Astronomers refine measurement of distance to nearest galaxy

Mar 06, 2013
The Large Magellanic Cloud. Credit: NASA

A team of astronomers including Carnegie's Ian Thompson have managed to improve the measurement of the distance to our nearest neighbor galaxy and, in the process, refine an astronomical calculation that helps measure the expansion of the universe. Their work is published March 7 by Nature.

The Hubble constant is a fundamental quantity that measures the current rate at which our universe is expanding. It is named after 20th Century Carnegie Edwin P. Hubble, who astonished the world by discovering that our universe has been growing continuously since its inception. Determining the Hubble constant (a direct measurement of the rate of this continuing expansion) is critical for gauging the age and size of our universe. One of the largest uncertainties plaguing past measurements of the Hubble constant has involved the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), our nearest neighboring galaxy, which orbits our own .

Astronomers survey the scale of the Universe by first measuring the distances to close-by objects (for example studied by Wendy Freedman, director of the Carnegie Observatories, and her collaborators) and then using observations of these objects in more distant galaxies to pin down distances further and further out in the Universe. But this chain is only as accurate as its weakest link. Up to now finding a precise distance to the LMC has proved elusive. Because stars in this galaxy are used to fix the distance scale for more remote galaxies, an accurate distance is crucially important.

This artist's impression shows an eclipsing binary star system. As the two stars orbit each other they pass in front of one another and their combined brightness, seen from a distance, decreases. By studying how the light changes, and other properties of the system, astronomers can measure the distances to eclipsing binaries very accurately. A long series of observations of very rare cool eclipsing binaries has now led to the most accurate determination so far of the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud, a neighboring galaxy to the Milky Way and crucial step in the determination of distances across the Universe. Credit: ESO/L. Calçada

"Because the LMC is close and contains a significant number of different stellar distance indicators, hundreds of distance measurements using it have been recorded over the years," Thompson said. "Unfortunately, nearly all the determinations have systemic errors, with each method carrying its own uncertainties."

The worked out the distance to the by observing rare close pairs of stars, known as eclipsing binaries. These pairs are gravitationally bound to each other, and once per , as seen from Earth, the total brightness from the system drops as each component eclipses its companion. By tracking these changes in brightness very carefully, and also measuring the orbital speeds of the stars, it is possible to work out how big the stars are, how massive they are, and other information about their orbits. When this is combined with careful measurements of the apparent brightness, remarkably accurate distances can be determined.

This method has been used before in taking measurements to the LMC, but with hot stars. As such, certain assumptions had to be made and the distances were not as accurate as desired. This new work, led by Grzegorz Pietrzynski of the Universidad de Concepcion in Chile and Warsaw University Observatory in Poland, used 16-years-worth of observations to identify a sample of intermediate mass binary stars with extremely long orbital periods, perfect for measuring precise and accurate distances.

The team observed eight of these binary systems over eight years, gathering data at Las Campanas Observatory and the European Southern Observatory. The LMC distance calculated using these eight binary stars is purely empirical, without relying on modeling or theoretical predictions. The team refined the uncertainty in the distance to the LMC down to 2.2 percent. This new measurement can be used to decrease the uncertainty in calculations of the to 3 percent, with prospects of improving this to a 2 percent uncertainty in a few years as the sample of binary stars is increased.

Explore further: Comet Jacques makes a 'questionable' appearance

More information: This research was presented in a paper "An eclipsing binary distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud accurate to 2 per cent", by G. Pietrzyński et al., to appear in the 7 March 2013 issue of the journal Nature. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11878

Related Stories

Zeroing in on Hubble's constant

Jan 05, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- In the early part of the 20th Century, Carnegie astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding. The rate of expansion is known as the Hubble constant. Its precise value ...

Infrared observatory measures expansion of universe

Oct 03, 2012

(Phys.org)—Astronomers using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope have announced the most precise measurement yet of the Hubble constant, or the rate at which our universe is stretching apart.

A new way to measure the expansion of the universe

Jul 26, 2011

A PhD student from The International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR) in Perth has produced one of the most accurate measurements ever made of how fast the Universe is expanding.

Pulsating star mystery solved

Nov 24, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- By discovering the first double star where a pulsating Cepheid variable and another star pass in front of one another, an international team of astronomers has solved a decades-old mystery. ...

