Accelerating universe? Not so fast

April 10, 2015, University of Arizona
An optical image of galaxy M101 obtained by Adam Block with the UA's Mt. Lemmon Sky Center. Credit: Adam Block

A University of Arizona-led team of astronomers found that the type of supernovae commonly used to measure distances in the universe fall into distinct populations not recognized before; the findings have implications for our understanding of how fast the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang.

Certain types of supernovae, or exploding stars, are more diverse than previously thought, a University of Arizona-led team of astronomers has discovered. The results, reported in two papers published in the Astrophysical Journal, have implications for big cosmological questions, such as how fast the has been expanding since the Big Bang.

Most importantly, the findings hint at the possibility that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe might not be quite as fast as textbooks say.

The team, led by UA astronomer Peter A. Milne, discovered that type Ia supernovae, which have been considered so uniform that cosmologists have used them as cosmic "beacons" to plumb the depths of the universe, actually fall into different populations. The findings are analogous to sampling a selection of 100-watt light bulbs at the hardware store and discovering that they vary in brightness.

"We found that the differences are not random, but lead to separating Ia supernovae into two groups, where the group that is in the minority near us are in the majority at large distances—and thus when the universe was younger," said Milne, an associate astronomer with the UA's Department of Astronomy and Steward Observatory. "There are different populations out there, and they have not been recognized. The big assumption has been that as you go from near to far, type Ia supernovae are the same. That doesn't appear to be the case."

The discovery casts new light on the currently accepted view of the universe expanding at a faster and faster rate, pulled apart by a poorly understood force called dark energy. This view is based on observations that resulted in the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics awarded to three scientists, including UA alumnus Brian P. Schmidt.

The Nobel laureates discovered independently that many supernovae appeared fainter than predicted because they had moved farther away from Earth than they should have done if the universe expanded at the same rate. This indicated that the rate at which stars and galaxies move away from each other is increasing; in other words, something has been pushing the universe apart faster and faster.

That same galaxy in a NASA Swift image is shown, with bars indicating the location of supernova SN 2011fe. The Swift image is a false-color image with UV emission blue and optical emission red. Credit: NASA/Swift
"The idea behind this reasoning," Milne explained, "is that type Ia supernovae happen to be the same brightness—they all end up pretty similar when they explode. Once people knew why, they started using them as mileposts for the far side of the universe.

"The faraway supernovae should be like the ones nearby because they look like them, but because they're fainter than expected, it led people to conclude they're farther away than expected, and this in turn has led to the conclusion that the universe is expanding faster than it did in the past."

Milne and his co-authors—Ryan J. Foley of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Peter J. Brown at Texas A&M University and Gautham Narayan of the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, or NOAO, in Tucson—observed a large sample of type Ia supernovae in ultraviolet and visible light. For their study, they combined observations made by the Hubble Space Telescope with those made by NASA's Swift satellite.

The data collected with Swift were crucial because the differences between the populations—slight shifts toward the red or the blue spectrum—are subtle in visible light, which had been used to detect type Ia supernovae previously, but became obvious only through Swift's dedicated follow-up observations in the ultraviolet.

"These are great results," said Neil Gehrels, principal investigator of the Swift satellite, who co-authored the first paper. "I am delighted that Swift has provided such important observations, which have been made toward a science goal that is completely independent of the primary mission. It demonstrates the flexibility of our satellite to respond to new phenomena swiftly."

"The realization that there were two groups of type Ia supernovae started with Swift data," Milne said. "Then we went through other datasets to see if we see the same. And we found the trend to be present in all the other datasets.

"As you're going back in time, we see a change in the supernovae population," he added. "The explosion has something different about it, something that doesn't jump out at you when you look at it in optical light, but we see it in the ultraviolet.

"Since nobody realized that before, all these supernovae were thrown in the same barrel. But if you were to look at 10 of them nearby, those 10 are going to be redder on average than a sample of 10 faraway supernovae."

The authors conclude that some of the reported acceleration of the universe can be explained by color differences between the two groups of supernovae, leaving less acceleration than initially reported. This would, in turn, require less dark energy than currently assumed.

"We're proposing that our data suggest there might be less dark energy than textbook knowledge, but we can't put a number on it," Milne said. "Until our paper, the two populations of were treated as the same population. To get that final answer, you need to do all that work again, separately for the red and for the blue population."

The authors pointed out that more data have to be collected before scientists can understand the impact on current measures of . Scientists and instruments in Arizona will play important roles in these studies, according to Milne. These include projects led by NOAO; the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, or LSST, whose primary mirror was produced at the UA; and a camera built by the UA's Imaging Technology Lab for the Super-LOTIS telescope on Kitt Peak southwest of Tucson. Super-LOTIS is a robotic telescope that will use the new camera to follow up on gamma-ray bursts—the "muzzle flash" of a supernova—detected by Swift.

