except some sort of relic or misinterpretation, or it could even be the sum or multiple of more than one hidden force or particle. Nobody knows for sure and nobody really even claims to know. All they "know" is that "something" makes the universe expand faster when it "should" be slowing down or staying same...
Nanobanano
1.5 / 5 (14) Oct 04, 2011
Inflationary theory is essentially a naturalistic form of Special Creation.

It says, "Hey, the laws of physics don't make sense at all before time, T, so we invent a theory that is unprovable, which is that the laws of physics changed "before" that time."

Well, that is creationism.

You might not believe in God, but inflationary theory IS creationism, because it requires the universe to be created "as is", or at least somewhat close to "as is" from "nothing" or "almost nothing" using a different set of laws than what currently exists inside the universe: i.e. "divine" intervention.

So, do you believe in pantheism or is it deism?

From a fundamental metaphysical point of view, String Theory and Branes are essentially a mathematical construct to attempt to define "God" or "gods" as extended mathematical or topological entities.

The hypocrissy is that they deny special creation, but propose something that is, in the greater scheme of things, no more "naturalistic" at all.
Nanobanano
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 04, 2011
When it comes to creation, the universe, God, and "evolution", I should propose something radical: there is neither a logical nor non-logical explanation for existence, it simply is.

But let's turn the atheist argument on it's head, since they use Occam's Razor as an argument against God..

If you believe humans evolved, or could have evolved, from nothing more than amino acids which then evolved through a chain of DNA through enteractions of viruses, bacteria, protzoans, etc, through animals to primates to human, etc.

If you believe in "Molecule to Man" evolution, then HOW can you exclude the possibility of God?

If an unorganized soup of mud in an ocean could evolve to mankind, in several billion years of earth's alleged history, then why not believe that a God could exist, given all eternity, on some fundamental level "somewhere"?

It works both ways. If intelligent design is not required for life or "evolution", then the "Where did God come from" question is not needed.
omatumr
1 / 5 (13) Oct 04, 2011
Inflationary theory is essentially a naturalistic form of Special Creation.


You are right.

Now we need to reconsider the role of a rotating superconducting super-fluid in

e.) Iron-rich supernova debris [3], and

f.) Expulsion of magnetic fields from the Sun by the Meisner effect [4].

References:

1. "Is the Universe Expanding?", Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...102.html

2. "Neutron repulsion", APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

3. B. W. Ninham, "Charged Bose gas in astrophysics", Physics Letters 4, 278-279 (1963)

4. "Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate", Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002)

http://arxiv.org/.../0501441

Pyle
4.7 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2011
Of course, that's part of inflationary theory and symetry breaking, ..., it's just as much a "patch" as Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Well, that is creationism.

No it isn't. It is a hypothesis. Patch? Plug? Better words than creationism. Creationism is usually used in the context of the Bible / Old Testament / Koran. It implies that their very special, vengeful, psychotic sky fairy created the world in seven days or whatever. That Ghod is a nonsense fairy tale told in part to scare little children (control people) and in part to make death not as scary (opiate of the masses). It is a sick cult that the world needs to grow out of (as you seem to be doing).
If an unorganized soup of mud in an ocean could evolve to mankind, in several billion years of earth's alleged history, then why not believe that a God could exist, given all eternity, on some fundamental level "somewhere"?
As an "atheist" I have no problem with that. Just lose the capital G.
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (48) Oct 04, 2011
.., so they invented the "inflationary period", in which objects actually moved faster than the speed of light for some time, in the Big Bang model to make up for the fact that the BB model actually violates the speed of light postu


This is incorrect. Only objects moving through an existing space are subject to SR speed limit.


You are so used to quoting rules of the "patch" that you no longer recognize it as a patch...

I didn't make reference to inflationary theory, only relativity.
jsa09
2 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
Once one accepts the postulate that space can expand it is a very small and logical step that space should be expanding at an accelerating rate.

Then calculating backwards the expansion should also decelerate and make the universe much older than estimates or come to a much larger size at the very start of expansion.

Then we come to the cause of expansion - being unknown we can not presume it to be a constant at all. This gives room to have a changing rate of expansion.

Perhaps expansion is not "caused" by space only. Perhaps matter and space combined can cause a much larger expansion making the acceleration greater as the universe was smaller in the past.

