In the early universe, rapid expansion or something very weird

Feb 27, 2012 By Ellen Goldbaum

(PhysOrg.com) -- The widely-accepted theory of cosmic inflation states that our universe expanded rapidly in the moments after its birth, resulting in the immense expanse we see today.

Cosmic inflation explains why the universe is billions of years old, as well as why the universe is nearly flat. The theory's conclusions about how the universe should look match observations by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).

But is inflation the only model that can explain the beginnings of the universe?

That's the question that University at Buffalo physicists Ghazal Geshnizjani, Will Kinney and Azadeh Moradinezhad Dizgah set out to answer with their study, "General Conditions for Scale-Invariant Perturbations in an Expanding Universe."

The research, which appeared November in the online Journal of Cosmology and , found that while inflation isn't the only viable model of the , other possibilities would require strange physics -- such as a speed of sound faster than the .

The UB team found that only three kinds of early universe theories can explain the distribution of matter in today's universe, assuming that the standard is correct and that the universe was expanding in early times (both widely accepted suppositions).

According to the physicists' calculations, viable early universe theories must incorporate either an accelerated cosmic expansion (inflation); a speed of sound faster than the speed of light; or energies so high that scientists would need to invoke a theory of quantum gravity such as , which predicts the existence of extra dimensions of space-time.

"The takeaway result here is that this idea of inflation turns out to be the only way to do it within the context of standard physics," said Kinney, an associate professor of physics who credits UB research scientist Geshnizjani, with formulating the idea for the study. "I think in many ways it puts the idea of inflation on a much stronger footing, because the available alternatives have problems, or weirdnesses, with them.

"It may well be that you can come up with a speed of sound faster than the speed of light, but I think people, as a general rule, would be more comfortable with something that doesn't involve super-luminal propagation," Kinney continued. "Inflation doesn't require any exotic physics. It's just standard particle physics."

accounts for the distribution of the matter in the universe by incorporating quantum field theory, which states that under "normal" circumstances, particles of matter and something called antimatter can pop into existence suddenly -- before meeting and annihilating each other almost instantly.

According to cosmic inflation, materializing pairs of matter and antimatter particles flew apart so quickly in the rapidly expanding early universe that they did not have time to recombine. The same principle applied to gravitons and antigravitons, which form gravity waves.

These particles became the basis of all structure in the universe today, with tiny fluctuations in the matter in the universe collapsing to form stars, planets and galaxies. The concept relies on widely studied ideas to explain how the universe began and evolved.

Still, however bizarre alternatives to might seem, Kinney acknowledges that other models are possible. His own work has included exploring other theories, including ones that rely on superluminal sound speeds.

One colleague in UB's physics department, Assistant Professor Dejan Stojkovic, recently published a paper examining the possibility that the very early universe may have had just one spatial dimension before expanding to include two, and then three and possibly four (this model would fall under the category of theories invoking ).

Explore further: Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

Related Stories

Cosmologists aim to observe first moments of universe

Feb 16, 2009

During the next decade, a delicate measurement of primordial light could reveal convincing evidence for the popular cosmic inflation theory, which proposes that a random, microscopic density fluctuation in ...

NASA to Probe the Universe's First Moments

Apr 29, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Sophisticated new technologies created by NASA and university scientists are enabling them to build an instrument designed to probe the first moments of the universe's existence.

Recommended for you

Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

20 hours ago

Putting is arguably the most important skill in golf; in fact, it's been described as a game within a game. Now a team of Rice engineering students has devised a training putter that offers golfers audio, ...

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Apr 17, 2014

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

User comments : 141

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2012
"It may well be that you can come up with a speed of sound faster than the speed of light, but I think people, as a general rule, would be more comfortable with something that doesn't involve super-luminal propagation,"

However, 'feeling comfortable' (or uncomfortable) with something isn't a valid argument for or against a particular theory (otherwise relativity or quantum mechanics would have never gotten off the ground). Other approaches should be examined as soon as a test can be devised that would give different results than the standard model.

It might be rather hard to test for an early lack of dimensions. The superluminal speed of sound is something that could be tested in a large collider, though.
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2012
I don't see any logic to this argument at all.

If space-time itself is expanding or did expand in the past through Dark Energy or some other driving mechanism, then special relativity does not apply anyway.

If space-time can expand at or above the speed of light, as it is supposed to have done from calculations of Red Shift, then who's to say it didn't expand to it's present size within a mere instant?

The light waves along any given vector would be red shifted by the same factor either way, because the space between wave crests expands by the same amount either way: whether the light traveled during the expansion, or whether the expansion happened instantaneously would not change the red shift at all.

Once you invoke the idea that space-time can expand independently of proper motion, then there is no good reason to put an "age" on anything. The expansion could have been instantaneous and it would produce the same result either way.

Play around with a diagram of an expanding wave.
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
Pretty sure the expansion of space time would have to be occurring during the propagation of the wave in order to cause redshift. I don't know why you would think otherwise...
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2012
then again, in the Bible, God "speaks" Light into existence, "Let there be Light," and it was so.

Perhaps sound could travel faster than light, after all, if space-time can expand independently from proper motion, then "something" must be moving faster than light anyway, in at least one reference frame, even if it's a frame outside of the universe.

Perhaps the two effects would be indistinguishable.

Maybe Dark Energy is simply "Sound" pushing space-time outward in the same way a bomb's pressure wave works...which is a sound wave.
Lurker2358
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
Pretty sure the expansion of space time would have to be occurring during the propagation of the wave in order to cause redshift. I don't know why you would think otherwise...


The space between crests and troughs expands during it's "journey," that is what supposedly causes cosmic red shift in the first place.

Since cosmic expansion produces "new" space-time between existing points, it makes no difference over what length of "time" the expansion happens.

In fact, we should not even measure the expansion in terms of "time" because that is a self-referencial measurement. The expansion itself supposedly created time, so how could it be proper to gauge that expansion in terms of time? That is a contradiction.

But for the sake of argument, think about it. It works, although I recognize it's a mind trip.

If you imagine a photon in the middle of space between two stars, and expand the wavelength and distance instantaneously, it is indistinguishable to the observer from red shift.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2012
I thought you meant that spacetime expanded in an instant, and then stars formed and the first light waves started traveling toward Earth after the expansion of the universe was complete... in that case we would not observe red shift, because no expansion occurred during the lifetime of that light wave.

So, you mean that stars formed, THEN the universe expanded in an instant, so the light that was already being emitted would be redshifted the same as if the universe expanded over time? Okay, that might work if it made sense at all, but how can stars form PRIOR to the expansion of the universe?

The light has to be propagating WHILE the expansion occurs, or you would not see red shift. For there to be light there has to be stars, for there to be stars the universe had to have already expanded and cooled a great deal... So your idea makes no sense.
Lurker2358
2 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
The light has to be propagating WHILE the expansion occurs, or you would not see red shift. For there to be light there has to be stars, for there to be stars the universe had to have already expanded and cooled a great deal... So your idea makes no sense.


Ok, you got the idea, but you were taking it a tad too literally.

Yes, there has to be stars for the light, at least the sources we know as stars.

But you could not determine the "rate" of expansion of a light wave if all you were given is the information of the photon/wave itself. The "age" and "rate" for expansion is given because of the presumption due the limitations of special relativity on the speed of light, "well, it looks like that galaxy is 7 billion ly distance, so this photon must be 7 billion years old.

If space-time expanded at a speed greater than the speed of light at any time during the photon's life time, then it is a fallacy to associate red shift with "Age".
Kinedryl
2 / 5 (16) Feb 27, 2012
The simplest question is, why our Universe should inflate at all? And if it inflated from initial singularity, what forced it to

1) explode first
2) stop the explosion
3) inflate again
4) stop the inflation
5) expand slowly
6) accelerate the expansion slowly

If you cannot find the explanation of such cosmological dance, just remember the AWT and the epicycle problem of fitting models to observations...
Kinedryl
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 27, 2012
...while inflation isn't the only viable model of the early universe, other possibilities would require strange physics -- such as a speed of sound faster than the speed of light...
Inflation itself considers, the Universe expanded with superluminal speed. It lasted from 10E36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 1033 and 10E32 seconds and it lead to the expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 10E 78 in volume.

If the thing like inflation would be possible, then the limited speed of sound will be really the very last problem, because whole the inflation is indeed highly superluminal by its very nature... Such way of argumentation is therefore quite mental...
Kinedryl
2.3 / 5 (16) Feb 27, 2012
The takeaway result here is that this idea of inflation turns out to be the only way to do it within the context of standard physics
No standard physics, even the very wild one allows to expand the object of mass of Universe in 10E-33 second by a factor of at least 10E 78 in volume. This is simply religious babbling. The initial singularity and its explosion and inflation had never ever to do something with standard physics. They're both completely ad-hoced stuffs invented for saving of Big Bang model and they have no analogy in the Nature.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (18) Feb 27, 2012
because whole the inflation is indeed highly superluminal by its very nature.