Explore further: Astronomers identify the best supernovae for measuring cosmic distances

More information: The Changing Fractions of Type Ia Supernova NUV—Optical Subclasses with Redshift, Peter A. Milne et al. 2015, ApJ 803 20 DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/20

Related Stories

Hubble view of a cosmological measuring tape

April 10, 2015

This NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows the spiral galaxy NGC 3021 which lies about 100 million light-years away in the constellation of Leo Minor (The Little Lion).

Hubble monitors supernova in nearby galaxy M82

February 26, 2014

This is a Hubble Space Telescope composite image of a supernova explosion designated SN 2014J in the galaxy M82. At a distance of approximately 11.5 million light-years from Earth it is the closest supernova of its type discovered ...

One supernova type, two different sources

May 7, 2012

The exploding stars known as Type Ia supernovae serve an important role in measuring the universe, and were used to discover the existence of dark energy. They're bright enough to see across large distances, and similar enough ...

The best way to measure dark energy just got better

January 13, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Dark energy is a mysterious force that pervades all space, acting as a "push" to accelerate the Universe's expansion. Despite being 70 percent of the Universe, dark energy was only discovered in 1998 by two ...

Recommended for you

Exoplanet stepping stones

November 20, 2018

Astronomers have gleaned some of the best data yet on the composition of a planet known as HR 8799c—a young giant gas planet about 7 times the mass of Jupiter that orbits its star every 200 years.

Encouraging prospects for moon hunters

November 20, 2018

Astrophysicists of the University of Zürich, ETH Zürich and the NCCR PlanetS show how the icy moons of Uranus were born. Their result suggests that such potentially habitable worlds are much more abundant in the Universe ...

Gravitationally lensed quasars

November 19, 2018

The path of light is bent by mass, an effect predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity, and when a massive galaxy or cluster lies along our line-of-sight to a more distant galaxy its matter will act as a lens to image the ...

87 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
1.8 / 5 (34) Apr 10, 2015
It's OK, please, no one panic just yet, we can fix this lack of Dark Energy with some cosmic fairy dust , Dark Matter. To do this maybe we change the content of DM from 90% of the universe to say 92%? Maybe 93%? I know, we need a climatology expert in here to tell us how to fix this problem.
version782
Apr 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
saposjoint
3.3 / 5 (29) Apr 10, 2015
Benni: Screw yourself, halfwit troll.
Whydening Gyre
3.6 / 5 (19) Apr 10, 2015
No matter how many mechanisms are introduced, the fundamental act of creation is done by God.

GOD = [G]eodesically [O]rdinated [D]ata ... invested in one thing - itself..

Or you could even say "[G]lobs [O]f [D]ata"...
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (16) Apr 10, 2015
Hi Benni. I understand your cynicism re cosmological science/theory 'interpretations' of actual astronomical observational evidence IN THE PAST. But NOW the cosmological science/theory community is coming round to what I/many have been trying to point out; namely, that: 'expansion/inflation' concept goes against Occam's Razor, and therefore PAST 'interpretations' of Supernovae-based 'distance' data MUST BE faulty. Obviously supernovae 'standard candles' were NOT all identical as assumed. Naturally, the gang of 'expert ignoramuses' making up the old mod-troll gangs didn't want to know. They preferred to unfairly abuse/ban anyone pointing out that their uncritical 'faith' in 'mainstream cosmology' was NOT 'scientific' but rather herd-ego-tripping. I highlighted, and provided them, with many examples of Big Bang 'confirmation biased' interpretations/assumptions, to no avail; only lame mod-troll-gang excuses.

PS: Please leave Climate Science/Scientists out of this. Not fair. ok?
abecedarian
3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2015
Okay, so nearby 1A are more red than far away ones, meaning less red-shift farther away, right?
Therefore, the farther away, the slower things move away, right?

/me not an astronomer / astrophysicist.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (25) Apr 10, 2015
Hi Benni. I understand your cynicism re cosmological science/theory 'interpretations' of actual astronomical observational evidence.....

PS: Please leave Climate Science/Scientists out of this. Not fair. ok?


You know RC, you make a good point. I keep confusing the members of the Church of the Holy Hockey Stick who live on this site to the true climate scientists who know how to solve a Rate of Reaction Equation & the cosmologists who know how to solve the Differential Equations in Einsteins' GR. Tell you what RC, I'll try to "repent", but when one has my proficiency in Differential Equations it is not easy to become humble enough to do the penance that the CHHS would accept.
jeffensley
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2015
I love this stuff. Another article recently questioned our interpretation of red-shift as well. It's not the information, it's how we interpret it.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (16) Apr 10, 2015
Since nobody realized that before, all these supernovae were thrown in the same barrel. But if you were to look at 10 of them nearby, those 10 are going to be redder on average than a SAMPLE of 10 faraway supernovae."