VLBA Changes Picture of Famous Star-Forming Region

Oct 08, 2007

Using the supersharp radio "vision" of the National Science Foundation's Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), astronomers have made the most precise measurement ever of the distance to a famous star-forming region. ...

Ancient white dwarf stars

Nov 03, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Pushing the limits of its powerful vision, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope uncovered the oldest burned-out stars in our Milky Way Galaxy in this image from 2002. These extremely old, dim "clockwork ...

Recommended for you

Comet Jacques makes a 'questionable' appearance

8 hours ago

What an awesome photo! Italian amateur astronomer Rolando Ligustri nailed it earlier today using a remote telescope in New Mexico and wide-field 4-inch (106 mm) refractor. Currently the brightest comet in ...

Image: Our flocculent neighbour, the spiral galaxy M33

9 hours ago

The spiral galaxy M33, also known as the Triangulum Galaxy, is one of our closest cosmic neighbours, just three million light-years away. Home to some forty billion stars, it is the third largest in the ...

Image: Chandra's view of the Tycho Supernova remnant

Jul 25, 2014

More than four centuries after Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe first observed the supernova that bears his name, the supernova remnant it created is now a bright source of X-rays. The supersonic expansion of ...

User comments : 66

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (30) Mar 06, 2013
The Hubble constant is a fundamental quantity that measures the current rate at which our universe is expanding. It is named after 20th Century Carnegie astronomer Edwin P. Hubble, who astonished the world by discovering that our universe has been growing continuously since its inception.


And he is rolling over in his grave due to the perversion of science which continues to hold this fallacy (doppler effect only) as some sort of constant. Halton Arp has written about hundreds of examples that show this to be a falsified hypothesis.

http://www.halton...articles
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 06, 2013
Lol like you have any idea!

Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (25) Mar 06, 2013
Halton Arp has written about hundreds of examples that show this to be a falsified hypothesis.


Wrong (shocking that, eh?),,, he's written a few articles which have been recycled hundreds of times about two or three anomalous observations out of hundreds of thousand consistent observations.

There is some difference between what ya wrote, and what I wrote,,,,,, don't ya think?
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (23) Mar 06, 2013
Reading comprehension is a key aspect to understanding, I guess that's why you believe how you're told to believe. What I wrote is that he "has written about hundreds of examples", I didn't say articles. There are over 300 "examples" in his 'Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies' alone. Come on back when you got that reading comprehension worked out.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (16) Mar 06, 2013
You might try getting yourself up to date. This wasn't new in 1990, and it's far less so now. Try doing a little reading, after which you might begin to comprehend.

Well, you probably won't.

Psst candrive--how's that link between earthquakes and solar storms working out for you? Or is it solar storms and earthquakes? Earthquakes and your lack of comprehension?
pdorrell
5 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2013
Story summary: "Scientists make accurate new measurement of distance to Large Magellanic Cloud". And the distance is ... ???? I had to Google to find the answer.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (26) Mar 06, 2013
There are over 300 "examples" in his 'Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies' alone.


Ya realize that is thirty years old? Ya realize that most of "300 examples are no longer considered so peculiar? Ya realize that when ya are dealing with a number like 200 billion, 300 is a miniscule number?

So a guy wrote a book, thirty years ago, about 300/200,000,000,000 peculiar objects, without the benefit of the wonderful telescopes of the last three decades,,,,, and that impresses ya?

I suspect the reason ya are so impressed is because it odd, contrary, rebellious, and "outre",,,,, so far ya have showed no reason that ya are impressed because ya understand any of it.

Ya actually sound like the four year old who recites the assorted Bible verse here or there, but doesn't know what the words mean, or even how to read.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (22) Mar 06, 2013
That's funny you bring up being "up to date". You see, relativity, this nonsense about black holes, red shift, and such, these hypotheses were developed prior to any real understanding of plasma physics. Back when space was thought to be a vacuum, devoid of much of anything, especially electromagnetically controlled plasma. Yet, here we are, still in the "dark ages" ignoring the electrically charged particles and their fundamental properties.

BTW, I have yet to find any evidence that would suggest there isn't a connection, just denial by pseudo-skeptics (as usual). As a matter of fact, I can't understand how someone could be so dense as to not expect an affect to the Earth's EM field (telluric currents as well) by a solar storm.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (24) Mar 06, 2013
As a matter of fact, I can't understand how someone could be so dense as to not expect an affect to the Earth's EM field (telluric currents as well) by a solar storm.


