Gravity may have saved the universe after the Big Bang, say researchers

November 18, 2014
Time Line of the Universe. Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team

(Phys.org) —New research by a team of European physicists could explain why the universe did not collapse immediately after the Big Bang.

Studies of the Higgs particle – discovered at CERN in 2012 and responsible for giving mass to all – have suggested that the production of Higgs particles during the accelerating expansion of the very early universe (inflation) should have led to instability and collapse.

Scientists have been trying to find out why this didn't happen, leading to theories that there must be some that will help explain the origins of the universe that has not yet been discovered. Physicists from Imperial College London, and the Universities of Copenhagen and Helsinki, however, believe there is a simpler explanation.

In a new study in Physical Review Letters, the team describe how the spacetime curvature – in effect, gravity – provided the stability needed for the universe to survive expansion in that early period. The team investigated the interaction between the Higgs particles and gravity, taking into account how it would vary with energy.

They show that even a small interaction would have been enough to stabilise the universe against decay. 

"The Standard Model of particle physics, which scientists use to explain elementary particles and their interactions, has so far not provided an answer to why the universe did not collapse following the Big Bang," explains Professor Arttu Rajantie, from the Department of Physics at Imperial College London.

"Our research investigates the last unknown parameter in the Standard Model – the interaction between the Higgs particle and gravity. This parameter cannot be measured in particle accelerator experiments, but it has a big effect on the Higgs instability during inflation. Even a relatively small value is enough to explain the survival of the universe without any new physics!"

The team plan to continue their research using cosmological observations to look at this interaction in more detail and explain what effect it would have had on the development of the early . In particular, they will use data from current and future European Space Agency missions measuring cosmic microwave background radiation and gravitational waves.

"Our aim is to measure the interaction between gravity and the Higgs field using cosmological data," says Professor Rajantie. "If we are able to do that, we will have supplied the last unknown number in the Standard Model of and be closer to answering fundamental questions about how we are all here."

Explore further: Maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle after all

More information: 'Spacetime curvature and the Higgs stability during inflation', Physical Review Letters, published online 17 November 2014. journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/ … ysRevLett.113.211102 . On Arxiv: arxiv.org/abs/1407.3141

Related Stories

Maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle after all

November 7, 2014

Last year CERN announced the finding of a new elementary particle, the Higgs particle. But maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle, maybe it just looks like it. And maybe it is not alone.

Higgs quest deepens into realm of 'New Physics'

July 2, 2014

Two years after making history by unearthing the Higgs boson, the particle that confers mass, physicists are broadening their probe into its identity, hoping this will also solve other great cosmic mysteries.

Recommended for you

Two teams independently test Tomonaga–Luttinger theory

October 20, 2017

(Phys.org)—Two teams of researchers working independently of one another have found ways to test aspects of the Tomonaga–Luttinger theory that describes interacting quantum particles in 1-D ensembles in a Tomonaga–Luttinger ...

Using optical chaos to control the momentum of light

October 19, 2017

Integrated photonic circuits, which rely on light rather than electrons to move information, promise to revolutionize communications, sensing and data processing. But controlling and moving light poses serious challenges. ...

Black butterfly wings offer a model for better solar cells

October 19, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with California Institute of Technology and the Karlsruh Institute of Technology has improved the efficiency of thin film solar cells by mimicking the architecture of rose butterfly wings. ...

Terahertz spectroscopy goes nano

October 19, 2017

Brown University researchers have demonstrated a way to bring a powerful form of spectroscopy—a technique used to study a wide variety of materials—into the nano-world.

124 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (25) Nov 18, 2014
Ahh yes, meaningless pontification about science's creation event.

"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago." Hannes Alfven
Benni
1.7 / 5 (22) Nov 18, 2014
"Our aim is to measure the interaction between gravity and the Higgs field using cosmological data," says Professor Rajantie. "

.......what a leap of faith, proposing how gravity interacts with a so-called Higgs field never proven to exist except in the minds of the funny farm science buffs.

movementiseternal
Nov 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
4.3 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2014
There is no pulling force or curving space at all!

Nucleus of atoms expanding and recycling expanding movement / energy all a time!

EternalRecycling

Really? Where did you find the math for this?
izzy_wichihin
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 18, 2014
Has anyone ever considered that our science of the unknown especially when it comes to the universe is religiously and biblical in nature? Our modern science is based on what religion has provided as "knowledge" and this is extremely moronic, especially when you have political figureheads whom wished to use the christian religion which is prefabricated as a means to control society and subdue humankind.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters" has been interpreted as being nothing in the beginning and the pseudo science of the european/colonial had interpreted this as having significance because it came from religion. If science were from india or china the universe would have been viewed as "Infinite" and science would have followed suit and would have started from that point instead of the christian version of things.
dtxx
4.8 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2014
There is no pulling force or curving space at all!

Nucleus of atoms expanding and recycling expanding movement / energy all a time!

EternalRecycling

Really? Where did you find the math for this?


Considering the first two posts here, I thought what he said was a promising sign of improvement. If it keeps improving at this rate in a few more posts I'll get to enjoy scripture cited at me as ultimate authority.
felicien_perrinn
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2014
The issue though is to know whether gravity is the stabilising agent or gravity is rather a dimensional manifestation of the stabilising agent at large scale? I.e. does quantum gravity exist? Why are the principles of GR naïvely adapted to QM? They are inherent at their given scale. Scalability is emanently self-justificatory. The problem lies with our psychological complex with our "conceptual notion of categories" and "categorical dimension" (back to becoming/emanent inflexive-conguity-scalability as the theory of everything)!
williamfuzi
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 18, 2014
I know to most here this will sound like a rather parochial idea, but here goes. Why did the universe not collapse back onto itself? My answer would be an example of osmosis on a greater scale, or maybe the idea of equilibrium. We have a universe full of matter, and outside of that universe a vast area of empty vacuous space. Our universe is made of light, and heat, which is causing it to expand out into the vast cold empty void. This would explain the fact that galaxies farther from the center of proposed big bang, or closer to the void seem to be moving faster than the ones near the center. Maybe dark matter is easier to explain than anyone thinks. Maybe the force that is holding everything together, and at the same time keeping things apart is as simple as changes in temperature. That would explain why no one can see dark matter, because it is simple changes in temperature that are keeping the universe in motion. Just a theory.
Rustybolts
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 18, 2014
Nothing supports the big bang theory any more. Move on!
Modernmystic
4.6 / 5 (20) Nov 18, 2014
"This would explain the fact that galaxies farther from the center of proposed big bang,."


Where is the center on the skin of an orange?
For example in the visible universe there are many gravitationally bound galaxies with very different redshift, when they should moving away from the observer with the same speed according to the theory of the expanding universe.


Could you give me a source for this, because a very simple explanation is that just because galaxies are gravitationally bound does NOT mean that they are all moving away from us at any given time at the same rate. Think about the solar system in relation to voyager...some of the planets are moving away from it faster given their orbits than others.

Nothing supports the big bang theory any more. Move on!