I had a theory that gravity always red-shifts light, whether coming or going.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (19) Apr 10, 2015
I had a theory that gravity always red-shifts light, whether coming or going.
You're 50% correct. It's called the "Einstein Effect" or "gravitational red & blue shift". The resultant effect being that the frequency (energy) of a photon is reduced when it encounters an area of higher gravity & vice versa when it encounters an area of lower gravity it is blue shifted.

Plug it into a search engine, it's there.
funkyplasmaman
2 / 5 (13) Apr 10, 2015
i must admit its encouraging to see post like this, for far too long as the mainstream cosmologists hung onto their weak theories in the face of observations and experiments. maybe now they can accept the absolute failing of big bang cosmology and move onto real empirical science leaving the theory backed by theory years behind. as far back as 2006 it was shown that redshift had an intrinsic property caused by electron density and the doppler model wasn't reliable. further to that the late great Halton Arp postulated this point at least 20 years prior to this and was vilified for doing so. occams razor, conservation of energy, cause and effect, even the scientific principle, have all been ignored to promote this Genesis concept. when science turns its back on such fundamental rules all we can expect to gain is the chaos the big bang theory has given us.
DonGateley
4.5 / 5 (14) Apr 10, 2015
Unless the recalculated result for expansion or acceleration comes out zero this is just a recalibration.
VCRAGAIN
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 10, 2015
funkyplasmaman : yeah - thank-you - getting so fed up with the "math=fact" viewpoint of cosmos science - they are suddenly in the past year now gradually admitting plasma and electrical concepts - altho of course they only admit to magnetism, without realizing you cannot have magnetism all by itself !! I discovered Electric Universe concepts a couple of years ago, dove in, and excitedly discovered it made total sense & I could absolutely understand and recognize what is out there ! How wonderful, as-below-so-above explains the whole thing without all that crazy math they cannot put down because that is all they know, and they are missing the big wonderful picture. Humility is seriously lacking in science !
allergg
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2015
While stars burn, they consume matter. In the process, they lose mass and consequently, gravity. So as the amount of gravity in the unverse decreases, doesn't that make the universe 'appear' to be accelerating ? I think this effect should be included in the calculations but i never see any such stories. It seems to me that as the 'glue' that holds the unverse together gets weaker, the expansion might 'appear' to be accelerating. I suspect that we do not yet have a good means to measure the motions of the heavens.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (14) Apr 10, 2015
While stars burn, they consume matter. In the process, they lose mass and consequently, gravity
Correct to this point

So as the amount of gravity in the unverse decreases


When mass is transformed to energy, gravity is conserved within the density of the flux field. If half the mass of something is transformed to energy then half the gravity that was once inherent to the mass now becomes inherent to the energy field, better known as the Energy/Mass Equivalence Principle of Special Relativity. Nothing is lost, nothing is wasted..........ever.

allergg
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2015
Widening Gyre , How about GOD = Grand Overall Design ?
Tomator
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 11, 2015
No matter how many mechanisms are introduced, the fundamental act of creation is done by God.


This might be true, however the most important question is "how" and "how does it work".
We can replace "how" with "why" in above questions as well...
...and still have reason for research.
viko_mx
2 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2015
Today cosmologists over trust the popular theory which rely on bold assumptions and claims that white dwarfs detonate under the same circumstances in Ia supernova and radiate the same amount of energy in this process - it is accepted that chemical composition and distribution of the chemical elements within the volume of this type of stars is the same according the theory. But it may not be true and energy released from these stars in the process of detonation can also be very different, which already makes these super novas too inappropriate for measuring large cosmic distances. Cosmologists rely solely on the theory that there is no way to be verified. And we can summarize that there is no certainty in cosmology and it turns into science with type slender tower.
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 11, 2015
Widening Gyre , How about GOD = Grand Overall Design ?

Or - Guy On Drugs...?
You could acronymize all day. At least my data one makes a little actual sense...
Creationists fail to realize that it's their own rationalization/organizational process they are seeing a "Grand Design" in.
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 11, 2015
We do not even know whether white dwarfs are real or are only theoretical assumptions.
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 11, 2015
Today cosmologists over trust the popular theory which rely on bold assumptions and claims that white dwarfs detonate under the same circumstances in Ia supernova and radiate the same amount of energy in this process - it is accepted that chemical composition and distribution ... But it may not be true and energy released from these stars in the process of detonation can also be very different, which already makes these super novas too inappropriate for measuring large cosmic distances. Cosmologists rely solely on the theory that there is no way to be verified. And we can summarize that there is no certainty in cosmology and it turns into science with type slender tower.