Time and energy (in study) may reveal this.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
Maybe nature is trying to send us a message with the accelerating expansion:

Our visible spacetime is only one fish in the pond. The pond is full of dark energy (sort of like fish food). The more we expand the more energy we pick up from the pond. More energy, more expansion. Like a population explosion.

Actually I suspect this would happen from day one except when matter first formed it slowed down the expansion (as observed by our laureats). But now that matter is dispersed the population explosion (spacetime expansion) is back in full bloom.
Zed123
4.5 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2011
@ Nanobanano:

I'm not sure you understand Inflation theory very well. Nothing was moving through space faster than c. As far as we know thats impossible (With the possible exception of FTL neutrino's..) :)

What is commonly believed to have occured was that SPACE expanded at a "speed" which would be faster than c if an object traversed a simliar distance through normal space in the same amount of time. Nothing actually "moved" through space during this time though so relativity remains intact.

Furthermore, the biggest concern you should have is that omatumr agrees with you. That alone should force you to take a good long hard look at yourself. :)
omatumr
1 / 5 (13) Oct 05, 2011
Accelerated expansion probably means that neutron repulsion is the source of energy that causes the universe to expand, in addition to being the main source of energy in the Sun.

The story implies accelerated expansion confirms "Big Bang" and "Dark Energy," but neutron repulsion negates the need for:

a.) A "Big Bang" origin of the universe,
b.) "Dark Energy" to keep it expanding, or
c.) "Oscillating solar neutrinos."

If government "double talk" and manipulation of data and observations ceases, serious investigations of climate change will consider the role of rotating, superconducting super-fluids in

d.) Iron-rich supernova debris [1], and
e.) Expulsion of material & magnetic fields from the Sun by the Meisner effect [2].

1. B. W. Ninham, "Charged Bose gas in astrophysics", Physics Letters 4, 278-279 (1963)

2. "Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate", Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002)

http://arxiv.org/.../0501441
astro_optics
not rated yet Oct 05, 2011
When they say "ice" do they mean frozen H2O?
omatumr
1 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2011
The empirically observed

a.) Accelerated expansion of the Universe, and
b.) Neutron repulsion in every nucleus with two or more neutrons

Eliminate the need for three questionable fables of modern science:

i.) A "Big Bang" origin of the universe
ii.) "Dark Energy" to keep it expanding
iii.) "Oscillating solar neutrinos"
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2011
@ohmytumor,
neutron repulsion is the source of energy that causes the universe to expand
How is it that this nonexistent neutron repulsion causes the distance between every single pair of points in space to increase omnidirectionally by ~70 km per second per megaparsec?

When are you going to finally take your pills, and/or commit yourself to an institution?
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2011
The empirically observed

a.) Accelerated expansion of the Universe, and
Yes THAT is empiraclly observed.

b.) Neutron repulsion in every nucleus with two or more neutrons
That is an unobserved bit of nonsense unless you have finally admitted that the Pauli Exclusion Principle exists.

Basically you are lying or delusional about the acceleration supporting you when that CLEARLY makes a cyclic Universe impossible.

Your claim that the expansion and acceleration are due to this NEVER observed repulsion would make the neutrons cores that you claim are in ALL stars impossible.

Join The Cause. Force Physorg To Enforce Their Own Rules On Oliver.

COUNTER SPAM OLIVER NOW.

Ethelred
Eoprime
5 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2011


Eliminate the need for:
iii.) "Oscillating solar neutrinos"


Why?
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2011
Because he needs to eliminate them so he can claim that the standard model of the Sun is wrong. He has just plain freaked on several occasions when it was pointed out to him that there is strong evidence for neutrino oscillation.

Mostly he is ignoring all comments dealing with that reality now. Just as he ignores requests for clarification or even making relevant posts instead of spamming the site.

Ethelred
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2011
The universe is not expanding, it is rotating localy at light speed and with an almost constant angular speed.
The transversal Dopller effect gives the shifts on wavelengths.
SteveL
5 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2011
OKM:
Accelerated expansion probably means that neutron repulsion is the source of energy that causes the universe to expand
So, now your neutron repulsion is a greater force than gravity at galactic and greater distances? I can't help but notice that your idea of neutron repulsion does not exceed that of the observed force of gravity in actual neutron stars, else they wouldn't form in the first place.

Look Oliver, I have read most of the links you have posted and I have yet to read data that serves as evidence to support your conclusions. I'm a reasonably intelligent person, and a layman when it comes to the sciences, but even I can see the glaring holes in your ideas. I can't imagine the frustration of those who actually know this stuff and work in this field.
brant
1 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2011
And its all based on Redshift being an indication of distance.... Its about as good as Obummer winning the Nobel...