Expansion of spacetime at superluminal speeds does not mean that matter travelled at superluminal speeds. The speed barrier for stuff isn't broken by such an expansion.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2012
But you could not determine the "rate" of expansion of a light wave if all you were given is the information of the photon/wave itself. The "age" and "rate" for expansion is given because of the presumption due the limitations of special relativity on the speed of light, "well, it looks like that galaxy is 7 billion ly distance, so this photon must be 7 billion years old.

If space-time expanded at a speed greater than the speed of light at any time during the photon's life time, then it is a fallacy to associate red shift with "Age".


That's not how we determine how far away distant stars are... redshift is used to determine the rate of expansion of the universe, true, but it is not used to determine distance to light sources. We determine distance to a light source using either parallax measurements (for relatively close stars) or by using a "standard candle" such as a type 1A supernova. We know the true brightness of such a supernova...
Kinedryl
1.7 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2012
[Expansion of spacetime at superluminal speeds does not mean that matter travelled at superluminal speeds. The speed barrier for stuff isn't broken by such an expansion.
It indeed does, because every stuff inside of such space-time will travel with superluminal speed as well. Do you present your own idea here by now - or do you parrote some textbook mindlessly?

Actually, if you would understand the original motivation of inflation concept, you would know already, that this model has been originally proposed for homogenization of primordial Universe in such a way, the expanding portions of Universe would lost their mutual information about initial density fluctuations. If the inflation wouldn't proceed superluminaly, such a homogenization of Universe wouldn't work.
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (15) Feb 27, 2012
[Expansion of spacetime at superluminal speeds does not mean that matter travelled at superluminal speeds. The speed barrier for stuff isn't broken by such an expansion.
It indeed does, because every stuff inside of such space-time will travel with superluminal speed as well.


^ What he said...it's warp drive basically.

Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (16) Feb 27, 2012
[Expansion of spacetime at superluminal speeds does not mean that matter travelled at superluminal speeds. The speed barrier for stuff isn't broken by such an expansion.
It indeed does, because every stuff inside of such space-time will travel with superluminal speed as well.


It's not "travel"... You're thinking about it incorrectly. It is not that the edges of the universe expand and pull things inside the universe toward that expanding edge, it is that ALL space expands uniformly, including space INSIDE of fundamental particles... Space is not just outerspace, space is everywhere, including making up the majority volume of everything you think of as "solid"... all of this space expanded uniformly (and still is). Things did not travel, they expanded.

http://en.wikiped...an-light
http://en.wikiped...ology%29
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (18) Feb 27, 2012
Things did not travel, they expanded.


If things expand at superluminal speeds then they move at superluminal speed, and hence travel at superluminal speeds. Since matter must exist in space; if space expands faster than light matter must be moving faster than light relative to other matter.

Deathclock
3.3 / 5 (15) Feb 27, 2012
Things did not travel, they expanded.


If things expand at superluminal speeds then they move at superluminal speed


Movement is undefined without a frame of reference. Using any two things in the universe, one as the object that is moving and one as the object it is moving in relation to, nothing had to move faster than the speed of light during this expansion. The expansion of space between two objects is NOT movement, there is a fundamental difference that you aren't understanding and I am not sure I can explain it to you, hence the wiki links you should read.
Deathclock
2.9 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2012
Consider this, due to the revolution of the planet stars appear to move across the night sky. Some of these stars are extremely far away, billions of light years... They appear to zip across the sky by 90 degrees in only a few hours... to move 90 degrees in our sky in that amount of time they would need to be travelling TRILLIONS of times faster than the speed of light, but they are NOT, it is called perspective. Things can APPEAR to travel faster than light even if they are actually not traveling at all.
Kinedryl
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
Movement is undefined without a frame of reference.
Two portions of Universe at its boundaries travelled with superluminal speed each other. After all, this is just the reason, why the inflation has been proposed originally: the lost of causal contacts of these parts and homogenization of Universe be clearing the information about its parts.

http://physics.uo...re-F.jpg
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2012
Movement is undefined without a frame of reference.
Two object at the early Universe at its boundaries travelled with superluminal speed each other. After all, this is just the reason, why the inflation has been proposed originally: the lost of causal contact.

http://physics.uo...re-F.jpg

http://www.astro....o_02.htm
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2012
^ What he said...it's warp drive basically.


Exactly.

We determine distance to a light source using either parallax measurements (for relatively close stars) or by using a "standard candle" such as a type 1A supernova. We know the true brightness of such a supernova


"From this perspective, Hubble's law is a fundamental relation between (i) the recessional velocity contributed by the expansion of space and (ii) the distance to an object; the connection between redshift and distance is a crutch used to connect Hubble's law with observations." Wiki

http://en.wikiped...velocity

which means that what I said was technically already part of the theory.

"Age" and "Velocity" are assigned to the Red shift for no good, fundamental reason other than it makes somebody comfortable to do so.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2012
"From this perspective, Hubble's law is a fundamental relation between (i) the recessional velocity contributed by the expansion of space and (ii) the distance to an object; the connection between redshift and distance is a crutch used to connect Hubble's law with observations." Wiki

http://en.wikiped...velocity

which means that what I said was technically already part of the theory.

"Age" and "Velocity" are assigned to the Red shift for no good, fundamental reason other than it makes somebody comfortable to do so.


I still don't see how this is saying that we determine distance (and thus age) via redshift...

It is my understanding that we determine distance (and thus age) via the observation of stars with known absolute magnitude, standard candles such as type IA supernova... How does this have anything to do with redshift? It of course assumes the speed of light in a vacuum, is that your objection?
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2012
Consider this, due to the revolution of the planet stars appear to move across the night sky. Some of these stars are extremely far away, billions of light years... They appear to zip across the sky by 90 degrees in only a few hours... to move 90 degrees in our sky in that amount of time they would need to be travelling TRILLIONS of times faster than the speed of light, but they are NOT, it is called perspective. Things can APPEAR to travel faster than light even if they are actually not traveling at all.


that's not a good example, because that's just a rotating reference frame paradox.

Velocity is defined as the change in distance with respect to change in time.

If space is expanding between two objects, they in fact are "moving" away from one another, even if they are not moving "through" space.

Either way, the distance between the objects increased, therefore, the change in position vs time exceeded the speed of light with or without special or general relativity.
Parsec
4.3 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2012
My biggest problem with inflation is that it had to end. But quantum uncertainties would require it to end at very slightly different times at different places. Since the very nature of inflation theory includes the idea of enormous expansion of space-time, these irregularities would be magnified to huge sizes.

This worries me.
Kinedryl
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2012
but rest assured it is the consensus of the community that there is no violation of the theory of relativity due to expanding spacetime
This consensus is solely driven with fear of excommunication and lost of grants and money (actually quite realistic one, as many examples indicate) - not with logics, because the logics isn't present in the inflation model from its very beginning. The Universe had no apparent reason to inflate or to stop the inflation.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2012
It is my understanding that we determine distance (and thus age) via the observation of stars with known absolute magnitude, standard candles such as type IA supernova... How does this have anything to do with redshift? It of course assumes the speed of light in a vacuum, is that your objection?


Pay close attention next time you read an article about a new galaxy or quasar discovery.

they infer the distance and age of the object from the Red shift, without any reference to other forms of measurement.

It is a regular practice that I've argued against in the past.

Fact is, only a relatively small number of objects are "dated" by more than one method.

Moreover, "dating" a supernova doesn't get around the problem I pointed out either, because the light from the Supernova could have been red shifted arbitrarily by arbitrary expansion...

Parallax is useless beyond a few dozen to a few hundred light years, and provides no help in finding distance to galaxies.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2012
The Universe had no apparent reason to inflate


If by that you mean "we don't know why it happened" then sure...

or to stop the inflation.


What? It hasn't stopped... in fact it is accelerating. That is a pretty basic thing to get wrong, you should go back to the books I think.
Kinedryl
3.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2012
What? It hasn't stopped...
The inflation lasted from 10E minus36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10E minus33 and 10 minusE32 seconds. You should read a bit about subject, before you'll oppose me at public.
Foolish1
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
"The takeaway result here is that this idea of inflation turns out to be the only way to do it within the context of standard physics,"

What does "standard physics" know about rapid inflation? I don't understand the premise. Do we know what rapid inflation is? Dark energy? Do we have any clue beyond designing an equation that fits observation and then labeling it cosmic inflation?
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
Pay close attention next time you read an article about a new galaxy or quasar discovery.

they infer the distance and age of the object from the Red shift, without any reference to other forms of measurement.