"Theory" is simply a way of defining observations to date. The object of science is to refine that definition. It ain't a quick or even efficient way of getting the job done. If you have a better way, by all means, clue the rest of us in.
BTW - do it WITHOUT a "grand old designer"...
Tomator
2.2 / 5 (13) Apr 11, 2015
Supernovae aren't as uniform as they were thought to be.
Some quasars appear to emerge from galaxies far closer than quasars are believed to be.
Gravitational wave detector found no such waves.
Looking for dark matter brought an idea that it is abundant everywhere but in Solar System. Because here no trace of one is found.

there might be less dark energy than textbook knowledge, but we can't put a number on it

Well, how about zero? Of course they cannot put zero on it. That could be out of imagination of majotity of astronomers that have built their careers on dark matter and energy. And they would have been cut of telescopes to stop their "ridiculous research".

All of that could mean that there was no Big Bang and the Universe is just eternal with no beginning and no end. Although dynamic, the Universe doesn't expand, being limitless already. Dark matter and dark energy are no longer needed to explain anything. Could they be a phlogiston of the 20th century?
viko_mx
1.5 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2015
There is no way to detect gravitational waves because it does not exist deformed space . There is distorted way of thinking of some main stream scientists that tries to adjust the reality to the insolvent but comfortable theories. This is not science but a faith dealing with mysticism. And on top of this some authors have the audacity to complain that modern mysticism was not taken seriously.
I Have Questions
3.9 / 5 (14) Apr 11, 2015
No matter how many mechanisms are introduced, the fundamental act of creation is done by God.

You have to be pretty stupid to be satisfied with thinking you know who did it, but do not even want to know how it works.

Try looking up quantum mechanics, cosmology or just plane physics in your Bible, it's not in there.

Your Bible is worthless when it comes to understanding nature or anything that has to do with reality.
viko_mx
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 11, 2015
"Do not let school interfere with your education."
Mark Twain
Rustybolts
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2015
Just imagine what you won't know tomorrow!

This was already said 5 years ago on a you tube video. Glad to see there at least watching videos.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 11, 2015
This result, if true, leaves us with the problem of how these populations come about, as a function of distance.

Yes. But remember that a fuction of observed distance is a function of time. So we're not so much asking how more distant IA supernovae are different but why were they different during the earlier phases of the uiverse.
One thing to look at could be how these supernovae change when you have more heavier elements in the mix (which is something that you only get after at least one generation of stars have been around before the star that then goes supernova even starts to form).
Timothy_Riches
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 11, 2015
No matter how many mechanisms are introduced, the fundamental act of creation is done by God.

When those who make extraordinary claims don't, for whatever reason, take their burden of proof seriously, they relieve us of the burden of taking their claim seriously.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (16) Apr 11, 2015
There is no way to detect gravitational waves because it does not exist deformed space .

You are aware that the things you use in everyday life (like any type of GPS navigation) wouldn't work if deformed space weren't taken into account?

It's one thing to say "ain't so"...but if you're typing it on the very thing in your hand that proves you wrong...Jeez, man.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2015

"You are aware that the things you use in everyday life (like any type of GPS navigation) wouldn't work if deformed space weren't taken into account?"

Are you sure? If you think so, think again.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2015
For example you can think about how many different correction is needed for the propper work of GPS satelites and in this picture whether the correction which must compensate relativity proposed by theory, have any practical effect on the propper operation of this system? Or all is wind and fog.
Returners
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 11, 2015
Unless the recalculated result for expansion or acceleration comes out zero this is just a recalibration.


A recalibration of this magnitude could explain away lots of things though, including narrowing mass/energy windows for any illusive particles.

Also the results of this might be counter-intuitive, because the Red population might be distributed in a way that isn't obvious yet.

Light coming from near a super-cluster would be expected to be more heavily red-shifted than light coming from an isolated galaxy, etc. Things like this should be considered, every start needs considered individually before assumptions of equality are made.

Type 1a is caused by parasitic white dwarf, but the mass of the companion star differs and the composition of the companion star can differ, so this should change the size, intensity and spectrography of the explosion.

They should all be examined individually and classified on a scale of color and composition.
Returners
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2015
Then once you've better classified the type 1a explosions you can better use them to judge distance and time. Until then, the article has proven standard candles aren't as "Standard" as they used to think, which I said all along.

It's pretty obvious variables like the companion star's age. Composition can correlate to age, but not 100%. Mass can change composition without great age, but either can change the color and intensity of the explosion.

Very old explosions are happening when the background radiation was hotter, allegedly.

Very young explosions are happening when the background radiation is cooler, allegedly.

This matters too.