I can't understand that either. Did ya mistakenly read somewhere that I might have wrote that I didn't "expect an affect{sic}"?

I love plasma, and electromagnetics, and electrodynamics,,, it's just that I love all the other phenomena also,,,, I didn't pick a single force to worship,,, I fell in love with the way they all work together.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (14) Mar 06, 2013
Holy. Cow. What does one say in the face of such utter ignorance? Good luck feeding yourself? Hope you don't procreate?
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2013
I can't understand that either. Did ya mistakenly read somewhere that I might have wrote that I didn't "expect an affect{sic}"?


Q, the "affect" he is talking about is the idea that solar storms cause earthquakes.

No I am not even kidding.

Please, try to stop laughing.

Maybe the question to CD85 should be "Can you PLEASE not procreate?"
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (20) Mar 06, 2013
Q, the "affect" he is talking about is the idea that solar storms cause earthquakes.


What? To be sure he never said that? I thought he was meaning "effect" on the earth's ionosphere and/or magnetosphere.

Maybe he does believe that,,,,, Zephyr did tell me just yesterday that the aether was the cause of the present global warming trend. (Only in this one he said it was the dense cloud of neutrinos pushing the aether causing the earth to heat up.)
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2013
Lol yea I was looking for the most outrageous theory I could find to talk to him about gullibility then linked it to some article and candrive ate it up like candy! Kinda missed the point I was making!

Zephyr was saying how neutrinoes warming dense deep ocean water was causing global heating not a month ago. Apparently he is having trouble keeping his theories straight!
yyz
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 06, 2013
"There are over 300 "examples" in his 'Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies' alone. Come on back when you got that reading comprehension worked out."

Speaking of reading comprehension, could you quote a passage from Arp's "Atlas" where he discusses discordant redshifts between two galaxies? How about a quote where he discusses anomalous redshifts? Here's a link to the work: http://ned.ipac.c...mes.html

The fact is "Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies" looks at galaxies from a purely morphological viewpoint. Many of the object included are single galaxies with peculiar dust lanes or spiral arms. The ONLY redshifts mentioned in the original atlas were a couple dozen poorly determined values listed in a table (Table 2) that Arp himself had removed from the work after the original printing, due to their being out of date. And these redshifts were only for the brightest object in the field.

Please, take the time to read the work carefully before commenting.
Fleetfoot
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 06, 2013
Story summary: "Scientists make accurate new measurement of distance to Large Magellanic Cloud". And the distance is ... ???? I had to Google to find the answer.


The last line of the article above says "to appear in the 7 March 2013 issue of the journal Nature."

You'll find out the new value tomorrow.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (19) Mar 06, 2013
Hubble explained the red shift with scattering of light in similar way, like the AWT. In 1936 he wrote " redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift … the velocity-distance relation is linear, the distribution of the nebula is uniform, there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature, no restriction of the time scale … the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results.. [If the redshifts are a Doppler shift] … the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time." (Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936)
What else to add? The physicists just changed into imbeciles..
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 06, 2013
Wow Zephyr, really playing loosely with the facts I see! Hard to judge because it's been bastardized so badly, but it looks like you are (mis)quoting from The Realm of the Nebulae, the 1936 work by Hubble where he laid out his case that "nebulae" were distinct galaxies, and that those galaxies were almost all moving away from us at a predictable rate. (Can you say Hubble Constant?)

You are a fraud Zephyr. Hubble argued the exact opposite of what you are trying to portray here. You are knowingly misrepresenting what he said to perpetrate your fraud. That makes you a liar too.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (18) Mar 06, 2013
Hubble didn't believe in expanding space - it's commonly known and covered only with religious ignorants like you. The mainstream physics proponents are true sectarians, who are trying to falsify history. But your epoch is already over.

Vincent Sauvé presents an excellent historical review of Hubble's writings and his stance against wholesale acceptance of the expanding universe hypothesis. He also challenges some big bang assertions.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (19) Mar 06, 2013
Hubble didn't believe in expanding space - it's http://www.scienc...ss-85962 and covered only with religious ignorants like you. The mainstream physics proponents are true sectarians, who are trying to falsify history. But your epoch is already over.


Hubble was uncomfortable with the idea of expanding space, but he accepted it. He had to accept it, he was one of the key discoverers. What he refused to do is give a definitive theory of the mechanisms, because he was an honest scientist and admitted that he was too weak in physics to offer a meaningful explanation.