Virtually everything supports the big bang theory. Move on....
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 18, 2014
If science were from india or china the universe would have been viewed as "Infinite" and science would have followed suit
I have copied immediately below what science states about the universe & the entropy of Thermodynamics:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (14) Nov 18, 2014
Izzy, I guess I'm not sure how to understand your point, but the point I''m making above is a quote from directly Einstein's General Relativity which is opposite the funny farm pseudoscience Commentary so prevalent on this site which impunes Einstein's GR with every fiber of its being. The science of Einstein's s GR is as far from a Universe infinitely expanding into oblivion as you can get, read from the quote I made above directly from his GR.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Nov 18, 2014
.....and of course the usual funny farm science suspects show up to cast their one star rage votes in defiance of quotes directly from Einstein's GR............ Ira, Vietvet......a couple of you are still missing.
Pawl
5 / 5 (13) Nov 18, 2014
You guys are costing me a fortune in popcorn.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2014
Maybe the force that is holding everything together, and at the same time keeping things apart is as simple as changes in temperature.


........better be careful making this kind of statement , you're almost suggesting that "entropy" exists beyond our solar system & the funny farm science types hanging out on this site will have none of that.

That would explain why no one can see dark matter, because it is simple changes in temperature that are keeping the universe in motion. Just a theory.


No, it isn't a theory, you're very close to understanding the "entropic dynamics" by which energy is distributed everywhere in the observable universe, DM has nothing to do with energy distribution (entropy) because Einstein's GR fully explains it.
movementiseternal
Nov 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zera
1 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2014
I may be wrong, but I thought there were literally only 3 fundamental forces in the universe. Gravity, Electricity, and Magnetism.

I mean, i'm an amatuer, but have we successfully tied Gravity to electro/magnetism in field strengths? i.e. Maxwell's Equations.

As far as I am aware, Gravity is a binding force that grows in strength with the mass of the object. So as far as investigating a particle that seems to have no gravity, well that's quite important and I believe well worth investigating.

Tektrix
5 / 5 (21) Nov 18, 2014
"I may be wrong . . . "

There are four fundamental forces in the Universe: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. Maxwell's equations united electricity and magnetism, not gravity and electromagnetism. Objects don't *have* gravity, they have mass- gravity is the result of the mass curving spacetime.
JoeBlue
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2014

Virtually everything supports the big bang theory. Move on....


The funny thing about science, is that nothing is sacred. Having Virtually being proven is not having been proven. One slight error and falsification destroys the entire theory. Sort of like why Cosmologists are testing for localized Lorentz shifts after the every other experiment to search for them has come up null, which technically voids GR.

However, here we are talking about GR years after this was noticed. All because they can't accept that something so accurate (after they fudged the majority of the theory to make it work) could still possibly be wrong.
Code_Warrior
4.2 / 5 (18) Nov 18, 2014
New expanding light moving little bit faster than other supergroups old expanding light and thats why new expanding light get old expanding light redshifting!

photons expanding and recycling expanding movement with each other and thats why expanding light pushing faster and faster same relativity way what photons expanding / getting bigger!

this is real relativity!

Space dont expanding at all!

EternalRecycling

Derp Derp Dirpity Derp. Herpity derpity derp. Derp? Derp derp? Herpa derpa derp. DERP! DERP DERP DERP! HEPA. DIRPA. DERP.
Nashingun
1 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2014
Imagine this so called scientists trying to figure the universe base on their hocus pocus mumbo jumbo tiny minny miny mow speculations? Then to later pronounce them as evidence and gets a Noble Prize? You gotta be kidding me!
big_hairy_jimbo
5 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2014
I think Code_Warrior said it best. I gave you 5 my good man, for explaining it so simply for me. :-))
imido
Nov 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
BishopBalderdash
5 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2014
Another possibility is that gravity did not "turn on" until a later epoch when the forces separated.
imido
Nov 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
saposjoint
4.4 / 5 (14) Nov 18, 2014
"I may be wrong . . . "

There are four fundamental forces in the Universe: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. Maxwell's equations united electricity and magnetism, not gravity and electromagnetism. Objects don't *have* gravity, they have mass- gravity is the result of the mass curving spacetime.


Actually, there are five: The four you mentioned of course, but you forgot stupidity.

More pervasive than dark matter and CO2, more insidious than religion itself! Unstoppable, inexorable, implacable, it cannot be defeated.

Especially if the moderators don't step up and get rid of the anti-science trolls and the certifiable crazies that post here...
movementiseternal
Nov 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
movementiseternal
Nov 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
FainAvis
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
I think I will run with The Onion's theory of 'intelligent falling':)
Egleton
1 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2014
How do we know that the speed of light is a constant? Is this an assumption?
Between 1908 and 1948 the speed of light varied by orders of magnitude greater than the error bars.
This embarassment was fixed by fixing the meter to the speed of light. Now the meter is defined by the speed of light. Therefore by definition the speed of light does not vary but the standard meter bar in Paris does.
If we abandon the assumption of the speed of light being a constant then we are truly lost.
But we will be able to progress from a fresh start.
The evidence is that the entire materialistic edifice is incorrect. See the Quantum erasure experiment.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (17) Nov 19, 2014
but they would also see the Milky Way undergoing the Big Bang

No Zeph, that doesn't follow. The radiation they observe from the Milky Way started off much later than the radaition from the same point when it was part of the Big Bang. The Big Bang radiation from that point the milky way occupies when they observe it has long ago passed them.
They only observe the big bang radiation from places from which - at that very moment - has taken roughly the age of the universe to reach them (minus the duration of the time it took for recombination to occur).

Try to think

Yes. Please do. Before you post, preferrably.
PhineasFogg
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2014
In particular, they will use data from current and future European Space Agency missions measuring cosmic microwave background radiation and gravitational waves.

I must have been in hibernation when they detected "gravitational waves", can anybody tell me where I can find data on the measurements mentioned here? MBR OK, but G waves?
Selena
Nov 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bob Osaka
1 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2014
Is the last unknown parameter of the Standard Model the interaction between gravity and the Higgs? If so, in solving this question everything will be known.
It took more than forty years and the most expensive experiment in history to find the Higgs boson in data contained in images scoured by thousands scientists of 25,000,000 collisions per second. When can we expect to have a confirmed interaction observed around a distant star or and even more distant galaxy?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2014
Ren82 claimed
Of course, this division into regions with different degrees of expansion is conditional only for more clarity of the idea, because the change must be smooth according to hypothesis of cosmic inflation, but it does not change the principle.
In another phys org forum you claimed cosmic rays came about because of Sin from your creator's punishment of Eve.

Can you explain how the bible of Moses, a claim by a human, has anything to do with the big bang hypothesis and please add why this creator of yours refuses to communicate with anyone else - except the claims of jesus & mohamed ?

Since you accept the claims of moses & jesus then I take it you accept those of mohamed
as the rules of your evidence would be applied consistently re claims of a god ?
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2014
Which means the observed redshift have another origin, which excludes expanding space and the big bang as a reason for this efect. This necessitates a serious revision in cosmology.


The standard redshift calculator uses a "complex integral" (calculus) with artificially fixed limits. The problem in measuring redshift (z) using the present calculation presumes 13.7 billion years ago as the birthdate of the Universe.

Presently, unexplained fully mature galaxies are now showing up that appears to place some of them inside the so-called primordial gas cloud. When the James Webb telescope comes into operation, we will be able to confirm whether these mature galaxies are actually inside the primordial cloud, or even beyond it. Confirmation of mature galaxies inside (or beyond) the primordial cloud will scuttle all present redshift calculators because the present 13.7 Gyr limit will be obviously wrong, wrong because this will prove the universe is much older & bigger.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2014
Are the distant galaxies inside of Hubble deep field packed more than the galaxies at the proximity?