Lots of things vary with age and distance which would effect and modify the "color" of all supernova to some degree.
billpress11
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2015
Maybe it is time to look for another explanation for the observed red-shift. The link below offers a test for one of the other explanations. Page 16

http://www.scribd...-Physics
Returners
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2015
When I say composition, you need to be able tot tell what percent each element is, down to the first several "trace" elements below 1%, so you can tell the chemical/nuclear differences between each of these stars, and that my help explain the brightness of the explosion, thereby allowing better estimates of distances.

The bigger problem:

Assumption that spectral lines are constant through time.

This is clearly false since the laws of the universe are not entirely constant through time (if the universe has a finite past).

However, the constancy of the laws is a basic axiom of modern physics, yet the physics proves the laws are not entirely constant. Therefore when nit-picking the age of the universe or the distance to a very far cluster or super-cluster, you have to take that into consideration...

I think when possible you should use relative distancing, galaxy in front of another galaxy, in combination with the standard candles, in order to ensure common ordering.
nikola_milovic_77
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 11, 2015
First, the big bang is a great delusion and much higher contamination of consciousness, which is connected with the true causes of the phenomenon in general.
Second, there is nothing "dark" in the universe, only there is a lot of unknown, and much more of what we will not ever be able to grasp our "tool" of the material of the energy entities which represents COSMO, not the universe. Cosmos is "immersed" in the universe, and the universe is filled with a substance you should know ETHER. Ether is a "dark" for which science is searching and there is no system with which it can not decrypt. How can decipher it, when the entire COSMOS created ether. Just need to know how.
All that is in the science related to BB and "dark" are only scientific mirage.
Let's deal with something much closer and simpler, and yet we have not learned. Who is the main cause of the spin of the planet. ? Understand, nor Kepler's laws do not correspond to the actual orbits of planets.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (15) Apr 11, 2015
Are you sure?

Yep, because I know of a project where they didn't take that into account and were off by several hundred meters.

There's plenty of other things in everyday life where relativity affects how you see things. A good example is the color of gold. If you don't take into account the relativistic effects for the outer electrons then gold would look like silver.
Now i don't know about you, but gold doesn't look like silver to me. You can kid yourself all day long, but in the end experiments trumps belief any day of the week.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2015
Are you sure?

Yep, because I know of a project where they didn't take that into account and were off by several hundred meters.

There's plenty of other things in everyday life where relativity affects how you see things. A good example is the color of gold. If you don't take into account the relativistic effects for the outer electrons then gold would look like silver.
Now i don't know about you, but gold doesn't look like silver to me. You can kid yourself all day long, but in the end experiments trumps belief any day of the week.


Gold atoms and nano-particles don't look like "Gold" either. They have different colors, including green and red, depending on size and shape.

This is probably caused because Gold conducts electricity so well, so macroscopic objects hit by light have a different color than microscopic amounts.

This is why computer models and theories should never be used as a measuring stick. The measuring should always be direct.
Returners
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2015
It also contradicts a basic law of chemistry and nuclear physics, where it is assumed that a color change happens due to a chemical or nuclear change. Wrong answer, as here a minor physical change produces a color change literally to the opposite side of the color wheel.

A rock the size of your thumb, a snow-flake shaped nano-particle, and an individual atom all have different colors.

Now look through that telescope and lets see which is which a "billion" light years away.
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2015

"Gold atoms and nano-particles don't look like "Gold" either. They have different colors, including green and red, depending on size and shape."

I do not know that the spectrum of the reflected electromagnetic waves from golden piece are due to relativistic efects. Until now I thought that are associated with the physical characteristics of the atoms of a specific element. And optical environment. How many other metals will look like silver if there is not relativistic efects?
Do you think than there is any sence to deceive yorself? The matter on atom level lok different from th matter integrated in large structures and this is obvious why. There in noting common with fictional relativistic efects which in fact are the favorite only for people who like moral realtivizam.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Apr 11, 2015
Until now I thought that are associated with the physical characteristics of the atoms of a specific element.

If that were so then gold would look like silver.
(correction to my previous post: It's the inner electrons where relativistic effects cause the most change, not the outer ones. (Relativistic effects are, of course, relevant to all electron orbitals))

are the favorite only for people who like moral realtivizam.

Erm...what do relativistic effects have to do with morals? Do you have any idea how crazy you sound?
Relativistic effectshave been shown to exist in countless REAL experiments (like flying atomic clocks around the world and the orbit of Mercury). If you don't like REAL measured data -fine. But if you think that's not deceiving yourself...then there's no helping you.
antonima
5 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2015
While stars burn, they consume matter. In the process, they lose mass and consequently, gravity. So as the amount of gravity in the unverse decreases, doesn't that make the universe 'appear' to be accelerating ?