To say that that he didn't believe in an expanding universe is an out and out lie.

"The universe probably is not exploding but is a quiet, peaceful place and possibly just about infinite in size." are Hubble's actual words.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 06, 2013
He had to accept it, he was one of the key discoverers.
He never refused the red shift. But he was a true scientist, skeptical against naive metric expansion interpretation of it.
To say that that he didn't believe in an expanding universe is an out and out lie.
LOL, I just gave you a three links and you can find many other sources there. You have ABSOLUTELY no evidence for your religious stance - do you realize it?

BTW Hubble's success was not to "discover" a red shift; rather, it was to convince his colleagues that the red shift is linear function of distance (which we already know, it's not true). The red shift exhibits steps, it exhibits Doppler anisotropy and it exhibits attenuation with distance which is interpreted as a dark energy by now.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (18) Mar 06, 2013
LOL, I just gave you a three links and you can find many other sources there. You have ABSOLUTELY no evidence for your religious stance - do you realize it?


The best ya can claim is not having good English reading skills. So snip and glue the words of Edwin Hubble that he uses to say he doesn't believe in an expanding universe.

Post his own words or admit that ya are just making it up as ya go......
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (18) Mar 06, 2013
The red shift exhibits steps, it exhibits Doppler anisotropy and it exhibits attenuation with distance which is interpreted as a dark energy by now.


That is right up there with the electron ducks and aether driven global warming. (But I'm still fond of all the amusement ya provide.)
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 06, 2013
So snip and glue the words of Edwin Hubble that he uses to say he doesn't believe in an expanding universe
He just didn't believe it - just face the historical facts. In the same way, like Einstein didn't believe in space-time, expanding universe, black holes and gravitational waves - despite he developed a theory, which is using all these concepts as a theorems (actually misinterpretation of linearized, i.e. simplified/crippled version of general relativity equations). But this version is the only form of general relativity, which the high-school teachers can solve at the tables, they do believe in its predictions accordingly. But both Hubble, both Einstein were already much smarter, than the contemporary mainstream physicists, who are just doing money with physics in opportunist way, being followed blindly with religious half-educated wannabes like you.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (17) Mar 06, 2013
So snip and glue the words of Edwin Hubble that he uses to say he doesn't believe in an expanding universe
He just didn't believe it - just face the historical facts.


I ask for a direct quote from Hubble and all ya have is "just believe it"? I knew ya couldn't find one. That's because there isn't one.

Carry on Zeph, I've got to run, but will check back tomorrow for some more of your wondrous science and stuff.
ValeriaT
2.1 / 5 (19) Mar 06, 2013
In Associated Press the astronomer Edwin P. Hubble says that .."after a six-year study, evidence does not support what we now call the Big Bang theory.. The universe probably is not exploding but is a quiet, peaceful place and possibly just about infinite in size."

In "The Problem of the Expanding Universe" he wrote further: "Thus the use of dimming corrections leads to a particular kind of universe, but one which most students are likely to reject as highly improbable. Furthermore, the strange features of this universe are merely the dimming corrections expressed in different terms. Omit the dimming factors, and the oddities vanish. We are left with the simple, even familiar concept of a sensibly infinite universe. All the difficulties are transferred to the interpretation of red shifts which cannot then be the familiar velocity shifts."

Everything is cited from the above articles linked with me.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 06, 2013
The symptomatic aspect of contemporary religious society is, despite I do provide the sources, I'm downvoted for it, whereas the people who are claiming the opposite are upvoted. It indicates, your troubles with truth are not only problem of few most loud posters. You're all just religious ignorants of facts, quite comparable to medieval or even tribal people of ancient era. The adherence on your crippled vision of reality is already an immanent part of your personality and you're destined to die out with it. Without support of such a religious society the mainstream physicists would never manage to ignore the cold fusion or magnetic motors for whole century. So you're all responsible for the shit, in which the mainstream science resides by now in similar way, like the German supporters of Nazi party. I don't expect, you'll ever change your stance during your silly lives, because the blind adherence on the subject of belief actually is, what defines the religion.
yyz
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2013
"Story summary: "Scientists make accurate new measurement of distance to Large Magellanic Cloud". And the distance is ..."