It is a regular practice that I've argued against in the past.


Well if that's true then I agree it seems a bit careless.

Moreover, "dating" a supernova doesn't get around the problem I pointed out either, because the light from the Supernova could have been red shifted arbitrarily by arbitrary expansion...


All we have to do is compare the known absolute magnitude to the apparent magnitude, and assuming the speed of light we know the distance and age of that star.

I still fail to see how this relies on redshift or spacetime expansion, it only relies on the assumption that the light from the star traveled a constant velocity.
Kinedryl
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
Do we know what rapid inflation is? Dark energy?
Nope. Dark energy is different concept. The inflation has no other meaning in standard cosmology, other than fit to observations. It has meaning in dispersive models of steady state Universe only.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2012
What? It hasn't stopped...
The inflation lasted from 10E minus36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10E minus33 and 10 minusE32 seconds. You should read a bit about subject, before you'll oppose me at public.


/facepalm

Really? These are the "intellectuals" I am dealing with on this website? I need to find a better playground...

According to observational evidence spacetime expansion is accelerating.

Read:
http://www.astro.....html#CC
Kinedryl
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
Astrophysicists in the US have observed superluminal speeds in space in the form of radio pulses from a pulsar. Please note that in AWT the radiowaves are inherently superluminal
Lurker2358
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2012
Do we know what rapid inflation is? Dark energy?
Nope. Dark energy is different concept. The inflation has no other meaning in standard cosmology, other than fit to observations. It has meaning in dispersive models of steady state Universe only.


Correct.

Inflation and Dark Energy are not the same thing, though similar.

inflation is the alleged time period when the universe expanded at an absurd speed and then slowed down.

Dark Energy is the alleged invisible mechanism or "energy" that is now allegedly causing the universe to speed up it's expansion again.

however, since "Energy" is defined with the square of Velocity, twice differentiating with respect to time, and Dark Energy is actually changing the space and time of the universe(since space-time itself must expand), then it is actually not even correct to call "Dark Energy" a form of "energy," as that is again a self-referenced definition.

E = MC^2
Ek = (1/2)MV^2

Dark Energy should not be related to "energy".
Pyle
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
@Deathclock:
Really?

Red shift is how they determine distance on cosmological scales. The theory, that QC, aka Lurker, hates, is that light is further red shifted the longer it travels for. i.e. light coming from further away has been subject to the expansion of space time for a longer period and is further red-shifted. (Not a technically correct definition, but hopefully helpful.)

Second, don't conflate "Inflation" and "accelerating expansion". These are two very different things in a cosmological context.

Lastly, don't insult other posters when you don't know what you are talking about, even if they are bat-shit crazy.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2012
According to observational evidence spacetime expansion is accelerating.

Read:
http://www.astro.....html#CC


But the mainstream theory makes a distinction between the present day alleged acceleration vs the previous "inflationary period" expansion.

They are not necessarily caused by the same forces or laws, nor is there any way to prove whether or not they have any relationship whatsoever.

See above, where I explain that Dark Energy cannot logically be measured in the same units as "Energy," because that would be a self-referenced definition.
TabulaMentis
3 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2012
Expansion of spacetime at superluminal speeds does not mean that matter travelled at superluminal speeds. The speed barrier for stuff isn't broken by such an expansion.
In other words; spacetime fabric is very weird stuff!
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2012
@Deathclock:
Really?

Red shift is how they determine distance on cosmological scales. The theory, that QC, aka Lurker, hates, is that light is further red shifted the longer it travels for. i.e. light coming from further away has been subject to the expansion of space time for a longer period and is further red-shifted. (Not a technically correct definition, but hopefully helpful.)


...but you can't see that is conjecture.

Start with a diagram of 4 points equidistance.

1 is an observer on earth, the other 3 are galaxies at various distances.

Imagine a stream of light coming from each galaxy, and draw a sine wave representing the wave model of light's wavelength, not technically correct but a close graphical analog.

Now, that is the condition before expansion.

Now expand the entire diagram along that same axis.

Light that is already well on it's way is red shifted just as heavily as light that left moments ago, because we expand both space AND time, not just space...
Pyle
3.1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
Light that is already well on it's way is red shifted just as heavily as light that left moments ago, because we expand both space AND time, not just space...
Nope. Light that is already well on its way from a "standard" candle was emitted at a certain frequency. It has been subject to expansion for a long time and is red shifted. Then light left moments ago. Now both are subject to red shift, but "well on its way" light is becoming more red shifted while "moments ago" light is just starting to red shift. i.e. the older light is redder than the newer light.

Um, if the words are too simple I can try obfuscating it for you with technical jargon. Just let me know.

Again, to be clear, this is all theory, but my impression is you don't understand it enough to be criticizing it. I could be wrong. Your intelligence might be so much further advanced than mine that communicating with me is difficult. If so, I apologize for being a knuckle dragger.
epsi00
not rated yet Feb 27, 2012
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2012
Light that is already well on it's way is red shifted just as heavily as light that left moments ago, because we expand both space AND time, not just space...
Nope. Light that is already well on its way from a "standard" candle was emitted at a certain frequency. It has been subject to expansion for a long time and is red shifted. Then light left moments ago. Now both are subject to red shift, but "well on its way" light is becoming more red shifted while "moments ago" light is just starting to red shift. i.e. the older light is redder than the newer light.

Um, if the words are too simple I can try obfuscating it for you with technical jargon. Just let me know.


Read above, and you sire, missed the point.

Time is also allegedly expanded by the BB, inflation, and Dark Energy.

if you apply the same expansion metric to TIME as time passes, the wavelength of the light is stretched out proportional to the time that had already passed, producing the required curve.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2012
If time itself expanded for any given position, then the frequency of light at that position went DOWN, and since frequency and wavelength are reciprocals of one another, this indicates a further stretching of the wavelength proportional to the previous "age" of the wave.

That's the whole point.

This is not easy to visualize, and you may need intermediate steps of diagrams.

In any case the "rate" of expansion is irrelevant, and cannot even be measured by any rational standard, because a "rate" is normally measured with respect to time. But you can't measure the "rate" at which time or space are inflated, because it's a self referenced definition.

Anyway, if you take the BB theory and inflation seriously, then time itself was inflated, not just space.

There is no way to "measure" the true age of the universe through red shift, because any event that inflates the passage of time inflates wavelengths of light proportional to their previous age.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2012
If you were to define an N plus 1 dimensional matrix and then place a model of the N dimensional universe inside it, you could define absolute rest in the "N plus 1 dimension" of the N plus 1 dimensional matrix without violating relativity in the N dimensional matrix, and then you could see what I'm talking about.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2012
Do you understand that our textbook defintions of "time" are self referencial?

Right now, they define the "second" in terms of the speed of light, or more particularly the frequency of light, and they define the speed of light in terms of the second and the meter.

Which is to say, the speed of light is arbitrarily defined as "299792458m/s".

since relativity limits the passage of time by the speed of light, this is a self referencial definition when dealing with cosmic scale events.

Atomic clocks only work because they defined time in terms of the frequency and wavelengths of light, but this self-referencial definition is insufficient in an inflationary situation.

You don't notice the difference on local scale events because it's not big enough to matter, since ordinary events happen at such a low velocity, and because Dark Energy over ordinary scale events is negligible, and "inflation" isn't happening any more anyway.
Foolish1
not rated yet Feb 27, 2012
Do we know what rapid inflation is? Dark energy?
Nope. Dark energy is different concept.


Nowhere do I make the claim you assume I made. To be clear I have not asserted inflation and dark energy are the same.
Kinedryl
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
What a person you are? An idiot?

Please note, nowhere do I make the claim, you'll assume I made...;-) To be clear, I have not asserted you and idiot is the same. It may just sound so - but I repeat, I haven't...
tkjtkj
not rated yet Feb 27, 2012
The superluminal speed of sound is something that could be tested in a large collider, though.


Im curious .. How might be done?
And no, my doc is not in physics .. in the biological sciences.
Deathclock
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2012
@Deathclock:
Really?

Red shift is how they determine distance on cosmological scales.