E=mc^2, so the photon field emitted will exert just as strong a gravitational force as the mass that was burnt. Newton's shell theorem states: A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre. If you treat the radiation emitted by a star as a sphere it will appear to be pulling equally to /anything outside of the sphere/.
A corollary of the shell theorem is that: once inside of a sphere 'If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.
antonima
5 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2015
So, in fact, any bodies within the star's emitted photon sphere will experience a lower gravitational pull.

If you consider stars close to the sun (for instance proxima centauri), just 4 light years away, the vast majority of the sun's emitted photon sphere will lie outside of the distance between the sun and proxima centauri. If this is a significan portion of the sun's initial mass, then the effective gravitational force between the sun and proxima centauri would have decreased. :)

But this does not limit the effect to short distances. Even if a star is a billion light years away, and our sun has been glowing for 6 billion years, 5/6th of that initial mass would still be outside of the 'sphere' demarkated by the distance between the sun and said star.

I'm not an astrophysicist, so I don't know if this has been investigated or not. It sure seems intriguing in the context of galactic expansion!
antonima
5 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2015
It is also interesting to consider the speed of gravity when talking about gravitational pull of a photonic sphere ... I imagine for this you will need a little more mathematical understanding than shell theorem. As you aptly put it allergg, 'we do not yet have a good means to measure the motions of the heavens'. ;)
julianpenrod
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2015
I have been criticizing Perlmutter's "conclusions" for years, now.
They calculated the red shift of dim galaxies. From this, they calculated their speed and, for that and Hubble's Constant, their distance. Which means the now supposedly unreliable Hubble Constant was used to determine the "accelerating" as occurring five billion years ago. But, then, they say the supernovae observed are too dim, implying the galaxies were traveling faster than their Hubble Constant value. But that would mean they were also traveling faster than their red shift value!
And, if anything, this means the greater speed occurred five billion years ago, so galaxies are traveling slower now. After all, a lower, and constant, Hubble Constant goes back about a billion years, at least.
All I received for pointing this out was to be called crazy and to have the Hate Mafia flood me with "1" rankings.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2015
All I received for pointing this out was to be called crazy and to have the Hate Mafia flood me with "1" rankings.

Don't feel bad jp. I had "Lite" (Think there was another one, too) go through my entire history and 1 every comment I had ever made...
Apparently, he's gone now...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2015
E=mc^2, so the photon field emitted will exert just as strong a gravitational force as the mass that was burnt.
Nice analysis.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2015
It will be interesting to see what the difference is in the amount of dark energy when they get enough data to compare the two populations.

A thought that occurs to me is that instead of there being two populations, there is some factor that affects the UV light more than the visible light, either present in all of space, or as a zone of some sort between our local area and the greater universe. I present this as an alternative to the idea that there might be different kinds of supernovae, for example with different metallicity as antialias suggests. I don't necessarily advocate it, but all explanations that fit the facts should be taken into account.

This situation is reminiscent of the discovery of two separate populations of Cepheid variables differentiated by their metallicity, as antialias no doubt remembers. Before these two populations were discovered, all the other galaxies were believed to be smaller than the Milky Way based upon the Cepheid data.
Accounts
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2015
@Reality Check: "Why" "do" "you" quote" "everything" "?"
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2015
E=mc^2, so the photon field emitted will exert just as strong a gravitational force as the mass that was burnt.
Nice analysis.

Minus the gravitational force of the residual mass that still remains...?
Oh, and wb, Schnieb. Been a while...
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2015
While stars burn, they consume matter. In the process, they lose mass and consequently, gravity


Benni said way above:

Correct to this point


So as the amount of gravity in the unverse decreases


Benni said way above:

When mass is transformed to energy, gravity is conserved within the density of the flux field. If half the mass of something is transformed to energy then half the gravity that was once inherent to the mass now becomes inherent to the energy field, better known as the Energy/Mass Equivalence Principle of Special Relativity. Nothing is lost, nothing is wasted..........ever.

Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2015
IMHO, a rather poorly written article, with zero quantification of any of the data:

How many 1As in the sample?

Is the difference between the two groups of 1As discreet, or merely a statistical trend?

Were emission spectra analyzed to control for relative or percentile differences in metallicity?

In what way does the UV vary between the two "distinct" populations of 1As?

IOW, I see no explanation of what the supposed actual difference between the UV spectra of the two populations is or how it is distinguished --much less discreetly quantified-- from visible light spectra observations.

I don't know if this is due to the writer trying to keep it simple enough for Joe Merkin to be able to comprehend, or because of the writer's limited grasp of what this research concludes, but --as written-- this is very poor quality information.