Yes they are. You have to be careful to distinguish real denisty from apparent density. Real density is "number of galaxies per volume" which is greater the further back in time you go. Apparent density is "number of galaxies per arc" which drops the further you look out. The simple reason for this is that due to expansion the light from a (back then) small volume gets spread out over a large area.

You can get a succinct explanation of this here:
http://curious.as...mber=543
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2014
I thought there were literally only 3 fundamental forces in the universe.

correction, 4: Gravity, Electromagnetism, strong ("atomglue") and weak nuclear (particle decay) force.

have we successfully tied Gravity to electro/magnetism in field strengths?

The Kaluza Klein theory can combine it, but needs 5 dimensions and a little particle to make it work. You might want to read into this and while you're at it, check about string theory. Speculative, but very interesting.

As far as I am aware, Gravity is a binding force that grows in strength with the mass of the object.

Well, gravity doesn't bind, simplest is that mass curves space-time in 3 dimensions like a lead ball causes to curve a trampoline in 2 dimensions. This causes stuff to drop into or curve around each other and bend time.

Check some documentaries about: gravity, space-time, Einstein, string theory. There should be enough around which laymen like us can understand.
big-ben-not-the-bell
1 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2014
Clarity...Take the Big Bang, apply it to the creation of each Galaxy individually, and most theories will then fit in to the scheme of things, and Galaxies all have a center point of origin.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2014
Sub: Necessity-Demand: Knowledge Base -origins
Big-Bang has no definition. It has many self contradictions.
Garavity has limits. Electromagnetic Fields are 10^39 times stronger than Gravitational fields.
Search origins- Space Cosmology Veas -cosmology has definition and Cosmic function of the Universe will be self-evident
Space Cosmology Vedas Interlinks-Cosmology Definition-1 By Vidyardhi Nanduri
http://www.youtub...youtu.be
Double Slit the Quantum Phantom
2 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2014
At the instant of Inflation, was the curvature of the univers zero i.e. flat as opposed to what it is now? What is it now by the way? - can't be zero can it? Thanks, DSTQP
Double Slit the Quantum Phantom
2.5 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2014
... Heavens ( no pun intended ) what must have I been thinking. At the instant of Inflation the curvature of the universe must have been near infinite whereas presently it is approaching flat, eh?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (15) Nov 19, 2014
For me expanding space, curving space, extra dimesions, dark matter and dark energy is Derp Derp Dirpity Derp. Herpity derpity derp. Derp? Derp derp? Herpa derpa derp. DERP! DERP DERP DERP! HEPA. DIRPA. DERP.
@movementiseternal
that is because you are locked into a pseudoscience which has conned you into thinking it has all the answers
much like a religion, you now see everything skewed with the delusional lens of your faith in what you believe
this is NOT science
for more info see: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Egleton
1 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2014
Confirmation of mature galaxies inside (or beyond) the primordial cloud will scuttle all present redshift calculators because the present 13.7 Gyr limit will be obviously wrong, wrong because this will prove the universe is much older & bigger.


That and the "speed of light is a constant" assumption. Physicists love their constants- it gives them a sense of security.
The entire construction is based on magic numbers- constants.
We have to believe that they are not varying over time or space for the maths to work.
Egleton
1 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2014
Attacking straw gods is a low level intellectual persuit.
What value do you place on arguing that the Rainbow Serpent did not create the world? Or some guy with a white beard?
There is no value.
Attacking the God of the Yawning Chasms of Ignorance is noble. The pontifications of the ape/pig hybrid amuse one.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2014
How can space in different regions of the universe expand at different rates and at the same time the physical characteristics in these different regions remain the same?
It can't. Those of us who have taken Thermodynamics courses in college know this is a pipe dream conjured up by advocates of perpetual motion.

Can anything be stretched to infinity without changing its properties?
No, because to stretch the mass of the Universe to "infinity" will require "infinite" energy hence infinite mass. The problem advocates for infinite expansion is locating an additional source of energy after all the mass of the universe has been transformed & none remains.

The universe is seen as a closed system, but it can not remain so if its characteristics are changing constantly in this way
This is the essence of what Einstein stated in his GR that advocates of perpetual motion so vehemently oppose, you will know who they are by their 1 star votes to this post.

Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2014
........and here already is the first 1 star, saposjoint, someone who never saw a differential equation in Einstein's GR that he could solve, but who knows all about why Einstein was wrong in his GR espousing a "closed spherical universe".
Zera
4.7 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2014
Thank you to both Tektrix and vlaaing peerd, it's rare to have someone in these comments sections actually communicate polite, succinct and accurate information.

I appreciate your comments. Thank you.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2014
I may be wrong, but I thought there were literally only 3 fundamental forces in the universe. Gravity, Electricity, and Magnetism.
Nope.

Gravity
Electromagnetism
Color (AKA strong) nuclear force
Weak nuclear force
That's 4.

I mean, i'm an amatuer, but have we successfully tied Gravity to electro/magnetism in field strengths? i.e. Maxwell's Equations.
Nope. Maxwell's equations united magnetism and electricity.

As noted above, Theodor Kaluza showed Einstein how to unite relativity (i.e. gravity) to Maxwell's equations, but neither of them could figure out how to make it work.

As far as I am aware, Gravity is a binding force that grows in strength with the mass of the object.
No, gravity is curvature of spacetime. Mass curves spacetime, the more mass, the more curvature.

So as far as investigating a particle that seems to have no gravity, well that's quite important and I believe well worth investigating.
Errr, what "no gravity" particle?
Da Schneib
4.9 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2014
Actually, Zera, I think if you could try to answer my last question, you'd get more information about this particular subject rather than the three rather mundane answers I gave to the previous questions, repeating what others had said a different way in case it helps you understand it better.

What's going on is, they've found something they're sure is the Higgs, but now they have a problem in cosmology, which is the SM predicts the Higgs collapses the universe during inflation, a very brief period at the very beginning of the universe, during which the universe did most of its expanding so far. So now these other scientists, reported in this article, have found that if the Higgs interacts with gravity, even a little bit, it prevents that collapse.

contd
Da Schneib
4.9 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2014
Furthermore, the interaction of the Higgs and gravity isn't part of the SM, because gravity isn't part of the SM. So this is a parameter outside the SM, which is for a particle that is inside the SM, and now we have a way to estimate it. Very, very interesting; this may be what they call "new physics." And it will certainly lead to some, since interactions outside the SM can help constrain what types of new physics are possible.

That may be a better answer for you, Zera.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2014
That and the "speed of light is a constant" assumption

The assumption is pretty sensible. Because if it wasn't then matter back in the "ol days" (i.e when we look far out into the cosmos) would not have been able to stick together - or would have stuck together in entirely different ways.

The entire construction is based on magic numbers- constants.

If you think about it for a bit then you come to the conclusion that SOMETHING must be constant. You can't have non-zero derivatives all the way up (or down) without coming up everything to be overly infinite. That would be akin to the argument "it's turtles all the way down".
But if you prefer you could define the volume of the universe as constant. That just makes all the other equations very ugly. (It's a bit like using a heliocentric view. Can you make it work? Yes. Is it sensible? No.)
Selena
Nov 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2014
Most people don't understand that changing the speed of light would change the size of the charges on electrons and protons, which would make a complete mess of chemistry, resulting in all sorts of weird spectra that wouldn't correspond to any known elements.