Standard candles such as type IA supernova is how they ORIGINALLY determined distance to other galaxies... it may be the case that NOW they use redshift only, but if that is so it is careless I think.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
If we would observe the water surface with its own ripples, all ripples would disperse at the sufficient distance, so that everything what we would see will be just a noise. An analogy of CMBR noise. Under such a situation, the inflation of water surface at the most distant areas of our visibility scope would be something quite natural. http://people.rit...4565.jpg The wavelength of ripples collapses with distance from their source, which forms an illusion, the water surface at the distant areas is collapsed and it expands gradually. Just at the most distant areas of visibility scope such an "expansion" is the most pronounced and very fast. If we would live as a waterstriders and every information would be mediated with surface ripples, we would believe, the water surface at the very beginning exploded fast. We can see, that the dense aether model actually predicts the inflation too, but its notion is only virtual and observer dependent.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
Such a model doesn't suffer with Einstein's expansion paradox, because this expansion is virtual: every observer at the sufficiently distant Universe would see us undergoing an inflation in the same way, like we are perceiving these distant areas from our local perspective.
bewertow
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
In this thread: people with zero understanding of physics and cosmology demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect:

http://en.wikiped...r_effect
Callippo
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2012
I do agree in full extent - the only question is, if they support the Big Bang or steady state cosmology...;-)
Foolish1
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2012
What a person you are? An idiot?

Please note, nowhere do I make the claim, you'll assume I made...;-) To be clear, I have not asserted you and idiot is the same. It may just sound so - but I repeat, I haven't...


I'm sorry if it is not clear. I was attempting to list items not answer a question. Do we know what rapid inflation is? Do we know what dark energy is?
RobertKarlStonjek
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2012
Inflation doesn't require any exotic physics. It's just standard particle physics.


Inflation is an extremely exotic concept requiring a never observed antigravity force that still awaits *any* plausible hypothesis to explain it...
MandoZink
4 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
@Deathclock

I hope you understand that currently the space between fundamental particles, and larger aggregations bound together by fundamental gravitational forces, such as stars and galaxies, are not expanding like the enormous space in between galaxies is doing. If so, our rulers by which we measure things would also be expanding. If the scale of our rulers grew at the same rate as expansion, then expansion wouldn't be noticed. Distances would seem to stay the same. It would all remain relative.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2012
@Deathclock

I hope you understand that currently the space between fundamental particles, and larger aggregations bound together by fundamental gravitational forces, such as stars and galaxies, are not expanding like the enormous space in between galaxies is doing. If so, our rulers by which we measure things would also be expanding. If the scale of our rulers grew at the same rate as expansion, then expansion wouldn't be noticed. Distances would seem to stay the same. It would all remain relative.


The expansion of space is occurring inside fundamental particles and everywhere else. The force of this expansion is minuscule compared to the nuclear forces holding these things together... so no, the particles don't expand along with the space they are in... if the expansion accelerates it would lead to what has been coined "the big rip" where fundamental particles are actually torn apart by the increasing force of expansion... this is one possible end of the universe.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2012
I might add that what I mentioned above may not remain the same in the very, very far distant future if the rate of expansion is accelerating exponentially as predicted. I believe it is assumed that eventually the expansion rate will overcome the ability of fundamental forces to maintain cohesion. I know I won't be around for that.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2012
The Big Rip. Thanks. I was trying to remember what the end was called.
kaasinees
1.8 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2012
According to observational evidence spacetime expansion is accelerating.


According to your own logic this does not prove anything.

In this thread: people with zero understanding of physics and cosmology demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect:


DeathClock being a god example.

Read:
http://www.astro.....html#CC


Cosmologists mumbojumbo. Age of the universe? Expansion? blahblahblah. Universe defines everything that exists. How can there be an age to everything that exists?
If expansion is real why are there "blueshift" objects?
All of these theories are based on observations which has much background noise and are never duplicated/tested, there is no way to say of these theories hold any water.

I found this an interesting topic: http://www.physic...t=256117
Deathclock
2.4 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2012
DeathClock being a god example.


I am a god example? How nice of you but I am no God, just smarter than you are.

(You follow me around because you have some juvenile grudge against me due to some conflict months ago that I don't even remember because it was so unimportant to me)
Caliban
not rated yet Feb 27, 2012
As soon as all of that primordial matter cooled into existence, there had to be space for it to exist in = the inflationary era.
TabulaMentis
2 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2012
Inflation is an extremely exotic concept requiring a never observed antigravity force that still awaits *any* plausible hypothesis to explain it...
It was the Holy Ghost sacrificing one of her super-luminal children.
MandoZink
4.8 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2012
I am not familiar with the proximity of blueshifted galaxies, but I would assume they are in nearby clusters and responding to the motions within the cluster as they are locally stirred - towards us at the moment. I would expect that group to be darned close to us on a universe scale.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
I am a god example? How nice of you but I am no God, just smarter than you are.

But actually you are not smart enough to read puns.
At first it was a typo but i left it in as i saw a pun.
Maybe you didn't understand what the Dunning-Kruger effect was about?

(You follow me around because you have some juvenile grudge against me due to some conflict months ago that I don't even remember because it was so unimportant to me)

Stop flattering yourself, i am not following you at all. There is a button on this website captioned "last comments". You are delusional and need to see a doctor.
Now stay on topic and lets discuss why there are "blueshift" objects being observed when the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate?, Dr.DeathClock the cosmologist?
bewertow
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012

DeathClock being a god example.


Actually, you yourself are obviously demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect.

You clearly have zero understanding of cosmology or physics, and yet you are arrogant enough to believe that you know better than people with twice your IQ who have spent their lives studying cosmology.

That is exactly what the Dunning-Kruger effect is about. You are so incompetent that you are completely unable to grasp how incompetent you are.
kaasinees
2 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2012
You clearly have zero understanding of cosmology or physics, and yet you are arrogant enough to believe that you know better than people with twice your IQ who have spent their lives studying cosmology.

First of all i do not know which IQ scale you are using but it is impossible to have twice as much IQ than i have. Second of all i do not care about IQ measurements. You are fitting the Dunning-Kruger effect quite yourself.

That is exactly what the Dunning-Kruger effect is about. You are so incompetent that you are completely unable to grasp how incompetent you are.

Says a person who believes IQ measurements are a valid test of intelligence or competency.

Please enlighten us oh cosmological god?
bewertow
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
First of all i do not know which IQ scale you are using but it is impossible to have twice as much IQ than i have. Second of all i do not care about IQ measurements. You are fitting the Dunning-Kruger effect quite yourself.


If your IQ is 70 (my guess is probably pretty close) then I'm pretty sure most cosmologists and astrophysicists easily have twice your IQ.

That wasn't so hard to figure out was it? It's just as easy as reading a basic cosmology textbook, which contains the answers to all your trivial questions.

http://www.amazon...p;sr=1-9
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2012
If your IQ is 70 (my guess is probably pretty close) then I'm pretty sure most cosmologists and astrophysicists easily have twice your IQ.

Your strawman attacks are hilarious, as my IQ is nearly twice as that.

That wasn't so hard to figure out was it? It's just as easy as reading a basic cosmology textbook, which contains the answers to all your trivial questions.


Your assumptions are trivial and make you delusional, you seem awfully a lot similar to Deathclock.

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Cosmology-Barbara-Ryden/dp/0805389121/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330402704&sr=1-9

Advertising is not allowed on physorg as far as i am aware of. I suggest you explain it to me,and we can continue the discussion from there.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2012
Now stay on topic and lets discuss why there are "blueshift" objects being observed when the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate?, Dr.DeathClock the cosmologist?


Are you seriously asking this question?

The force of expansion is tiny, gravitational attraction overcomes it on sufficiently small scales... Furthermore, it is entirely possible that distant galaxies actually have momentum towards our own galaxy that overcomes the force of dark energy.

Why the hell would you think that EVERY SINGLE galaxy must exhibit redshift for their to be an accelerating expansion of spacetime? Do you think of everything in such black and white terms?
CardacianNeverid
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2012
I am a god example? How nice of you but I am no God, just smarter than you are -EthelDeathclock

I wouldn't mind you making honest mistakes, but being an egotistic pompous ass about it diminishes your stature.

Things you've so far gotten wrong:
1) The use of redshift to gauge the age of distant objects.
2) The claim that inflation is the same as dark energy.
3) The claim that space INSIDE fundamental particles also expands (/facepalm on that one!)

Then, when you were called on point 1), you must have hurriedly googled the topic and learned the error of your ways. But did you acknowledge that error? No. You back paddled by saying, well ORIGINALLY it was like that, but NOW it may be different.

Why don't you just admit you were wrong and stop being such a self-important prat about it?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2012
It indeed does, because every stuff inside of such space-time will travel with superluminal speed as well.