49.97 kiloparsecs, according to the abstract: http://www.nature...878.html

Hopefully the paper will up on arXiv later this week or next.
rah
1 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2013
Couldn't the author have included the newer more accurate distance to the LMC in this article? Now I can't sleep.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 06, 2013
I do provide the sources, I'm downvoted for it, whereas the people who are claiming the opposite are upvoted. It indicates, your troubles with truth are not only problem of few most loud posters.


You get down voted, you pompous fraud, because you are posting pseudo-science on a science site! You get calld on your BS here because people who come here to read SCIENCE see your lame attempts to promote your snake oil for what it is. And of course when you get called out on your fraud you withdraw immediately into cries of "I'm being repressed".

No one cares about your "visions" Zephyr. Go join Nancy and listen for the messages from the Zeta Reticulans. That's where your idea of physics will come true.
Lurker2358
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2013
He posted a site with a damn photograph of the newspaper clipping and you still don't believe him?

What the hell better source was he supposed to quote?!
Kron
2.1 / 5 (13) Mar 07, 2013
Everyones aware that the big bang is a theory, right? What would a pulsating universe appear as? Expanding, compressing, expanding, compressing... It would surely mess up the finite age of 13.75 billion years, eh?

The big bang theory is a good model which seems to fit the observed data quite well, but let's not start religiously following it as if it were a certain truth.
verkle
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2013
According to the paper, the new distance is measured to be a mean LMC distance of 49.88 ± 0.13kpc.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
He posted a site with a damn photograph of the newspaper clipping and you still don't believe him?

What the hell better source was he supposed to quote?!


Because of things you've posted elsewhere I have to assume you are making a joke with this statement.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2013
The big bang theory is a good model which seems to fit the observed data quite well, but let's not start religiously following it as if it were a certain truth.


I hope you're not intending to convey the idea that we should therefore accept any "theory" that some half crazed snake oil salesman puts out, just to avoid being labelled as religiously following our current best understanding of things?

The beauty of what we currently know about the universe is how all we know points to all we don't know. Not pseado-science like aether or electric universe garbage! Real, meat on the bones SCIENCE!
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2013
Yea Zephyr I already knew that this was another of your sock puppets. It is part of your fraudulent modis operindi. Make up pseudo-scientific sounding garbage, then use several sock puppets to give the fraudulent impression that someone actually believes your tripe.

Go ahead and down vote it moron. Then come back in a few days and see which comments stand the higher. Bet I can predict the outcome!

You hooked up with Nancy yet fraud? Maybe Richard better fits your delusions?

Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2013
No Zephyr I have been down that road with your crazy ass before. It hasbeen explained to you literally dozens of times. You simply blithly ignore what you're told ad post your exact same pseudo-garbage on the next site or the next article you see, as if nothing was ever said.

You are a lying fraud Zephyr.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2013
What Zephyr, that you can post a link to an article written more than 70 years ago that quotes a scientist who died over 60 years ago, somehow makes your aether garbage palettable to people who have used the preceding 70 years to actually move science foward?

Hubble was a scientist you moron! He wouldn't even have bothered with the likes of you. If he could be brought back today, one day after he was quoted in your 70 year old article, he would marvel a the advances that have been made and cheerfully accept that he was mistaken - then get to work trying to find out more.

So what, Nancy not good enough for you?
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2013
PS funny how your English has suddenly cleared up. Fraud.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2013
Your criticism might mean something is you had ANY idea of what you are arguing against. But you don't. You don't agree with the basics of science today because you don't understand them! You can't make a coherent argument for or against "mainstream" science because the maths are too complicated for you.

There is nothing else that you say that changes those truths! You argue against science you don't understand only because you don't understand it. Because you can't understand them they must be wrong. Do you even recognize that fallacy you fraud?

Your "theories" belong with Leder, Hoagland and Seibrel. Your misunderstandings are just as reality based as theirs.
Peteri
1.2 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2013
LOL. This is like reading the transcript of a bunch of children in a playground hurling insults at each other. Do please keep up the irrational and ignorant exchanges - gives the rest of us endless hours of side-splitting entertainment!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2013
LOL. This is like reading the transcript of a bunch of children in a playground hurling insults at each other. Do please keep up the irrational and ignorant exchanges - gives the rest of us endless hours of side-splitting entertainment!


Be happy to try Peteri. Answer one question for me though, if you would be so kind.

How many articles on this site that even remotely touch on the physics of matter can you point to that Zephyr hasn't made a comment on in an effort to promote his aether theory?