We can see the spectra of even the most distant objects, and measure their recession rate with it. This means we can recognize the spectral elements, which means the charge on the proton and electron hasn't varied. Thus, neither has the speed of light.

And that's just one way to check it; there are several. They all agree.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2014
After "ignoring" the first nuts in a row, there isn't much to say except this: the nice result is a demonstration that science, and not nuttery, works. But the nuts "win" in their confused and/or propagandist minds, and it is hilarious (and sad) to see.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2014
Most people don't understand that changing the speed of light would change the size of the charges on electrons and protons, which would make a complete mess of chemistry, resulting in all sorts of weird spectra... And that's just one way to check it; there are several. They all agree.


Oy! I'm glad I can use the "ignore" function. =D

Well, yesterday they press released something pertinent here, scientists had improved the precision on this (fundamental constancy) with another factor 2. They did it by checking atomic clocks using different molecules/atoms against each other for several years.

The spectroscopic measurements complement when they are astronomical, those are global consistency checks. Physics (and science) for the win!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2014
Yes, I saw that and was thinking of linking to the article here on it. Without further ado: http://phys.org/n...cal.html

And that's another of the several ways to check it.
dk1xi
1.2 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2014
No Higgs-Particle with energy 126GeV/c² was discovered 2012 at CERN, but radiation power
126 GUef .
Vs * c vacuum = Uef matter.
Lambda/2 = ef
U = h variable f/e
I = e f
R = h variable / e²

homepage magneticquant.de
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2014
Why is it always, ">insert famous well-known theory here< is teh wrnog!!!111!!one!"

I mean, there's so much really interesting stuff happening really fast in astrophysics, why bother making stuff up? Just kick back and watch. Not to mention biology and particle physics, and... :D
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2014
I mean, there's so much really interesting stuff happening really fast in astrophysics, why bother making stuff up? Just kick back and watch. Not to mention biology and particle physics, and... :D


Yeah Schneib, like you "making stuff up" in recent posts proposing the Casimir Effect as being a source of infinite energy for endless expansion of the Universe. You need to take some courses in Thermodynamics & Calculus so you can find Einstein's GR comprehensible & get off this Perpetual Motion "kick" you & the funny farm science crowd putting up Commentary on this site have been on.
felicien_perrinn
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2014
I know to most here this will sound like a rather parochial idea, but here goes. Why did the universe not collapse back onto itself? My answer would be an example of osmosis on a greater scale, or maybe the idea of equilibrium. We have a universe full of matter, and outside of that universe a vast area of empty vacuous space. Our universe is made of light, and heat, which is causing it to expand out into the vast cold empty void. This would explain the fact that galaxies farther from the center of proposed big bang, or closer to the void seem to be moving faster than the ones near the center. Maybe dark matter is easier to explain than anyone thinks. Maybe the force that is holding everything together, and at the same time keeping things apart is as simple as changes in temperature. That would explain why no one can see dark matter, because it is simple changes in temperature that are keeping the universe in motion. Just a theory.

I am quite crazy, you are "craziest", lol
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2014
Lenni doesn't "believe in" the accelerating expansion of the universe.

That's because he doesn't know any astrophysics. Or else because he was hiding in a basement for the entire 1990s.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2014
Lenni doesn't "believe in" the accelerating expansion of the universe.

That's because he doesn't know any astrophysics. Or else because he was hiding in a basement for the entire 1990s.

........you still hanging onto that Casimir Effect perpetual motion engine you claim to have discovered?
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2014
Maybe if you read some books Lenni, you'd be a bit brighter.

Meanwhile, you should read this:

http://www.schola...m_Energy

if you can handle the tensors.

Scholarpedia, BTW, is peer-reviewed.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2014
if you can handle the tensors.
........actually, Differential Calculus is more descriptive of what I can handle.

Say, where you gonna get those two big infinite sized plates of mass to generate your never ending infinite energy? You must remember of course, if you want infinite energy you will need infinite mass, or do you continue to fail comprehending that part of Einstein's E=mc^2?

Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2014
Couldn't figure it out, huh, Lenni?

The link I gave you explains it all.

You could try looking up the section on vacuum energy in the Wikipedia article on the Casimir Effect. It doesn't have so much scary math in it. Here: http://en.wikiped...m_energy
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2014
In Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 , E≠mc2 in an infinite Universe, the reason being a system in motion requires a constant input of energy or motion(work) ceases. Motion only occurs when energy input to a closed system results in entropic processes. If the Universe is infinitely expanding there must of necessity be an infinite source of energy or there can be no resulting output of infinite motion, otherwise Einstein's equation would need to be re-written as: ∞E=∞mc2 (perpetual motion).

Energy is derived from transformed mass. Astrophysicists know the approximate amount of mass that exists in the universe, they know it is finite. Because mass (m) is known to be finite (est 1-6 e79 atoms) so by necessity is energy (E). Once all he fuel (mass) is consumed no more work (motion) can occur , this being the reason Einstein did not derive his famous equation using infinity symbols, he was well aware of the finite nature of mass in his equation.

Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2014
a system in motion requires a constant input of energy or motion(work) ceases
Meanwhile, back in reality, Newton's First Law is offered for your contemplation:

An object in motion tends to remain in motion, at a constant velocity, and an object at rest to remain at rest, unless acted upon by a force.

You know, kinda like how the Earth keeps circling the Sun for ten billion years or so. (Five billion so far.)

What barber college did you go to where they supposedly gave you an "engineering" degree, and didn't teach you Newton's Laws of Motion?
Johnpaily
1 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2014
Big bang is a controlled phenomenon of information Unfolding and enfolding. The Big bang and Big collapse can only be understood from eastern point of view which visualizes universe as living being that is conscious and intelligent and which evolves and involutes to conquer time and initialize it self https://www.scrib...-Physics
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2014
a system in motion requires a constant input of energy or motion(work) ceases


An object in motion tends to remain in motion, at a constant velocity, and an object at rest to remain at rest, unless acted upon by a force.


You know, kinda like how the Earth keeps circling the Sun for ten billion years or so. (Five billion so far.)


So you have a car that never stops moving after the fuel tank is empty?
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2014
So there's friction in empty space?
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2014
So there's friction in empty space?

Space isn't empty, you're confusing it with your head.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2014
So there's friction in empty space?

Yeah, each cubic meter of interstellar space has several micron sized particles, and sometimes larger. If you were traveling in a hulled craft about the size of a space shuttle traveling at 100,000 mph hour intending to make a trip to the nearest star, you wouldn't make it. The kinetic energy imparted to the craft from just a few encounters with this dust will shred it to pieces making it look like spaghetti within the first light year of the voyage. On earth we call this the co-efficient of friction, first semester physics.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2014
So there's friction in empty space?

Space isn't empty, you're confusing it with your head.


........he can't help it, he believes in Perpetual Motion. In his perpetual universe there is no co-efficient of friction, probably because he has never seen a "trigonometric function" he could solve & is therefore clueless about the co-efficient of friction.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2014
If you were traveling in a hulled craft about the size of a space shuttle traveling at 100,000 mph hour intending to make a trip to the nearest star, you wouldn't make it. The kinetic energy imparted to the craft from just a few encounters with this dust will shred it to pieces making it look like spaghetti within the first light year of the voyage.
But the galaxies aren't moving; space is expanding. They don't encounter any resistance. See any of about fifty textbooks on cosmology. Lambda doesn't make things move, it makes space expand or contract; and the value of lambda in our universe makes things expand.