How about the high redshift quasar in front of the low redshift galaxy??? How about Halton Arp?? How about Jeff Burbridge??

There are many reason why this is wrong...
omatumr
1 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2011
OKM:
"Accelerated expansion probably means that neutron repulsion is the source of energy that causes the universe to expand"


. . . even I can see the glaring holes in your ideas.


Thanks for your comment. Please start with early papers and see:

http://joannenova...f-alarm/

http://judithcurr...emistry/

http://jenniferma...t-page-1

Study the 1963 paper [1] by ANUs Distinguished Professor of math, physics and chemistry Dr. Barry W. Ninham - and the 2002 paper he co-authored with Distinguished Professor Stig Friberg and me [2].

1. B. W. Ninham, Charged Bose gas in astrophysics, Physics Letters 4, 278-279 (1963)

2. Super-fluidity in the sun: Implications for solar eruptions and climate, JFE 21, 193-198 (2002).

http://arxiv.org/.../0501441
SteveL
5 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2011
Oliver, I followed all three links. The first really had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Unless you have now concluded that global warming is created by neutron repulsion. The second and third links were more of an "It's so because I said it's so." article. I didn't see any supporting evidence provided. Unless it was the one in a language I don't read. Of course, one of the secondary links was a link right back to this page as supporting documentation. That's not evidence, that's not research.

I read your paper "Super-fluidity in the solar interior". Words from your article: "probably', "could have been", "There may be", "likely arise from", "most likely caused by" without supporting evidence continue to seem more the language of an idea rather than a viable theory.
binghamjames
1 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2011
if matter was accelerating outward would the laws of physics and gravity more accurately explain gravity, elliptical orbits, and mass forming circles as compared to a collapsing universe with increased pressure that would cause gases to condense and orbits to form? Sort of a whirlpool effect if you would. If you compare an explosion event to our Big Bang created universe that is accelerating would matter exhibit its present state if it were expanding at an increased rate or more likely to exhibit the apparent characteristics of acceleration and gravity caused by the pressures of a collapse?

Two objects can actually be stationary in space and still experience a red shift if the intervening space itself is expanding. Every galaxy in our universe shows a black hole at its center, indicative of a pulling motion, measured as an extreme gravitational increase towards its center. The motion of the galaxy and the gravity of the galaxy arent independent but are exhibiting their physics of m
binghamjames
1 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2011
physics of motion and mass based on the inherent physics of the space-time environment in which they reside. You have to ask yourself, would an outwardly expanding space-time environment produce similar conditions as exhibited by the physics depicted in our galaxies? Or do galaxies more accurately exhibit the effect of being acted on by an outward force that is pulling them towards a center point? How can you explain the formations of black holes in the galaxies if they werent created by a universally constant force pulling on the on all of the masses which comprise our visible galaxies? Also, if the universe were expanding outward, would the speed of light be a constant since our physical realm would have an ever increasing space? Or does the fact that light is a constant prove that the space comprising our universe
is a closed and realm defined perfectly by its space, matter, time, and a constant force depicted by the speed of light?
binghamjames
1 / 5 (1) Oct 08, 2011
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2011
...I'm not sure you understand Inflation theory very well.

Me too. How did the universe come to be flat (within 1 or 2%) after inflation?
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2011
The inflation has been introduced into Big Bang model just to solve the problem of BigBang model with homogeneity of Universe observed. It's completely ad-hoced superconstruction of Big Bang model (which is ad-hoced too by itself). The cosmologists introduced idea, the Universe was formed from initial singularity, which is what actually violates all existing causual theories. To solve problems of this absurd hypothesis, they later proposed another idea of brief superluminal explosive inflation, which will smooth the inhomogeneity of original Universe because of causality violation, which indeed violates all existing theories again. It's similar to situation, when the usage of some apparent lie requires to invent another lie to cover the original fraud in avalanche way. Despite of it, this construction has a good meaning in dense aether model, if we consider the way, in which the dispersion of ripples at the water surface appears from intrinsic perspective.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2011
Try to imagine, you're a bug floating at the water surface, which is observing the water surface not with using of light waves, but with surface ripples only. These ripples don't expand in linear way, if you try to have look at it carefully.