Do you understand what he is doing?

Oh sorry, that's 2 questions.
Fleetfoot
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2013
Everyones aware that the big bang is a theory, right?


Wrong, it is a model. General Relativity and thermodynamics are the main theories on which the model is built.

What would a pulsating universe appear as? Expanding, compressing, expanding, compressing... It would surely mess up the finite age of 13.75 billion years, eh?


It would look like this and fails many basic tests:

http://www.astro....htm#QSSC

The big bang theory is a good model which seems to fit the observed data quite well, but let's not start religiously following it as if it were a certain truth.


It fits all known tests while no other model can say the same so it is accepted as our current best effort, nothing more. Any future alternative will not be able to differ by anything more than fine detail within in the observable universe if it is to match existing observations.
Kron
1 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2013
Everyones aware that the big bang is a theory, right?

Wrong, it is a model.

Also, the Special Theory of Relativity is not a theory (akin to the Big Bang Theory not being a theory). The theory is that light speed is constant, the Special 'Model' of Relativity is built around it.
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
Everyones aware that the big bang is a theory, right?

Wrong, it is a model.

Also, the Special Theory of Relativity is not a theory (akin to the Big Bang Theory not being a theory). The theory is that light speed is constant, the Special 'Model' of Relativity is built around it.


If you read the original paper, Einstein clearly states that the invariance of the speed of light is a postulate from which the theory is derived, it is not the theory itself:

"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the 'Principle of Relativity') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies ..."
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
If you read the original paper, Einstein clearly states that the invariance of the speed of light is a postulate


The paper is here:

http://www.fourmi...rel/www/

Note also he only requires that the speed is independent of the motion of the emitter, not that it is constant. It's a subtle point but can matter in some discussions.
Kron
1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2013
Fleetfoot, look up the definition of 'theory'. Since you missed the sarcasm, both STR and Big Bang Theory are theories of the physical world. Both are also working models of the physical world.

With my comment I intended to show how ridiculous your assertion was but it seems to have gone right past your head. Also:

Any future alternative [to the big bang 'theory'] will not be able to differ by anything more than fine detail

False. The difference can be so extreme that no connection between the two is apparent. Eg. the current model sets a finite age of ~14 billion years. It is entirely 'possible' that the universe is infinite in age. What's infinity divided by 14 billion? Quite extreme difference I'd say. Obviously the same data (observables) have to fit within the 'new' theory, but there are infinite models (of differing complexities) which allow them to do so. You can have a: 4D, 11D,...infiniteD model, all involving real world data.
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
Fleetfoot, look up the definition of 'theory'. Since you missed the sarcasm, both STR and Big Bang Theory are theories of the physical world. Both are also working models of the physical world.

With my comment I intended to show how ridiculous your assertion was but it seems to have gone right past your head.


I know what you tried to do but as before you were using the definition of "theory" which is valid in everyday language. The hard sciences refine that definition somewhat, every discipline has its jargon. That's why I quoted Einstein's original paper which defined SR to show you what HE meant by "theory". We still use that meaning today. You asked what you thought was a rhetorical question but in this forum, it was incorrect.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2013
IMO theory is logical construct, which applies the logical operations to set of postulates and derives the theorems, i.e. the conclusions, which can be used like both predictions, both postdictions of observable reality. So I've no problem to call the special relativity theory a theory. I'm using the "model" term as a substitute for nonformal theory.

For example, many people feel upset, when I present the AWT as a theory (I don't know why, because we have both formal, both nonformal theories, like the evolutionary theory). But if I say, it's based on dense aether model, nobody can say something against it.
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
IMO theory is logical construct, which applies the logical operations to set of postulates and derives the theorems, i.e. the conclusions, which can be used like both predictions, both postdictions of observable reality.
In logical problems, it can be (e.g. boolean algebra) but in general, we don't get multiple choice answers, most physical measurements are real numbers therefore a theory needs to be mathematical.
I'm using the "model" term as a substitute for nonformal theory.
The common meaning is that a model is something constructed by applying theories to a particular case.
For example, many people feel upset, when I present the AWT as a theory (I don't know why, ..
Nobody gets upset, we just correct your fallacious claim for those new to the forum. "AWT" isn't a theory or a model or even a postulate, at best it is the hypothesis that Lorentz's aether might be a gas but that is immediately disproven by the fact that a gas cannot support transverse waves.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
Zephyr, you know how I feel about your musings, so understand how carefully I am wording this responce to your latest comment here.