I think you need to let go of the 'explosion' idea of the Big Bang. We're dealing with expansion - which is an entirely different critter.
If you look up the (hypothetically possible) Alcubierre drive you can find out how one could change position without even moving.
http://en.wikiped...re_drive
From the link
In 1994 Alcubierre proposed a way of changing the geometry of space by creating a wave which would cause the fabric of space ahead of a spacecraft to contract and the space behind it to expand. The ship would then ride this wave inside a region of flat space known as a warp bubble, and would not move within this bubble, but instead be carried along as the region itself moves as a consequence of the actions of the drive.
Kinedryl
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2012
If you would sit at the flat infinite water surface, the surface around you wouldn't appear infinite, because all ripples on it are of limited scope. The character of wave dispersion exactly explains the phenomena observed in cosmic space: the red shift and the dark energy.
IMO it's worth recalling Wittgenstein's remark on the aether subject. "Tell me," he asked a friend, "why do people always say, it was natural for man to assume that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?" His friend replied, "Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth." Wittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?"
We can now ask as well: "How the universe would appear if it had looked like being eternal and infinite and the red shift would be a consequence of the dispersion of light at vacuum fluctuations"?
Apparently, many people today aren't willing to even think about it at all.
Kinedryl
2 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2012
The adherence on Big Bang cosmology is mainly political (employment) problem, because this cosmology fits the general relativity (FRLW metrics in particular) under consideration of many less or more nonsensical assumptions at the price. But the number and influence of academics who are living from applications of general relativity greatly outperforms the number and influence of scientists, who are capable to see the things in more realistic way.
Jitterbewegung
3 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2012
"According to cosmic inflation, materializing pairs of matter and antimatter particles flew apart so quickly in the rapidly expanding early universe that they did not have time to recombine. The same principle applied to gravitons and antigravitons, which form gravity waves."

The graviton is it's own antiparticle.
Unless you change the standard model, you hav'nt discoverd new physics have you?
Jitterbewegung
1 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2012
"According to cosmic inflation, materializing pairs of matter and antimatter particles flew apart so quickly in the rapidly expanding early universe that they did not have time to recombine. The same principle applied to gravitons and antigravitons, which form gravity waves."

The graviton is it's own antiparticle.
Unless you change the standard model, you haven't discovered new physics have you?
Deathclock
3 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2012
Things you've so far gotten wrong:
1) The use of redshift to gauge the age of distant objects.


Distances to other galaxies were ORIGINALLY DETERMINED via the comparison of apparent versus true luminosity of standard candles. That is what is important, we may take a shortcut now and use redshift, but that wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for the original discovery using the original method.

2) The claim that inflation is the same as dark energy.


Spacetime expansion is spacetime expansion, you want to propose two completely different mechanisms for it rather than one? Occam's razor?

3) The claim that space INSIDE fundamental particles also expands (/facepalm on that one!)


This is true, it does. The particles don't expand because the nuclear forces holding them together are far stronger than the force of the expansion.
Fionn_MacTool
5 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2012
No no no...they have this all wrong! The Universe isn't expanding. It has and will always be the same size. It's just that all the matter inside the universe is shrinking.

As for the speed of light and the speed of sound. What I would like to know is, what is the speed of darkness?
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2012
This is curiously relevant to this discussion:
http://www.physor...firstCmt

Thanks again physorg writers!
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2012
I am not familiar with the proximity of blueshifted galaxies, but I would assume they are in nearby clusters...


The obvious example is the Andromeda Galaxy which is only 3 million light years away and will collide with the Milky Way.

You obviously understand this but for others, a blue shift can occur for any object whose local random motion due to its history is less than the average speed of expansion.

On this map probably a few galaxies should show blue shifts but zoom out to the next and the Virgo Cluster is probably too far away for us to merge:

http://www.atlaso...lgr.html
Kinedryl
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2012
all the matter inside the universe is shrinking.
The matter is not only shrinking, but evaporating too into sparse lightweight photons and neutrinos (solitons of transverse and longitudinal waves). Just because the huge compactification of time dimension of human observer scale we don't see both processes as quite reversible. But IMO at the very general scale the galaxies and stars don't differ very much from reversible fluctuations of dense gas: they do evaporate and condense somewhere else quite randomly and reversibly. The gravitational collapse of dense stars is just as slow/fast, like their subsequent evaporation from this perspective, because the interior of collapsars is very dense and the energy propagates very slowly trough it. It just doesn't appear so for observers, who spent a too much time with travelling across small place of Universe back and forth.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2012
a blue shift can occur for any object
In dense aether model the blue shift is omnipresent for all objects, when they're observed with radiowaves. In the decimeter wavelenghs the objects not only exhibit the blue shift with increasing distance, but they're even bigger and they're shinning more brightly. Due the lack of reference sources of fixed wavelenght this blue shift was observed only for maser at the board od Pioneer 10 spaceprobe, but we observed many related phenomena already. Only the most close galaxies (like the Andromeda galaxy) which are approaching to us physically would exhibit the red shift in radiowave spectrum.
kaasinees
2 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2012
Are you seriously asking this question?

Are you seriously asking this question?
There are no such things as stupid questions, only stupid answers.

Furthermore, it is entirely possible that distant galaxies actually have momentum towards our own galaxy that overcomes the force of dark energy.

The reverse might as well be true, the red shifted objects might be attracted to to other objects that are on the "other side" of the object. No expansion required here, and in fact it makes more sense.
Then there is a possibility of tired light, gravitational lensing etc. that require no dark energy, dark matter etc. (Occam's razor?)
Let me ask you this, how come there are blue shifting objects that not fall in our gravity well at all?
I highly doubt expansion is real, i want real evidence not logical fallacies.

Do you think of everything in such black and white terms?

No i think in logical terms.
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2012
Are you seriously asking this question?

Are you seriously asking this question?
There are no such things as stupid questions, only stupid answers.


No, there are stupid questions...

The reverse might as well be true, the red shifted objects might be attracted to to other objects that are on the "other side" of the object. No expansion required here.


99% are red shifted... 1% are blue shifted (if even that much)... do you understand?

Who the hell do you think you are to question the patient and dedicated work of THOUSANDS of astronomers and astrophysicists that are smarter than you are and actually understand the data?

Do you think of everything in such black and white terms?

No i think in logical terms.


Stop, I'm going to get in trouble for laughing at work...
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2012
you are to question the patient and dedicated work of THOUSANDS of astronomers and astrophysicists that are smarter than you are
The science is essentially just about questioning of existing theories, nothing else. if you don't try to falsify the existing theory, then you're not a scientist in the sense of Popper's scientific methodology. The fact, thousands of smart astronomers contributed to existing theories means nothing from sufficiently general perspective: the more people, the higher reliability you can consider, but you can expect the higher bias at the same moment. You can be always a bit smarter, if you'll try to think in unbiased way. Of course, the unbiased approach introduces a sorta ignorance for details of existing models - so you should always remain responsive to the existing theories and ideas of others. From this reason I'm not denying them, I'm combining and hybridizing them often.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2012
For example, today it too early to support the Big bang theory, because in our visibility scope the steady-state model appears more relevant. But the existence of Doppler anisotropy shift indicates, even the steady state model may not be fully universal solution in future. This anisotropy doesn't play well with both steady state, both with big bang model, which both lead into essentially homogeneous Universe. It plays well with dense aether model only. IMO at the sufficiently distant perspective of random Universe both Big Bang model, both the Steady State Universe model will become indistinguishable each other.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2012
you are to question the patient and dedicated work of THOUSANDS of astronomers and astrophysicists that are smarter than you are
The science is essentially just about questioning of existing theories, nothing else. if you don't try to falsify the existing theory, then you're not a scientist in the sense of Popper's scientific methodology.


Yes, this is all well and good, but you have to KNOW something about what you're talking about... you have to understand the current theory and understand the evidence for it or your criticisms are completely worthless.

I get the impression that the people here criticizing the established theories have no goddamn clue what they are talking about.
kaasinees
2 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2012
99% are red shifted... 1% are blue shifted (if even that much)... do you understand?

Please provide a source of these statistics. Also dare to explain to me how that would contradict with other theory proposals?

Who the hell do you think you are to question the patient and dedicated work of THOUSANDS of astronomers and astrophysicists that are smarter than you are and actually understand the data?

Who am i to question millions of hard working and hard praying christians, muslims and jews because they understand god so much better than me?

Stop, I'm going to get in trouble for laughing at work...