http://people.rit...4565.jpg

With increasing distance from observer the wavelength of ripples decreases, which would create the illusion of expanding space-time represented with water surface. In addition, the speed of ripple collapse increases with distance too, which creates an illusion of accelerated Universe expansion, i.e. the dark energy. At the sufficient distance the speed of ripple collapse increases suddenly, so no other ripples could penetrate into/from outside. For our surface bug the remote areas of his 2D space would appear completely empty and flat, so he can get an illusion, at the distant past his universe exploded from some superdense initial state.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2011
The same, just reversed perspective we can get, if we would observe the surface of some massive object from distance. With increasing intensity of gravity field the speed of light decreases slowly, but after reaching of surface of object it will undergo a sharp step, where it will drop suddenly into small value, given by refractive index in solid matter. Such drop appears like "small inflation", just observed from outside of object. The interior of massive object will remain hidden for us, and it behaves like physical singularity with respect to light spreading in vacuum. It's evident, the appearance of Universe at the quantum scale mirrors the situation observed at cosmological distances nearly completely - the physicists just never realized it, because they don't interpret the gravitational lensing with slowing of light, but like the result of space-time curvature.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2011
...The cosmologists introduced idea, the Universe was formed from initial singularity, which is what actually violates all existing causual theories

I interpret singularity to mean you focus all radiation at one point in spacetime. From radiation comes all matter and the spacetime required to contain the radiation.

Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2011
cont...

Maybe I should backup a bit. A more plausible scenario: Radiation comes from black holes which eventually swallow up all matter in the universe and then evaporate. All radiation thus formed could get swallowed up by a giant white hole, if such things exist. Perhaps these are circular forms which eventually focus all radiation at this one point, causing a hotspot in the white hole which allows it to escape back into spacetime. Entropy stops decreasing and starts increasing - essentially time reversal. The hot radiation begins to cool and form matter. The spacetime trapped inside the white hole escapes with the radiation, causing inflation. But this inflation is only that trapped within the white hole, not all spacetime in the universe. As has been pointed out the speed limit only applies to propagation through spacetime, not to spacetime itself.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2011
A possible analogy is the letter x. Consider the center of this letter a singularity. The top part is focusing down on this singlarity and the bottom part is escaping from it. An interesting consequence is by tracing the bottom part back through the singularity you can see where we came from. So the CMB may just be a reversed image of where we actually came from. Information may be preserved at the singularity.

Perhaps the white hole is elliptical like the image of the CMB. Note the red areas across the major axis. Maybe this is the area where the escaping radiation tore apart the white hole, probably beginning at the two focal points of the ellipsoid.

A variation of the cyclical universe theory? I guess so.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2011
Me too. How did the universe come to be flat (within 1 or 2%) after inflation?
Think of the surface of a balloon as it inflates. The curvature decreases as it increases in size.

. It's completely ad-hoced superconstruction of Big Bang model (which is ad-hoced too by itself).
No and no. Inflation came about from the concept of a phase change releasing a great deal of energy at all points within the zone of the phase change. Driving a rapid expansion of the universe. The phase change concept came first to Alan Guth's mind and the other parts came as a consequence.

The Big Bang isn't ad hoc either. Zephyr is just in love with the word. It follows as a logical consequence of the observed universal Redshift.

Ethelred
Daleg
1 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2011
The concept of Dark Energy has two primary reasons for being postulated, it's driving the expansion rate to accelerate is a byproduct. The necessity for Dark energy comes primarily from the need to balance per se the universal matter/energy content to explain the percieved flatness of space. Unless the content of the universe i.e. matter/energy is close to 1 space should be considerably curved either convex or concave depending on the amount of matter/energy present, however space is measured to be flat. Without enough matter to approach unity or 1 this is odd, this is why the proportion of dark energy, visible matter and dark matter constitute a whole in special realtivity, the three combined constitute physicists attempts to bring the matter/energy content of the Universe to a level that would cause space to be flat.That DE is 3/4 of that content naturally leads to accelerated expansion as a consequence. This should have been deduced long ago, but is a nice confirmation of SR.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2011
Daleg:
...That DE is 3/4 of that content naturally leads to accelerated expansion as a consequence

So as long as DE>0 there will be acceleration. If DE is finite then the acceleration will stop. So now spacetime either flies apart at constant velocity or tries to hang together and resist further stretching, in which case expansion will begin to slow down, stop, and then begin contraction. In which case maybe we could introduce a cosmological spring constant. [:-)>

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.