You know even less about relativity than you do about astrophysics.

You are completely innocent of the slightest clue about astrophysics, AFAICT. That makes you a crank, Lenni.

Besides, if there's all this friction, why hasn't the Earth fallen into the Sun? Duh.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 22, 2014
Benni claimed
Yeah, each cubic meter of interstellar space has several micron sized particles, and sometimes larger.
There are remnants from solar system formation & continue to be swept up & there are gas clouds its not clear what is mass density of interstellar space g/m^3 so please confirm, your claim U think with a reference ?

Benni claimed
The kinetic energy imparted to the craft from just a few encounters with this dust will shred it to pieces making it look like spaghetti within the first light year of the voyage.
If that were true; comets & asteroids outside solar orbital plane would have disappeared long ago into dust but, haven't - Y do you think ?

Pioneer, Voyager shredded do U think ?

Benni muttered
On earth we call this the co-efficient of friction, first semester physics.
No, please go back to uni, which btw ?
Be smart, check definition, drag is the correct term with different formula than coefficient of friction - do U think ?
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2014

You are completely innocent of the slightest clue about astrophysics, AFAICT. That makes you a crank, Lenni


You better watch your self there Schneib-Skippy. He is going to write down Different Equation and Trigonometry and Semi Circular Universe and Thermodynamical-I-Am-The-Nuclear-Engineer and went to the science school.

And if he really gets worked up he might even throw in the E=mc2 on you.

Not that he knows what any of that stuffs is, he just like to throw them out there for his mama to see him using scientific words.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (13) Nov 22, 2014
Da Schneib suggested
But the galaxies aren't moving; space is expanding.
Sorry to contradict you, everything is moving all the time & not necessarily that often in regular 'expansion' directions at all if you can attribute expansion as having a direction since inflation (of space) thought to expand along with matter...

Eg. Andromeda & Milky way will collide in ~3.5 billion years. There is no sensible concept of "stationary" in astronomy, all is in relative motion.
http://en.wikiped...a_Galaxy

Da Schneib
They don't encounter any resistance.
Well they could, negligible but, can be quantified. Solar systems do a passably good job vacuuming...

Da Schneib
Besides, if there's all this friction, why hasn't the Earth fallen into the Sun? Duh.
There is miniscule drag & tidal forces & mass increasing so its rotation is slowing (1.7mS/century).

Average orbital distance is considered chaotic but, with tiny increase, slowly fortunately for me :-)
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2014
Benni : Yeah, each cubic meter of interstellar space has several micron sized particles, and sometimes larger.

Benni claimed: The kinetic energy imparted to the craft from just a few encounters with this dust will shred it to pieces making it look like spaghetti within the first light year of the voyage.
If that were true; comets & asteroids outside solar orbital plane would have disappeared long ago into dust but, haven't - Y do you think ?
Why do you think these objects are pockmarked with craters if they're not hitting things? Just as that spaceship traveling at 100k mph will look when it is impacted a few times with interstellar dust.

On earth we call this the co-efficient of friction, first semester physics.

Be smart, check definition, drag is the correct term with different formula than coefficient of friction - do U think ?
.... "drag" is "friction", 1st semester physics.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 22, 2014
How imposed cosmological theory explains the rotation of all objects in the universe and the reason for their rotation in different directions?

Like with all other aspects there is something called conservation of angular momentum.

And like with all other consrvation laws it does not mean that angular momentum has to be zero everyhwere, but that if you add it all up you get al of it to cancel out.
(this goes also for your conservation of energy question, btw.)
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2014
Benni claimed: Yeah, each cubic meter of interstellar space has several micron sized particles, and sometimes larger.
There are remnants from solar system formation & continue to be swept up & there are gas clouds its not clear what is mass density of interstellar space g/m^3 so please confirm, your claim U think with a reference ?


Benni claimed: The kinetic energy imparted to the craft from just a few encounters with this dust will shred it to pieces making it look like spaghetti within the first light year of the voyage.
If that were true; comets & asteroids outside solar orbital plane would have disappeared long ago into dust but, haven't - Y do you think ?

Pioneer, Voyager shredded do U think ?
These craft are not traveling at 100k mph, more like 38k & much smaller than the Space Shuttle & asteroids, etc, so much less cumulative damage will occur in accordance with KE=1/2mv2 over the same period of time.

Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2014
How can you be sure that the total angular momentum of all objects in the universe is zero? But even assuming that it is zero, why should rotate these objects? This requires someone or something to carry out this work and rotate these objects, so that the total angular momentum to be zero. Work for the rotation of the all objects in the universe requires purposeful act and energy?

......doesn't need to be zero for the KE impact to inflict damage, it's just that the greater the angle of impact the less damage KE will impart to the object. A micron sized particle will strike an object at greater KE if the impact is "head-on" than if the object were impacted transversely (90 degrees to the vectors of direction between the two objects).
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2014
Benni claimed: Yeah, each cubic meter of interstellar space has several micron sized particles, and sometimes larger.
There are remnants from solar system formation & continue to be swept up & there are gas clouds its not clear what is mass density of interstellar space g/m^3 so please confirm, your claim U think with a reference ?


Mike, I'm only a babysitter to a couple of my kids this morning while the wife is out shopping with a couple of the older ones. You can do your own search by entering something like, "cosmic dust", "interstellar dust", and similar such terms.

Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2014
Da Schneib suggested
But the galaxies aren't moving; space is expanding.
Sorry to contradict you, everything is moving all the time & not necessarily that often in regular 'expansion' directions at all if you can attribute expansion as having a direction since inflation (of space) thought to expand along with matter...
I was speaking of the Hubble flow, not proper motion. I felt that the context was sufficient to make that clear, but I guess I should have been more specific.

Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2014
"But the galaxies aren't moving; space is expanding. They don't encounter any resistance. See any of about fifty textbooks on cosmology. Lambda doesn't make things move, it makes space expand or contract; and the value of lambda in our universe makes things expand."

Is it proven that space is expanding and what is the mechanism for this process?
Dark energy, which is the lambda in Einstein's field equations for gravity. Also known as "cosmological constant," the name for lambda. Also known as vacuum energy, demonstrated in the Casimir effect in the laboratory.

What physical process provides energy for this expansion
Cosmological constant. That's why they call it "dark energy."

and how such a process corresponds to the idea that the universe is a closed system and the law for conservation of energy in a such system?
1. Show that it's closed. Where's the edge?

contd
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2014
2. Cosmological constant is a property of space, and isn't conserved any more than space is. That's why it's called "vacuum energy." More vacuum, more cosmological constant.

Already proved that red shift is not due to expanding space and can not serve as proof for it.
Where was this "proved?" How about you show me the "proof."
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2014
@izzy_wichihin Has anyone ever considered that our science of the unknown especially when it comes to the universe is religiously and biblical in nature? Our modern science is based on what religion has provided as "knowledge" and this is extremely moronic, especially when you have political figureheads whom wished to use the christian religion which is prefabricated as a means to control society and subdue humankind.
This is correct. The big bang was 1st announced by a priest. I don't know why you have 22 downvotes except the xtians have reproduced themselves to some kind of critical density where the toilet is now flushing
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2014
Already proved that red shift is not due to expanding space and can not serve as proof for it.
Where was this "proved?" How about you show me the "proof."