It has been explained to you by many many people, from Tim Thompson to Nereid to Utah to tjormassin, and so on, that your understanding of what you think is a theory is wrong. I remember arguing with you in 1998 about your musings on aether, back when you were talking about writing your book. In the 15 years since then, you appear to have learned nothing.

And that is the problem Zephyr. There have been a number of real, paid, published, working physicists who have taken time to speak to you, directly, to explain why what you think about aether is counter to everything we currently understand about the universe.

Yet you ignore them and continually post your pet musings.

So take a minute Zephyr and consider: in over 10 years you have not managed to bring a single credible scientist to your side. Does it cross your mind why this might be so?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2013
most physical measurements are real numbers therefore a theory needs to be mathematical.
Only in final stage of theory development. Some new concepts were really found with blind analysis of hard data - but most of really new concepts was designed from scratch with intuitive synthesis of existing facts without any formal connections. For example the quantum mechanics or special relativity theories. The concept of quantization was originally solely ad-hoced new concept inserted into thermodynamics of radiation law from outside. There was no formal line of reasoning, how to do it. During this, Mr. Planck's reasoning was driven with pure physical intuition - which the contemporary generation of physicists is sadly lacking (being crippled with contemporary educational system, which is oriented to formal math - not intuitive thinking about real problems).
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2013
So take a minute Zephyr and consider: in over 10 years you have not managed to bring a single credible scientist to your side. Does it cross your mind why this might be so?
I've whole theory about it - it's called the AWT...;-) IMO the contemporary community of physicists is behaving like the boson condensate, i.e. sorta interior of black hole, incapable to exchange the information with its exterior, being separated from external reality in this way. After all, my situation is nothing strange - I'm ignored eight years only, whereas the cold fusion findings and/or magnetic motors are ignored whole century! And these concepts can really bring the prosperity immediately - with compare to AWT, which only brings the savings into existing blind routes of basic scientific research. Is it because these concepts don't actually work? Of course not - they're just inconsistent with thinking of contemporary generation of physicists.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2013
"AWT" isn't a theory or a model or even a postulate, at best it is the hypothesis that Lorentz's aether
It interprets and predicts too many facts correctly for being called just a hypothesis. But names aren't important - what is important, whether this logical construct can be used with contemporary generation of physicists, who are locked in the blind scheme of their reasoning. Frankly, it would require a much bigger effort from them, than just from me, who isn't loaded with years of learning of old paradigms. But if the physicists wouldn't switch their thinking sufficiently fast, they would face the gradual lost of social credit from the side of layman society. The people will realize fast, that they don't need the existing generation of scientists for anything useful at the moment, when the findings of recent era (cold fusion, antigravity, ZPE generators) will prove their effectiveness. This is all the garage physics, hindered with mainstream in addition.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2013
And zzzziiinnnngggg there he goes off into the aether of his imaginary world.

You're a fraud Zephyr, a witch doctor trying to sell snake oil to the unsophisticated.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2013
that your understanding of what you think is a theory is wrong
My understanding of theory is just more generalized. For example, Joe Eck is developing the room temperature superconductors routinely. Every year he is presenting the material, which exhibits the Meissner effect jump at higher temperature. It's evident, he has some logical system for it - but no theory is presented on his web and he has apparently no theory in classical sense developed for it.

So, now we can ask, how is it possible, this guys is continuing systematically without any theory? Well, his logical scheme is such a theory too - it's not just formalized. But it's consistent enough to provide the logical clue for his further work, despite it doesn't enable him to publish any equation in mainstream press.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2013
Most of physicists don't realize, the formal logics of theories begins a way before the formal model is constructed. Before you can write such a model at the paper, you should already have some logical model developed in your head - and this logical model is already capable of some qualitative predictions too. So we could name it a theory even before some equation is written about it at the paper.