If you can't even defend your belief in a theory from simple questions and resort to strawman attacks you become self beating.
Kinedryl
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2012
Yes, this is all well and good, but you have to KNOW something about what you're talking about.
Yes, this is all well and good, but you have to prove, my knowledge is insufficient for promotion of alternative theories. As every housewife knows, you're not required to be a broody hen for being able to recognize an aged egg... Actually, the too strict orientation of details may distract you from finding of most optimal solution. You'll never find the optimal path in fractal landscape in real time, if you'll bother with every stone. Unfortunately the existing scientists have many reasons not to support the optimal solutions too heartily: the longer we will analyse the existing models, the more jobs will remain for them, as Bob Wilson recognized and named before some time already. We should forget the idea, the scientists are motivated on optimization of their work. They simply have no reason for it
CardacianNeverid
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 29, 2012
Distances to other galaxies were ORIGINALLY DETERMINED via the comparison of apparent versus true luminosity of standard candles. That is what is important, we may take a shortcut now and use redshift, but that wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for the original discovery using the original method -Ethelred

You are trying to weasel your way out of your initial incorrect position, where you refused to even acknowledge that red shift could be used to gauge distances. How it may or may not have been done early last century was never brought up or relevant. You simply refused to believe it at the time. Admit it.
CardacianNeverid
2.7 / 5 (10) Feb 29, 2012
Spacetime expansion is spacetime expansion, you want to propose two completely different mechanisms for it rather than one? Occam's razor? -EthelredFaced

You're an stubborn fool. Just admit you were wrong. There's no shame in that.

The particles don't expand because the nuclear forces holding them together are far stronger than the force of the expansion -EthelTwoFaced

More revisionism of your initial position?
CardacianNeverid
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 29, 2012
Yes, this is all well and good, but you have to prove, my knowledge is insufficient for promotion of alternative theories -KinedrylTard

Your posting history is ample evidence of that fact.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Feb 29, 2012
"No no no...they have this all wrong! The Universe isn't expanding. It has and will always be the same size. It's just that all the matter inside the universe is shrinking." - Fion

I think so. Note that this view clearly accepts both a finite and infinite universe.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 29, 2012
It is a correct impression.

"I get the impression that the people here criticizing the established theories have no goddamn clue what they are talking about." - Death
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2012
The fact, thousands of smart astronomers contributed to existing theories means nothing from sufficiently general perspective: the more people, the higher reliability you can consider, but you can expect the higher bias at the same moment.

No. Every scientists would LOVE to overturn paradigms. That's why they do all these experiments: To see WHETHER the results fit with the theories - not to see THAT they fit. Experiments are attempts at falsification. Second best is the aility to refine existing theories. This is what it usually boils down to because the current set of theories seems to be pretty good - having withstood many tests.
Kinedryl
2.3 / 5 (4) Feb 29, 2012
We can see it very well at the cold fusion: it's evidence is way stronger, than the evidence of gravity waves or Higgs boson, yet the effort invested into it it's quite negligible just because it doesn't play well with established theories. And vice-versa: the more money is invested into attempts for confirmation of existing theories. After all, my voting status at public forum demonstrates clearly, what the contemporary people really think about violation of established paradigms and it would be naive to expect, the physicists are different in this extent. All cosmologists who brought the alternative paradigms are essentially ignored, because science is driven with money and jobs opportunities. The new ideas are ignored in this system, until they're not able to provide jobs for another scientists. Not to say about personal issues - for example the finding of dark matter with Fred Zwicky was ignored for whole half of century just because other astronomers hated him.
Kinedryl
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2012
In essence, the Big Bang concept is ad-hoced and fitted into observations. The observation of red shift is real, but its interpretation with expansion of Universe is wrong and it leads both into conceptual paradoxes (space expands globally although it nowhere expands), both into contradiction with observations (for example, the galaxies don't appear expanding, but collapsing). Some problems of Big Bang were solved with introduction of another, even more problematic concepts (like the inflation which occurred and suddenly stopped from mysterious reason just after initial explosion). Later the physicists facing the accelerated expansion, which is "explained" with introduction of another ad-hoced concepts (axions, quintessence). Whereas the dispersion of ripples at the water surface provides easy to follow intuitive analogy and explanation for all these phenomena and it even provides testable predictions.
Kinedryl
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 29, 2012
We can just ask, why tired light concept was abandoned with first generation of cosmologists. One part of explanation is, the proponent of tired light model didn't understand correctly, how the dispersion of light at the density fluctuations behaves. They considered, it proceeds in somehow similar way, like the dispersion of light with fog, during which the location of spectral lines and the width of signals doesn't change. The dispersion of surface ripples is completely different and it shifts both the frequency, both spreads the pulse width. It exhibits strong wavelength dependency too, which has been ignored with proponents of tired light model, because they did think about it as schematically, as the proponents of Big bang model. The same schematic thinking burrowed the Lorentz aether model and many other ideas, which were essentially correct, but too schematic. The last victim of such schematic thinking is the concept of extradimensions of string theory.
Kinedryl
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2012
The second reason for refusal of tired light hypothesis was solely political. The Big Bang model provided job for many theorists and proponents of general relativity, thus proving its usefulness. The world suddenly appeared elegant and understandable for proponents of relativity and formally thinking people. These people didn't think about consequences of their model. For example, the description of Universe with FLRW metric essentially means, the Universe is formed with interior of black hole. Despite the idea is essentially fringe, it provides some testable hypothesis, which were merely ignored, because their checking would falsify the Big bang model too.
Kinedryl
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2012
The third reason for wide acceptance of Big Bang model was ideological, because the introduction of Big Bang model introduces the concept of creation, which has apparent religious traits, as Fred Hoyle recognized already. It's not accidental, it has been introduced just with catholic priest Lamaitre. In the times of McCarthyism the tired light model was considered too materialistic, because it opened the space for aether and the concept of infinite eternal Universe, which the conservative western society wasn't willing to accept. The same ideology has lead to the prosecution of ideas of Fred Hoyle, David Bohm and other left-wind scientists, who proposed more holistic and less deterministic approach in physics. They were considered as a border line crackpots in their era.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 29, 2012
my voting status at public forum demonstrates clearly, what the contemporary people really think about violation of established paradigms
The 'contemporary people' are completely irrelevant when it comes to scientific theory. This is not like judging ice cream flavors where everyone's opinion is equally valid. You have to understand this stuff before your opinion matters. You do not understand any of this so you shouldn't be surprised if no one will listen to you. Scientific theory is not decided democratically. It is decided by facts and those who understand them.

because science is driven with money and jobs opportunities.

This demonstrates how little you understand science and scientists.
A scientifically inclined person doesn't say "I want to be a scientists. Now, which field of science can I make the best living in?"
No. They say: "This filed interests me. I will study this." Only after that do they look where they can get some funding for it.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2012
Spacetime expansion is spacetime expansion, you want to propose two completely different mechanisms for it rather than one? Occam's razor? -EthelredFaced

You're an stubborn fool. Just admit you were wrong. There's no shame in that.


I may be stubborn but I am not ethelred...

The particles don't expand because the nuclear forces holding them together are far stronger than the force of the expansion -EthelTwoFaced

More revisionism of your initial position?


No, it's not... go back and read what I have written, pay attention to where I explained what the "big rip" is...
Callippo
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2012
You have to understand this stuff before your opinion matters. You do not understand any of this
LOL, it's just you, who has no idea what he's talking about. It's as simple as it is. Or do you really believe, you can replace the arguments against steady state model with dummy speculations about my qualification? My person is solely irrelevant to it. You're just trying ad-hominem fallacy again.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2012

... all of this space expanded uniformly (and still is). Things did not travel, they expanded.


Then explain "dark flow" which is not in motion at the "uniform" rate you suggest all the objects in the universe move at. In fact "dark flow" does not even seem to be operating with motion that suggest "uniform expansion rate", it seems to be heading off to some deep end of the universe far outside the parameters of of uniform expansion.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2012
Or do you really believe, you can replace the arguments against steady state model with dummy speculations about my qualification?

I don't know who would argue FOR a steady state model. That one was shown to be untenable inthe 1960's

As to the 'ad homs': When it comes to discussing scientific subjects at any depth beyond "I like ice cream" - "I like candy" it's pretty much a given that someone without any understanding of the subject (and all the subjects it builds on) is irrelevant to the discussion.
Raygunner
not rated yet Mar 03, 2012
I have a question: assuming we are in the center of a sphere (our observable universe) that is 13.75 billion LY in radius, or 27.5 billion LY across, and assuming that the big bang location is 13.75 B LY away in some direction at the far edge of this sphere, then could you extrapolate from that big bang location another sphere? If this was to be true, then the UNOBSERVABLE UNIVERSE could be 55 B LY across or more, with our observable universe sphere located between the Big Bang point and the 55 B LY outside edge. Or that edge could be much, much farther out and we would be in our "light bubble" located somewhere in this great expanse. I'm just a layman/lurker but this is neat stuff.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2012
... assuming we are in the center of a sphere (our observable universe) that is 13.75 billion LY in radius,


That's a big assumption.....this has been a big topic in meetings of our astronomy club that meets once a month. There is absolutely no way to know where inside the bubble of that sphere we are located.