Edwin Hubble once said that a single example of discordant redshift was enough to falsify the theory, Halton Arp found hundreds.

http://www.halton...articles

Once again, there is no "proof" in science.
imido
Nov 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
verkle
Nov 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 23, 2014
As invisible dark energy, matter, black holes, elastic space and extra dimensions.

Dark matter experiments are ongoing.We know something is causing the observed effects and that that something behaves as if it has mass. The classification as 'matter' comes from the fact that currently we only know of matter having that property.

Black holes are what fall out of the most successfull equation we have for cosmology (Relativity) and the observed energy phenomena at galactic centers don't fit any other explanation (at least none that don't contradict a slew of other observables).

Warped spacetime is also a result of Relativity. You yourself use it and observe it every day (without accounting properly for warped spacetime any kind of GPS wouldn't work the way it does. And without it e.g. gold would look silver.)

Extra dimensions are a hypothetical at this point. One untested theory among many.
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (14) Nov 23, 2014
The Big Bang Barefaced Bull is so fraught with unknowns I don't see how any scientist can put much faith in it.

It was weak to begin with. Now people are trying to patch on other wild ideas like "dark energy" and "invisible something but we magically make it to fit our views" type of matter.

The title of this article is now trying to preach "Gravity is our Savior".

Let's get back to real science.


You wouldn't know science if it smacked you in the face.
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2014
verkle doesnt understand hypocrisy or irony with
..Big Bang Barefaced Bull is so fraught with unknowns I don't see how any scientist can put much faith in it.
LOL,The bare faced claims of moses, jesus & mohammed have FAR MORE unknowns & logic failures, I don't see how any passably intelligent human free of emotional conditioning can put ANY faith in it !

verkle, by what means does your (omnipotent) deity communicate, Eg there
anything even a little better than lazy dis-orqanised humans subject to politics ?

verkle claimed
It was weak to begin with. Now people are trying to patch on other wild ideas like "dark energy" and "invisible something but we magically make it to fit our views" type of matter.
LOL - like the hallmark of feeble theories of creationists !

verkle
.. preach "Gravity is our Savior".
U & Preaching LOL !

verkle
Let's get back to real science.
Such as "emotional hypnosis" from people unable to raise a feeble intellect - lol ?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2014
Ren82 with even more ignorance
.. But Theory of GR is the result of human imagination and is only pure mathematical experiment, that is not confirmed in reality.
Idiocy & WRONG, with your failure of cognition & failures of logic in so many areas !

GR & SR PROVED many times, early:-
http://en.wikiped...periment

PROVEN, practical, used AND confirmed by millions EVERY single day worldwide !!!!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System

Ren82 proved very narrow appreciation why Science immensely exceeds religion ALWAYS
..Or the presence of invisible not verifiable phenomenon, which must fill the cracks in this theory?
U said your approach to learning is NO formal studies, this means U cannot know what you need to know to get a FULL understanding (even just) of physics, sporadically grasping technical oddities WON'T help.

Formal (physics) courses are structured for essential purpose, go do them !
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Nov 23, 2014
that is not confirmed in reality.

I dunno what planet you live on, but on planet Earth Relativity has been confirmed in every experiment so far. You might want to open your eyes. Look at a piece of gold or your GPS. Relativity confirmed.

its imperfect mathematical apparatus that allows singularities?

Ah. NOW we're getting somewhere. I see where your problems lie. You think math (as used in physical theories) is reality. It is not. Physics is a model. Models aren't perfect (the only perfect model of a thing is the thing itself).
But models can be very, very good. There is no such thing as a 'completely right' physical law. Physics is always right to a certain degree (and again: that degree can be very, very good). That is why we probe at the points where the models grow iffy (the singularities). To see if we can get at even better models.
This does'n prove models wrong. it just supplants them with better ones.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Nov 23, 2014
So saying "model X is wrong" is no great feat of the 'unsung genius'. Every scientists konws that every law we have isn't completely right. That's the first thing you learn (and something I'm surprised wasn't taught to you in school).
The genius lies in coming up with something that is BETTER than the current best theory. And not just better for that one observation but better when applied to ALL data of ALL previous observations on everything.

Before we ditch a theory we need a better theory.

Unless and until you can provide that all your moaning and whining is just that: moaning and whining.
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2014
Already proved that red shift is not due to expanding space and can not serve as proof for it.
Where was this "proved?" How about you show me the "proof."


Edwin Hubble once said that a single example of discordant redshift was enough to falsify the theory, Halton Arp found hundreds.

http://www.halton...articles

Once again, there is no "proof" in science.


Good read. Thanks for posting
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2014
Dark energy, which is the lambda in Einstein's field equations for gravity

You should actually Einstein's GR & stop reading things into it that fits your theories of Perpetual Motion.

Also known as "cosmological constant," the name for lambda. Also known as vacuum energy, demonstrated in the Casimir effect in the laboratory.


Bullroar on a toothpick. The Casimir Effect wasn't hypothsized until 1948 & not proven to exist until the 70's or 80's, so it was never a consideration by Einstein to be included as part of the Cosmological Constant. This force does not work at cosmological distances & is not a significant force until the distance between the two plates in the lab are less than 10 nanometers. Do you know how short a distance that is? Only a few times larger than the radius of an atom.

If you want your vaunted Casimir Effect to be the source of DE for the Cosmological Constant, the mass size of the parallel plates is beyond the availability of finite mass.

imido
Nov 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2014
Actually Einstein believed in steady state Universe and he introduced his constant for to achieve the steady state Universe with general relativity theory. The current cosmological constant is responsible for accelerated expansion of Universe instead - it's completely different number of different meaning. Da Schneib is similar troll, like Captain Stumpy.


I've also read that Einstein thought he made a mistake in his Field Equations & pulled the CC he originally calculated for his 1916 release of GR, he thought he made a mistake in assuming his math should have indicated "steady state", he however disbelieved his original calculation that indicated "expanding". His "blunder" was in disbelieving his original math & dropping it, then of course having to insert it when observations by Hubble proved Einstein's original math correct that he should have included it to account for "expansion". By now It doesn't matter anymore, we "got it", that's the important part.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 24, 2014
Ren82 doesn't understand physics
If these clocks were not boarding on the aircraft but had stayed in two rooms close to each other, can we be sure that after some time will show the same time without any difference?
Your question proves U cannot get educated in Science, especially Physics. Chemistry, BioChemistry, Microbiology etc because U don't know what the "key essentials" are & how to even approach them & desperately need MATHS !

Did U read link to the experiment & looked at references FULLY ?

Instrumentation calibration & design is a specific & advanced study, the imponderables you ask about are well addressed by the choice of instrumentation & procedures to ensure synchronization.

Ren82 PLEASE read the link, especially section on GR & SR continuously used on GPS !
http://en.wikiped...g_System

Do U understand now, your base education approach to physics & chem is FLAWED, U NEED maths !
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (11) Nov 24, 2014
Ren82 claimed
There is a better theory but it does not fit the desires of some people.
Please explain this "better theory" on Einstein's GR & SR proven all over the world each DAY ?

Where is this "better theory" documented ?

Have U ever used GPS eg on a phone or navigation computer in your car ?

Ren82, you desperately need a FORMAL educative approach to physics because it DEMANDS you understand the underlying maths.

Bibles, in fact no religious work has ever taught calculus or even basic algebra !