Maybe it was written from 13 billion light years away, and was degraded via interaction with DE and DM before it reached us.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2015
E=mc^2, so the photon field emitted will exert just as strong a gravitational force as the mass that was burnt.
Nice analysis.

Minus the gravitational force of the residual mass that still remains...?
Other way 'round, within the shell of the emitted photons, but in the greater universe, outside that shell, unchanged.

Oh, and wb, Schnieb. Been a while...
Thanks, Whyde.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2015
IMHO, a rather poorly written article, with zero quantification of any of the data:

How many 1As in the sample?
23.

Is the difference between the two groups of 1As discreet, or merely a statistical trend?
It's "discrete," and the difference is 0.4 magnitude in the color curves in near UV.

Were emission spectra analyzed to control for relative or percentile differences in metallicity?
No mention of it in the scholarly paper.

In what way does the UV vary between the two "distinct" populations of 1As?
In the color curves.

All of this is available in the abstract of the paper, linked at the bottom of the article.

It would be unusual on this site for details at this level to be included. Perhaps you'd do better reading the scholarly literature, which this site does not publish.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2015
E=mc^2, so the photon field emitted will exert just as strong a gravitational force as the mass that was burnt.
Nice analysis.

Minus the gravitational force of the residual mass that still remains...?
Other way 'round, within the shell of the emitted photons, but in the greater universe, outside that shell, unchanged.

Soooo... all the gravity that was initially there remains within that "shell"...? Just that there are discreet gravitational entities within that shell...? And since gravity remains with the photon field, that would mean the speed of Gravity is C, wouldn't it?
That, essentially describes the entire visible Universe, then...
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2015
And since gravity remains with the photon field, that would mean the speed of Gravity is C, wouldn't it?
That, essentially describes the entire visible Universe


The Mass Energy Equivalence Principle (E=mc*2) of Special Relativity 1906 is very clear, loss of gravity due to transformation of the original product becomes the inherent gain of the inverse product be it Energy or Mass. If this does not happen, then Mass & Energy are not equivalent & the Principle is denied.
IMP-9
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 12, 2015
as far back as 2006 it was shown that redshift had an intrinsic property


Intrinsic redshift is long dead. Arp's model just doesn't agree with the largest datasets.

http://arxiv.org/.../0506366

Of course they cannot put zero on it. That could be out of imagination of majotity of astronomers that have built their careers on dark matter and energy.


There is an entire field of cosmology that attempts to put lambda to zero, it's called modified gravity. It is taken seriously, proof you are talking rubbish.

...
IMP-9
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 12, 2015
implying the galaxies were traveling faster than their Hubble Constant value.


No. It implies they are at greater distance than their redshift would suggest, implying that the Hubble parameter has increased.

I don't know if this has been investigated or not.


It should and it has been. When you add up the contributions of the energy density of the universe you have to include photons when doing it precisely (small contribution).
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2015
Minus the gravitational force of the residual mass that still remains...?
Other way 'round, within the shell of the emitted photons, but in the greater universe, outside that shell, unchanged.
Soooo... all the gravity that was initially there remains within that "shell"...?
Yep, mass/energy is conserved.

Just that there are discreet gravitational entities within that shell...?
I don't understand what you mean here.

And since gravity remains with the photon field, that would mean the speed of Gravity is C, wouldn't it?
That, essentially describes the entire visible Universe, then...
Actually it describes the entire universe period. That's what the Shell Theorem says.

The mass lost by the star generating all those photons is exactly the equivalent energy, by E=mc², of all the photons it generates.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2015
Thanks, Schneib, for solidifying my thought process...
Just that there are discreet gravitational entities within that shell...?

I don't understand what you mean here.

IE - within in any "photon shell" (as emanated by a star, for example), there will be "massive" entities (planets, etc) maintaining their own gravity "shells" and interacting with other "massive" entities, as well as with photons of that larger shell.
I am gathering that these are included as part of that shell's total gravitational expression...

Wouldn't that make photons a basic gravitational carrier?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2015
Thanks, Schneib, for solidifying my thought process...
Sure, Whyde. You don't start denying when you make a mistake, you just note it and move on like a sane person. It's refreshing and pleasant.

Just that there are discreet gravitational entities within that shell...?

I don't understand what you mean here.

IE - within in any "photon shell" (as emanated by a star, for example), there will be "massive" entities (planets, etc) maintaining their own gravity "shells" and interacting with other "massive" entities, as well as with photons of that larger shell.
Sure, they interact, but space is mostly empty so those interactions are negligible.

contd
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2015
I am gathering that these are included as part of that shell's total gravitational expression...
No. They don't affect the star's effect upon the greater universe, other than by a negligible amount of photons being blocked from going further. I'm not saying they don't add their own effects, just that they don't affect the star's effects.