What's worse, the physicists didn't realize, that human knowledge evolved into stage, when the intuitive thinking and fuzzy logical models become more effective, than the strictly deterministic approach. We can compare it to the finding of optimal route through abstract fractal landscape, the density of which systematically increases due the fast growing volume of knowledge. When we will become surrounded with many hills and hollows, then the strictly deterministic approach to their judging will not remain effective anymore. We should simply learn, how to ignore the unnecessary details.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2013
a witch doctor trying to sell snake oil to the unsophisticated.
You see - and I believed, that the unsophisticated ignorants aren't my target group at all. Anyway, thank you for your attention...
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2013
There have been a number of real, paid, published, working physicists who have taken time to speak to you, directly, to explain why what you think about aether is counter to everything we currently understand about the universe
So far I didn't met with any such an explanation. This is an argument of the same category, like the claim, that the hydrogen fusion at nickel or magnetic motor cannot work, because many physicists attempted for it already without success. Maybe yes, maybe not - but they "forgot" to write the publications about it!
So that a way more probable interpretation of this controversy is, they didn't attempt for it at all under belief, some other already did it without success. In this way the ignorant stance propagates through the dismissive community in avalanche-like way. Everyone is believing in something just because his neighbor is believing in it too - sorry, but this is exactly, what the religion is called.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2013
So far I didn't met with any such an explanation. This is an argument of the same category, like the claim, that the hydrogen fusion at nickel or magnetic motor cannot work, because many physicists attempted for it already without success.


That you come to a site of science and spout such medievil nonsense is a tribute to how low you will sink in your effort to promote interest in a book you will probably never publish you lying fraud.

You are a lying fraud. A piece of excrement not worthy of the effort of scaping you off the bottom of the least desirable outhouse of thought. You pollute the articles of thought with your ongoing campaign of ignorance. You are a cockroach. A fraud. A schill. A liar.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2013
Everything is promoted for free. It's not my intention to write some books. Are you a sockpuppet of QStar? You seems to be a little bit oriented to the "floating duck" aspects of AWT in similar way, like the QStar.
Fleetfoot
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2013
most physical measurements are real numbers therefore a theory needs to be mathematical.
Only in final stage of theory development.


No, it's almost always the starting point.

For example the quantum mechanics


Not true, it was derived because the Rayleigh–Jeans Law predicted the "ultraviolet catastrophe".

special relativity theories


Not true, he derived it from the fact that Maxwell's equations predict that all observers see the same value for the speed of light, the first postulate in his paper.

The concept of quantization was originally solely ad-hoced new concept inserted into thermodynamics of radiation law from outside. There was no formal line of reasoning, how to do it.


Not true, it follows directly by requiring a finite maximum in the ultraviolet.

Trying to cover up the fact that your are incapable of doing anything mathematical in this field are fooling no one.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2013
Not true, it follows directly by requiring a finite maximum in the ultraviolet.
How Mr. Planck invent his oscillators. It was everything, but just a straightforward logical step. Which is why Max Planck did met with strong doubts and resistance, after all, as he wrote bitterly ("a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."). After all, if the dense aether model would be fully straightforward, you would accept it way more smoothly too. Every fundamental finding is essentially a negentropic process, which violates the causality time arrow, so it cannot be deduced quite logically (you need to combine two or more facts into new conclusion). It's essentially a time loop from future.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2013
How the time-loops are working it could be demonstrated with foam model in AWT. Normally inside the homogeneous environment the information/energy propagates in straightforward manner without scattering. But inside of foam portion of energy scatters and it can arrive from multiple directions in advance along membranes of that foam. If we place the glowing light bulb into nontransparent bucket, its light wouldn't be visible anymore. But if we would cover whole the bucket with source of light with soap foam, whole the surface of foam will glow even outside of the bucket! The information will arrive from distance to its source along multiple paths, so it will be perceived like the result of noncausual indeterministic intuition.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2013
Inside of metamaterials the backward propagation of light applies too. You may observe in this animation, that inside of dispersive environment the portion of light travels in waves from distance to its source in superluminal speed. So I'm just sitting here and collecting these backward scalar waves into fuzzy image of reality existing in distant future, whereas the other physicists are waiting for the arrival of the main portion of information in form of pretty deterministic but slow transverse wave. Why they're doing it? Well because their money are going, no matter if they will invents something new, or just describe it (why physics doesn't bother with WHY questions). They've nowhere to hurry, until their money are going. This is the way, in which deterministic approach kills the inquisitiveness and creativity. You just cannot be creative and fully deterministic at the same moment.
yyz
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
A preprint of the Nature paper "An eclipsing binary distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud accurate to 2 per cent" has been posted on arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2063
lengould100
5 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2013
OMG, will you disidents please shut the heck up until you develop new supporting data? We ALL get your position, just quit wasting our time on these threads with repetitive argument.