Ren82, your primitive attachment to an old book of an idea of a claim of a person spoke to a god has NO education value at all to deal with physical reality or anything useful.

Your god kills arbitrarily (Samuel), this is the worst example of a claimed loving god, yuck !

Ren82, since U have proven U cannot understand simple physics then how can U understand chemistry re bonding as it is founded FULLY upon physics ?

Ren82 is wasting time & cannot advance :-(
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2014
Ren82, since U have proven U cannot understand simple physics then how can U understand chemistry re bonding as it is founded FULLY upon physics ?

Ren82 is wasting time & cannot advance :-(


Mike.........but you have no problem accepting the standard bearers of "perpetual motion" & their denial of Einstein's mass/energy equivalence principle. So much of the preceding commentary claims to have discovered sources of "unlimited energy" absent transformation of mass to energy as a means to power up the cosmological constant. You believe in things "eternal" just like those you criticize, it's just a matter of whose eternal "god" is bowed down to, yours or someone else's.

The question comes back to you o'believer of your god of eternal energy, have you ever seen a Differential Equation" in Einstein's GR that you could solve? Maybe you too believe Einstein was thinking about the Casimir Effect when he later inserted the "cosmological constant" into his GR?
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (11) Nov 24, 2014
Ren82 Appreciate
SR & GR & maths to understand it, part of FORMAL studies in physics.
U claimed to have knowledge of "key essentials", that is obviously a LIE, because if U did U would Know SR & GR are everywhere, Eg. Why Gold does not look like Silver etc.

BEST advice to U is get FORMAL education in physics & maths NECESSARY to understand physics, then when U get a bit older U can understand chemistry based upon the physics.
Eg. Re Bonding principles based upon physics of atoms & electron orbitals & issues such as relativistic EVIDENCE of those orbitals eg Gold colour

Have already indicated to U to look at references of 1 experiment, there are HUNDREDS of these ALL over the world which confirm GR & SR extremely well !

GPS works ALL the time, correction factors are VERY well correlated with SR/GR, it's been proven MANY times over many DECADES, other effects trying to explain GPS corrections are not observed !

Understand your god is a very bad communicator !

TBC
TimLong2001
1 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2014
The minute mass of the photon, "DEFINED" as zero, is enough to account for the background red shift. Of course, the other inconsistencies of expansion (dark matter, dark energy and acceleration of expansion) would fall away as well.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (12) Nov 24, 2014
Benni rather confused, claimed
Mike.........but you have no problem accepting the standard bearers of "perpetual motion" & their denial of Einstein's mass/energy equivalence principle.
You have me confused with someone else, not an advocate of 'perpetual motion' one bit & not up to speed on 'standard bearers'.

All should note.
Before people comment here, no matter who they are or think they are, they should check not only the physics but definitions of essential technical terms. It is of great importance to exercise integrity to avoid muddying the waters & communicate as precisely as possible, in that I am with runrig & thermodynamics, we have all observed striking ignorance of posters & occasionally journalists who write articles here & those that claim uni qualifications shoot from the hip making illogical & irrational assumptions & get caught so easily - especially those of religious dogmatic mindset.

Focus on Education in physics please, it works !
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2014
Muttering Mike says:

Benni rather confused, claimed
Mike.........but you have no problem accepting the standard bearers of "perpetual motion" & their denial of Einstein's mass/energy equivalence principle.


You have me confused with someone else, not an advocate of 'perpetual motion' one bit & not up to speed on 'standard bearers'.


No Muttering Mike, I don't have you "confused with someone else", I simply follow where your one star rage votes are cast along with the usual suspects who hate it when I get on here challenging their mathematical proficiency as well as their comprehension of Einstein's mass/energy equivalence principle, this in addition to their reading profuse tripe into Einstein's GR that he never alluded to.

Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 24, 2014
Benni claimed
No Muttering Mike, I don't have you "confused with someone else", I simply follow where your one star rage votes are cast along with the usual suspects who hate it when I get on here challenging their mathematical proficiency as well as their comprehension of Einstein's mass/energy equivalence principle, this in addition to their reading profuse tripe into Einstein's GR that he never alluded to.
You are misreading or deluded, ill or on something.

I have never commented on GR equivalence or even engaged in that debate/dialectic.

I have Never voted on your posts Ever, feel free to check your comment vote profile:-
https://sciencex....i/?v=act

Wake-up please, no knee jerk reactions, I am into core physics not tangential stuff, if there is evidence I will read but, rarely comment if ever at least until I have gone through the maths in detail.

Get better soon, when you do it would be appropriate to send me an apology.

Cheers
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2014
I have never commented on GR equivalence or even engaged in that debate/dialectic.

...and I can see why , there is no "GR equivalence". Just goes to show how little you really know about science & the contents of Einstein's GR. The Equivalence Principle is Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 which predates his GR by a decade.

I have Never voted on your posts Ever, feel free to check your comment vote profile:-
https://sciencex....i/?v=act

OK Muttering Mike, I'll give you that one.

Wake-up please, no knee jerk reactions, I am into core physics not tangential stuff

Then how did you miss the "equivalence principle" as I pointed out above?

if there is evidence I will read but, rarely comment if ever at least until I have gone through the maths in detail.
OK, then start with a reading of Einstein's mass/energy equivalence principle & let us know what you've learned about "transformation", then move onto GR & learn about the Universe.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2014
The purpose of this forum is everyone to share ideas and opinions, and not to give qualifications to participants.
@ren
you are wrong
the purpose is to comment on the article posted, and if you would read the guidelines (found here: https://sciencex....omments/ ) then you will also note that you should be including science as well as leaving out the PSEUDOSCIENCE
that means the religious BS like you've been posting that tries to force the data to fit the bible

that is NOT science

and even the most patient person will get fed up with continuing to provide evidence while you ignore it all and keep posting delusional religious BS
if you want to proselytize & get converts, go find a relevant forum
if you want to comment here, provide empirical evidence from reputable peer reviewed sources, not your religious anti-science
there is NO science in creationist movement, and even the judges recognize that
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 24, 2014
Just goes to show how little you really know about science & the contents of Einstein's GR. The Equivalence Principle is Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 which predates his GR by a decade.


Bennie-Skippy that is why nobody believes your claiming to the scientist-engineer-science-school-Skippy. You gets everything wrong. Why don't you look up what the Einstein-Skippy really has to say?

Einstein's Equivalence Principle:

A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:

(Inertial mass) x (Acceleration) = (Intensity of the gravitational field) x (Gravitational mass)


Einstein-Skippy's own words.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2014
........oh, yes, Ira this is true, but the context of the topic under discussion which I brought up was not GR, it was the Mass/ Energy Equivalence Principle predating GR by a decade. I was trying to make it abundantly clear that E=mc2 was not derived as part of Einstein's GR and it appeared to me Muttering Mike was confusing the two very different issues just as you are doing. And he like you didn't know the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle wasn't part of Einstein's GR until I pointed it out. Muttering Mike couldn't stay on topic evidenced by the fact he inserted GR into something I wasn't even talking about .
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 24, 2014
........oh, yes, Ira this is true, but the context of the topic under discussion which I brought up was not GR, it was the Mass/ Energy Equivalence Principle predating GR by a decade. I was trying to make it abundantly clear that E=mc2 was not derived as part of Einstein's GR and it appeared to me Muttering Mike was confusing the two very different issues just as you are doing. And he like you didn't know the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle wasn't part of Einstein's GR until I pointed it out. Muttering Mike couldn't stay on topic evidenced by the fact he inserted GR into something I wasn't even talking about .