If we were near an edge (less than 13.7 Gly), I would expect expect beyond that observable edge we would see nothing but emptiness, but no matter which direction we point our telescopes we observe more galaxies of uniform density. This indicates to me that the Universe is a lot older than 13.7 billion years.

pauljpease
not rated yet Mar 03, 2012
then again, in the Bible, God "speaks" Light into existence, "Let there be Light," and it was so.



The key part of that statement is "in the Bible". In the real world, well, that's something different entirely.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 03, 2012
"If things expand at superluminal speeds then they move at superluminal speed, and hence travel at superluminal speeds." - Modern

True but pointless, since during the expansion nothing was really moving.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2012
"If we were near an edge (less than 13.7 Gly), I would expect expect beyond that observable edge we would see nothing but emptiness" - Benni

Benni, the universe has no edge. There is no emptieness outside of the universe, since there is no outside. If there were it would be part of the universe.

All of space was created during the BB. Space itself did not exist before the BB. Further the space created in the BB may have been infinite, so beyond the visible edge of what we can see, there may in fact be an infinite extent beyond.

The universe is not expanding into a void. It is simply growing larger. I.E. as time progresses you need more meter sticks to measure it's extent.

You might view this as a universe of infinite extent in which you are shrinking.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 03, 2012
"I have a question" - RayGunner

Read the response directly above.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2012
Raygunner:
assuming that the big bang location is 13.75 B LY away in some direction at the far edge of this sphere,


Benni:
If we were near an edge (less than 13.7 Gly),

Ther is no edge. As has been explained to you before: It's not an explosion (into space) we're dealing with here, but an expansion (of space).

There is no 'center' and there is no 'edge'.

The ususal picture for this is a balloon. We are points on the 2D balloon surface (which represents 3D space). Inflate it. No point on that surface is the center and there is no edge

Actually: ALL points are the center. This is why we see residual energy from the big bang - the cosmic microwave background - coming from ALL directions. If it had been an explosion we'd only see it from one direction.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2012
I don't know who would argue FOR a steady state model. That one was shown to be untenable in the 1960's
It was shown so in very superficial way. In the same way, like the physicists refused the aether model - they used an arguments, which don't follow from aether model at all. Analogously, the arguments which were used against tired light model actually contradict the tired light model.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2012

Benni:
If we were near an edge (less than 13.7 Gly),

Ther is no edge. As has been explained to you before: It's not an explosion (into space) we're dealing with here, but an expansion (of space).

There is no 'center' and there is no 'edge'.

The ususal picture for this is a balloon. We are points on the 2D balloon surface (which represents 3D space). Inflate it. No point on that surface is the center and there is no edge

@ant phy: I understand you've been there, seen it with your own eyes. In the meantime, I'm still limited to what I can observe and have learned from applying the Law of Conservation of Energy, in which the Universe must function as a "closed" system, otherwise mass & energy cannot transform between states. There is a "push back edge" (to coin a phrase), we simply haven't seen it yet, whoops I mean "I" haven't seen it yet, my deference to those of you who have.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2012
in which the Universe must function as a "closed" system,

The law works for closed systems. This does not mean that theuniverse has to be a closed system.

Laws (or better: well established theories) are made to model what we observe. Laws model the universe. The universe does not have to conform to the laws we make up. The universe 'must' do nothing. The universe is the last arbiter of what is real and what is not - not our theories.

But energy can transform between states in an open or closed system. That is not one of the limits.

I'm still limited to what I can observe

Humans are evolved to survibe on this planet. That shapes our perception. Just because we do not experience space expanding or can't see x-rays or can't feel magnetism or don't experience that spacetime is relative doesn't mean they're not real.
ZachAdams
not rated yet Mar 03, 2012
Imagine 2 points on a balloon. When the balloon is inflated the two points become farther apart. Projecting 4D space time onto the 3D model, let the time direction be the expanding radius of the balloon.

Imagine 3D space as projected onto the surface of the balloon. Any 2 points on the balloon will move away from each other when space expands in time (the radius of 'time' gets bigger, space gets bigger)

While you can postulate the distance between two points on the surface of the balloon (2d of 3D space) the only way you can measure the space requires movement in time.

So, in an expanding universe, everything visible from one reference point existed at an earlier relative time coordinate, in the past. Redshift happens because the emitted light frequencies remain the same (for Helium or Hydrogen etc), the speed of light remains constant but the space expands, giving a longer wavelength.
ROBTHEGOB
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2012
The theory of "Big Bang" is totally bogus. Also, for your information, Earthlings, there is no such thing as "time". It is an invention of your very limited intellects.
Raygunner
1 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2012
The easiest way for me to visualize this is to see the pre-big bang as a ball. And we are in the ball. This ball expands but we are still in the ball but as it grows things around us move farther apart in all 3 dimensions (I don't count the 4D timeline because I don't believe time exists. But it is a handy measuring stick). But there still is a center but who knows where that is. And the size of the ball is not limited to light velocities, but the speed of light limits how far we can see within this expanding ball. If the big bang really happened it could have happened a trillion years ago - again, who knows, unless we can ask someone who knows. Just my 2 cents.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2012
...time doesn't exist, universe is a ball...
The utilitarian criterion of all these ideas is, which new testable predictions you can bring with it. If they can bring none, we needn't to bother with anything like this, because it's untestable anyway.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2012
or can't feel magnetism

Humans can feel magnetism ...
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Mar 04, 2012
Humans can feel magnetism ...

Only exceedingly strong forces or those with a significant gradient. But the effect that let's us 'feel' them is induced currents in nerves (e.g. 'light flashes' in the retina) or -in the case of strong forces- the pressure sensors in the vascular system as the hemoglobin gets pushed to one side.

But if I give you a piece of magnetic metal and a piece of nonmagnetic metal you cannot tell them apart - other than by testing them against something magnetic.

(We can also 'feel' exceedingly strong x-ray intensities - we get burns and/or radiation sickness. But that doesn't mean we have a sensor for x-rays)
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2012

The law works for closed systems. This does not mean that theuniverse has to be a closed system.

But energy can transform between states in an open or closed system. That is not one of the limits.


@ant phy: Seriously, how do you know the stuff that you just ad hoc regurgitated above?

I actually had to take a final exam to pass my courses in Thermodynamics, & I didn't do too badly.

I read your post as a novice attempt at repealing all the laws of Conservation of Energy, as if there is a "point" somewhere just beyond Earth's orbit, known only by a select few, where the laws of energy conservation no longer apply.

We've sent a lot of manned rockets into space & put men on the moon. The manned rockets we sent to the moon functioned in perfect in accord with energy conservation laws we observe inside Earth's atmosphere.

Rockets require "push back" systems for their energy to be useful, you know, the boundary of the combustion chamber.

cont'd....
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2012
....con't: Now ant phy, we see the Universe is expanding everywhere we look, that happens because energy is pushing against "something" that is a pressure contained boundary, but you're telling me you don't believe this? Energy to be useful must be "contained", the energy that is driving the Universe must also be contained or no movement can occur, this is called "work", I learned this in Thermodynamics & took final exams to pass the course, not reading a lot of Wikipedia....

kaasinees
1 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2012
(We can also 'feel' exceedingly strong x-ray intensities - we get burns and/or radiation sickness. But that doesn't mean we have a sensor for x-rays)


The same can be said for many other senses we have (besides vision).
That does not mean we are not sensitive to magnetism even weak ones.

http://www.nature...-13.html

Even if the effect of magnetism is very small, like bacterial level has greater effect on our body as a whole than you realize.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 04, 2012
Since the radiation observed from the "edge" is uniform to a very high degree both in magnitude and in terms of variances from the uniformity, I take it that you also believe that we are privileged to exist at the very center of your universe.

How else do you explain the uniformity in the scale of the fluctuations from a uniform background?

"we see the Universe is expanding everywhere we look, that happens because energy is pushing against "something" that is a pressure contained boundary, but you're telling me you don't believe this?" - Benni

General Relativity tells us that the universe has no bounds Benni.

If the universe has a boundary then General Relativity must be wrong.

Can you provide us with a confirmed experimental test that shows that General Relativity is wrong?

Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 04, 2012
"... the energy that is driving the Universe must also be contained or no movement can occur ..." - Benni

Your belief then is that because I can throw a marble into space and it will continue to move forever, the universe must be finite?

Sorry Benni. But that doesn't follow at all.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2012

General Relativity tells us that the universe has no bounds Benni.