Nice try Bennie-Skippy but now all you done was make more attention to your wrong stuff. Again. Mike-Skippy had it right. Ira-Skippy had it right. Because we knew the article was about Gravity. The GR is about Gravity. So you don't try to hide your foolishment with more foolishment, When you do that we know you aren't really the engineer you say you are.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2014
Ah, yes, Ira.........I see it is remains beyond your comprehension that I framed the context of the topic of discussion into which Muttering Mike inserted a completely different issue. You're just as behind the times in science as your braggadocio about obtaining a ham radio operator license, indicating that you haven't realized the world moved onto to cell phones 20 years ago while you continue dabbling around in trinket technology no one cares about.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2014
You're just as behind the times in science as your braggadocio about obtaining a ham radio operator license, indicating that you haven't realized the world moved onto to cell phones 20 years ago while you continue dabbling around in trinket technology no one cares about.


It's called a hobby Bennie-Skippy. It's the challenge that makes it fun to do. Cell phones ain't no hobby. Shoot, even little-Ira-Skippy was using one of those about six or five years ago when he was seven years old. That would make the little-Ira-Skippy at least as smart as the Bennie-Skippy, and little-Ira-Skippy is not the nuclear-engineer-Skippy like you are not either.
Zera
not rated yet Nov 24, 2014
Electromagnetic forces do not distort space although these are many orders of magnitude more intense than gravity. Is it possible concentrated mass instead to distorts space, only to change its electromagnetic permeability of the vacuum of space? We can think of it as a environment that carries electromagnetic waves and violent interactions between the particles. Is it possible gravity to be a form of electromagnetism? Its strength decreases inversely to the square of the distance to the source. The strength of electromagnetism decreases in the same law.


I suppose if all mass contains electrons, protons and neutrons and you were to observe all matter at a solar/galactic scale there might be some pattern to the dispersal of energy, aka a solar system is an area of high potential, with the ions being comparatively (Positive) or (Light) in comparison to the "dark energy" present elsewhere, and the weak interaction between the two forms the effect known as gravity?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2014
Benni claimed
...and I can see why , there is no "GR equivalence". Just goes to show how little you really know about science...
No. You are mistaken. Fact I chose not to engage in debate doesn't imply "..how little U really know.." (shakes head) !

Your irascible behaviour does U no credit.

It's not mature dialectic however, it IS consistent with those missing opportunity of formal study at educational institutes & who become emotionally attached to ill formed ideas, sadly too common.

Benni
OK Muttering Mike, I'll give you that one.
If U checked earlier U wouldn't look foolish, therefore not a sincere apology.

Benni
Then how did you miss the "equivalence principle" as I pointed out above?
Already told U, not interested (currently) in that debate !

Benni
OK, then start with.. what you've learned...then move onto GR ...
NOT your place to tell me what to do !

Be smarter, don't goad people into argument, learn best protocols of uni study/debate.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2014
Explain how GR is proven and what is it relationship with GPS satellites.

Here you can find a plethora of experiments/observations
Special Relativity
http://en.wikiped...lativity
General Relativity
http://en.wikiped...lativity

Honest scientist with a responsible attitude to science would not accept the theory that proposes and relies on singularities

It does not rely on singularities. Singularities are simply the points where it makes no predictions. We know that Relativity and Quantum mechanics aren't compatible in some regimes (i.e. that both theories aren't completely correct). We know that to unify them something new must be introduced. None of this is news. Again: physics isn't math. In math something can be proven 'true'. In Physics not so.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2014
Benni claimed
..Muttering Mike couldn't stay on topic evidenced by the fact he inserted GR into something I wasn't even talking about .
You are mistaken (again).
I replied to Ren82 re his blurt
..GR is the result of human imagination and is only pure mathematical experiment
Which is Obviously completely wrong & in that respect both Ren82 & U make idle arrogant claims U know what is in people's minds & allusions to claims of knowledge (& study).

Benni, U chose language implying (at least) first sem uni physics but, your (continuing); language, concepts & critique isn't consistent with such.

Eg. In physics you should KNOW to apply the correct term to the appropriate paradigm.

Benni
.... "drag" is "friction", 1st semester physics.
Not entirely true, your lack of precision goes to prove U either didnt study physics or didnt complete it.

TBC
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2014
@Benni
cont

Describing a vehicle & drag through fluid (gaseous) U don't use coefficient of friction, that is absurd (friction is re surfaces), heard of Cd ?

Motion through space is consistent with motion through fluids incl particulates within relative homogeneity of the medium gases/particulates.

Your claim Benni to apply coefficient of friction to space travel is absurd when its drag coefficient (Cd) is the far more appropriate term (shakes head)

Things like this & others accumulate perception U couldn't have studied/completed physics to any sort of (even) equivalent university level - which uni btw & when ?

Mine was at WAIT (Western Australian Institute of Technology) from 1976 to 1982 (full/part) in Ba Sci (EE) & several cross discipline units (eg Mech) incl tutoring IT & business microcomputing & Post.G Applied stats.

Institute re-named Curtin University, I returned 2010 for Post.G in Food Science, microbiology etc My student no 07602128, look me up :-)

TBC
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2014
@Benni
cont

One of the clear issues re dialectic in respect of physics (& math) as core of raising understanding & education is value of convergence protocols in such discussions & the earnest value is it (mostly) resists name calling, references to (personal) histories & when approached with integrity does asymptotically reach a confirmation of several types, such as;

- whether one party or the other is versed in sufficient background knowledge to articulate a mathematical position for physics
- whether people are precise in their definitions & how it affects their hypothesis etc

ie Lets call this "Convergent Dialectic" with its aim to avoid all these; bluster, divergence, name calling, loss of focus etc.

Unfortunately, not that simple to approach at sort of levels seen here because:-

- Opinions can be slippery, helps immensely to define precisely
- Requires good education level WITH necessary maths pre-requisities in Eg Physics

More later if need be
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2014
Most experiments on the subject are described in a few sentences

You may do your own googling. The experiments and their descriptions (and for the most part the resulting papers) are readily available on the net.

I found no evidence of elastic space and space deformation by gravity

Then you may try reading it - and not just looking at the pretty pictures.

when there are more intuitive explanations.

You have presented your 'intuitive' explanations - and people have told you why your intuition is completely wrong. Intuition doesn't count for shit in science. Observation trumps intuition every time.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2014
Ren82 claimed
Some effects are attributable to deformed space, but it is not clear why, when there are more intuitive explanations.
And these are pray tell ?

How are you going in terms of answers to my questions re your deity & the logic of Genesis ?

ie. If you really believe god punished a girl (eve) for eating a fruit god put there (and pointed it out knowing in advance she WOULD eat it) and that punishment was put on everyone which includes all suffering for all life for ever & ever regardless of jesus THEN if someone goes against god's punishment by treating & alleviating suffering then isn't that a greater sin, so if that logic were followed to conclusion then all doctors & nurses are against god ?

Does your god make extra punishment for doctors & nurses - even if they are christians ?

Is there evidence that christian doctors/nurses therefore suffer less than non christians ?

Do u understand whats meant by inference, deduction & how about evidence ?
Lex Talonis
not rated yet Jan 14, 2015
And on the 7th day I rested...

Now fuck off.

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

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