Tell you what, YOU find the statement in GR that makes the flat statement that the Universe has no bounds....
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2012
"... the energy that is driving the Universe must also be contained or no movement can occur ..." - Benni

Your belief then is that because I can throw a marble into space and it will continue to move forever, the universe must be finite?

Sorry Benni. But that doesn't follow at all.


@VD: Take some courses in Thermodynamics & trust me you will be able to discover that it does "follow". Novices such as yourself have a misplaced belief that the Universe can be a "perpetual motion machine". Anytime I see the word "infinite" or "infinity" in a post, I can immediately judge the depth of that person's background in science. If you want "infinity" in your life, go to church somewhere.


Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 04, 2012
I am of course referring to the physical boundary that you claim exists and into which the universe you claim is expanding.

I refer you to the text "GRAVITATION" - pages 722-725, in which the three forms of curvature are illustrated. Negative - infinite in volume. Zero, also infinite in volume. And positive, finite in volume but closed back in on itself.

There just ain't no outside boy. There is no boundary you can pass to put you outside. The universe is all there is, and there is no boundary layer that cosmological energy is pushing against.

"Tell you what, YOU find the statement in GR that makes the flat statement that the Universe has no bounds...." - Benni
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 04, 2012
Claptrap. And thermodynamics has nothing to do with it, since thermodynamics talks strictly about probabilities and can therefore be the basis of any true physical laws such as Newtons laws of motion or Einstein's laws of gravitation.

"Take some courses in Thermodynamics & trust me you will be able to discover that it does "follow"" - Benni
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 04, 2012
"Anytime I see the word "infinite" or "infinity" in a post, I can immediately judge the depth of that person's background in science." - Benni

How many times can you subdivide a physical interval?

Are you saying that space itself is quantized?

Proof please.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2012
Seriously, how do you know the stuff that you just ad hoc regurgitated above?

Because that is how the laws are defined? The first law of thermodynamics is defined ONLY for closed systems.

If there are things like branes which can affect our universe then we have an open system. If there are no other universes then we have a closed system. (And I'm pretty sure M-theory was not part of your thermodynamics lesson)

that happens because energy is pushing against "something" that is a pressure contained boundary

No. We currently really don't know WHY the universe is expanding. That is still ongoing research. If you have any experinments that support your claim please cite them.

What we observe is consistent with an early, very fast, expansion; a time of relatively uniform expansion; and a time (which we live in) of accelerating expansion.

the energy that is driving the Universe must also be contained or no movement can occur

Expansion of space is not movement.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2012
We currently really don't know WHY the universe is expanding. That is still ongoing research.
We know it already many years, but for physicists involved it's advantageous from many reasons to cover it before public.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2012
Give it a rest with the conspiracy theories. This is a science site. Your link misses the point completely: There CANNOT be a theory of everything that is PROVABLY true.

Proof of the above statement:
Posit: The number of observations we can make are finite
Thesis: An infinite number of formulae can be fit to a finite set of observations (this goes no matter how many observations you make)
Result: It is completely undecideable which of the formulae is the 'real' one (if any). And no: 'Simplicity' is not a valid argument for the 'right' formula. The universe does not have a demnstrable need to be simple.

And apart from that: it's completely crazy to think that all scientists all over the world are in on a conspiracy that never leaks. Science is antithetical to conspiracies.

Kinedryl
1 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2012
it's completely crazy to think that all scientists all over the world are in on a conspiracy that never leaks
Only schematically and formally thinking people can think about deterministic, i.e. organized conspiracy here. The ignorance of physical community toward many ideas, findings and concepts has an emergent origin, i.e. it's a cumulative effect of weak but persistent negativity of all individuals involved. This way of omnipresent negativism is way more effective, than some conspiracy, no matter how well it's prepared and organized.

If all people in the crows will make just a tiny step toward wall, the people near the wall will get crushed. Were these people killed with some conspiracy? Of course not, nobody organized or planed their death. But it still happened.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2012
That's the most absurd analogy I've ever heard.
With a working TOE one could do all kinds of things (getting rich quick being the least of them)

But let me guess: You have never seen one. You have anecdotal 'evidence' of someone who claims that someone else he has never met has invented a TOE, right? And all through the ages this has been kept secret (or was it just invented recently?). And all scientists are just out to scam you - all the things you use every day which scince has provided for you (not least of which the computer you type on) should be yours for free.

You know what? Instaed of shooting off your mouth you should be actually falling to your knees and thanking your betters for making your life as great as it is (e.g. free of pestilence and with innumerable amenities you take for granted)
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2012
For example, when I visit some forum and I say "The latest findings fit the tired light model better, than the Big Bang model..", I'll get the only response: "But tired light hypothesis has been dismissed many years ago! You're crackpot, go away!" ... and I will get banned with rock-steady regularity. No one will check my comments, because everyone relies on intersubjective opinion, which is usually quite old and it has roots in few old sunken publications from the end of 50's... In this way such a misunderstanding grows and propagates to further generations of physicists, who are parroting it from the previous ones. The common roots of this ignorance is the dislike for critical thinking, if not for thinking as such.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2012
... and I will get banned with rock-steady regularity.

Because - and let me say this in all clarity: You're a crackpot.
No. Really. You are. Face it.
You have been going to a lot of doctors (forums) and they all independently(!) diagnosed you as a crackpot. That should tell you something. If ten doctors tell you you are retarded then you probably are.
It's like a fat guy who keeps hearing wherever he goes that he's fat. Are people conspiring against him? No. He's just fat.

You are not a scientist. You have no understanding of science or the scientific method (this you have demonstrated time and time again). Yet you demand that people treat you as if you had some understanding. That's crazy.

That at some point people will just give up and tell you to go away is only natural. Not because they hate you (you're not worth that much) - just because you clutter up and derail what could otherwise be a valuable space for discussions.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2012

Because that is how the laws are defined? The first law of thermodynamics is defined ONLY for closed systems.


What laws are you talking about? Certainly not General Relativity in which Einstein explicitly states the Universe is "closed" & "spherical". You're starting to sound like VD, make up an unsubstantiated statement & challenge anyone to prove it's wrong. And don't try to tell me Einstein in 1954 recanted his view of the Universe as being "finite" in size in light of Mach's principle.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2012
You're a crackpot.No. Really. You are. Face it.
At first, you provided no evidence for it, at second - who cares? The questions is, if I'm more wrong and fuzzy in my predictions, then the anthropic landscapes of string theory solutions, for example. The way of getting of information is not crucial here, the reliability and validity of final result is. For example, Galileo deduced in rather straightforward way from sequence of Venus phases, that the solar system cannot encircle the Earth. This insight - no matter how crackpotish and formal math unfounded it was in essence - falsified whole years of epicycle math evolution. Just this single logical example is able to ruin the pile of math, geometry and interpretation of observations with no mercy.
You can like it or not, but this is simply the way, in which science works. It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment or observation - it's wrong.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2012
You're a crackpot. No. Really. You are. Face it.
It's nice to see, how proponents of mainstream physics resort to the ad-hominem fallacy, whenever they get short of arguments. History of science is full of such crackpots, who were proven right at the very end. And there is still one to many duality of AWT, which points to the fact, the more complex theory is, the simpler arguments you can find for its falsification. Just this duality enabled the Galileo to falsify the complex formal geocentric model with carefully choosen, yet quite simple counterarguments based on qualitative logics. There are always limited number of such a counterarguments for every theory and their number essentially corresponds the number of postulates used with this theory - but when they're applied, they will enable to falsify the formal deterministic theory with logical counterarguments. The more postulates you will use for derivation of such a theory, the better is your chance to falsify it.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2012
You are not a scientist. You have no understanding of science or the scientific method.. Yet you demand that people treat you as if you had some understanding.
In AWT the evolution of human understanding is analogous to the expansion of observational perspective at the water surface with distance. At the very beginning you'll start with fuzzy indeterministic perspective influenced Brownian noise at small distance scales. With increasing distance the character of surface ripples becomes more deterministic gradually, so you can always get an advancement, if you would use more deterministic approach than before. But after certain distance limit the dispersion of surface ripples will take place again and the more holistic (hyperdimensional) and less deterministic approach will become more effective-simply because this is how the very remote reality appears. The methods of mainstream physics apparently hit their limits here (the case of cold fusion is the most pregnant example).

More news stories

Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

Putting is arguably the most important skill in golf; in fact, it's been described as a game within a game. Now a team of Rice engineering students has devised a training putter that offers golfers audio, ...

Health care site flagged in Heartbleed review

People with accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the ...

Airbnb rental site raises $450 mn

Online lodging listings website Airbnb inked a $450 million funding deal with investors led by TPG, a source close to the matter said Friday.