You can just figure each shell and then add them all up to get the total effect. This is a common situation in physics, especially when dealing with gravity and electromagnetism.

The Shell Theorem is a tool for analyzing the gravity effect of a single object and its ejecta.

Wouldn't that make photons a basic gravitational carrier?
No. I don't quite follow your reasoning here. If you'll explain more, or ask more questions, I'll do my best for you, as always. ;)
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2015
The amplitude response over the entire frequency domain as well as the red shift should show the velocity; the amplitude will give an indication of relative distance. This is not very complicated. Mapping the distance and velocity over the entire space and again at future points in time will give a definitive picture of the matter flow relative to us. This matter flow, I conjecture, will have a maximum velocity at two points, directly ahead of us and directly behind us, i.e. the matter stream. The trick is defining which direction we are moving as well as everything else. Universal repulsion should be discarded and the flow defined. The point of attraction may be defined as a superimposed point or an actual mass. Simply because there may exist a large mass that defines our ideas does not necessarily dictate it is some super black hole rather an effect of the distribution of matter(mass) beyond our vision. Making conjecture that is illogical should be avoided. Proof!
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2015
We only see an indication of velocity relative to the plane wave we see, not the entire envelope flow. Thinking it is a constant, i.e. speed of the envelope, is nonsense. Once the sky is mapped, it will take more information to define the matter flow. Assuming expansion is totally illogical and unfounded with such sparse information. So lucky you, for the Nobel, since the reviewers are without data and knowledge of actuality or any other ideas. The idea of "Dark" matter is an obvious example that "we" do not know what we are talking about! You will need three orthogonal measurements or reasonable calculations using real science to define the actual material flow of the nearby universe. So I would start with local space and move piece-wise outward to define the U relative to the the local field of bodies. The idea of the big bang is foolish, especially for a physicist with a PhD, don't you think? You may need to define local as visible. God has not gone "Open kimono."
Ultron
5 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2015
This appears to be the full text in Arxiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.1706
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2015
Witty title.

And wonderful discovery, it seems! I checked, and these observations are mainly competing with baryonic acoustic oscillations in cosmic microwave background observations (together with lensing, I'm sure) to break the degeneracy for the Hubble parameter ("constant").

As can be seen, [say, here: http://en.wikiped...%27s_law ] there are observational tension between Planck's estimates and some astronomical datasets such as Hubble Space Telescope (for galaxy clusters) or Chandra X-Ray Observatory (galaxy clusters again). If acceleration is overestimated, we can expect the Hubble parameter H(t) = a^(t)/a(t) is overestimated by astronomers.

Even though there are no numbers here yet, the effect is small. And that would presumably put the different observations of Hubble parameter in the same neighborhood.

If so, standard cosmology for the win!
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2015
More fun:

"RealityCheck": "the cosmological science/theory community is coming round to what I/many have been trying to point out; namely, that: 'expansion/inflation' concept goes against Occam's Razor".

"RealityCheck" needs a reality check, see my previous comment. And see of course this: "Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted." [ http://en.wikiped...smology) ] (And inflation is very much the same as dark matter, semi-classical physics as the standard model of gravity + particle fields.)

That nuts such as physics crackpots and creationist crackpots don't understand that this likely _improves_ the case for dark energy and hence the standard cosmology is their loss. But it is also funny!
yotsuya
1 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2015
Factor in this redder Ia supernovae data plus Wiltshire's timescape cosmology and I bet you get a non-accelerating universe.
Stevepidge
1.3 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2015
define "near infinite". You cannot ascribe parameters to something that is mathematically impossible to entertain. The conditions for a "big bang" are complete fiction. Once again you cannot ascribe a PRECISE number to a variable "near INFINITY" Math is NOT science, but merely a TOOL to be used by scientists. As it is now in cosmology MATH = SCIENCE but empiricism and experimentation have been thrown out the door in favor of creating mathematical models and working backwards to "verify" a preconceived hypothesis. Once again, the conditions required for a big bang are mathematically untenable and should be discarded as the pseudoscience FICTION that it is.
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2015
@Torbjorn_Larsson_OM.
"RealityCheck" needs a reality check, see my previous comment. And see of course this: "Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted." (And inflation is very much the same as dark matter, semi-classical physics as the standard model of gravity + particle fields.) That nuts such as physics crackpots and creationist crackpots don't understand that this likely _improves_ the case for dark energy and hence the standard cosmology is their loss. But it is also funny!
Have you learned nothing from the BICEP2 'confirmation bias' fiasco? Moreover, as a 'scientist' you should also be aware that Guth himself has never claimed his 'Inflation' idea is anything more than a HYPOTHESIS that could be falsified as more knowledge is gained. So your confident/snide opinion/belief above betrays your own tendency to 'confirmation bias', and not based on any actual proven fact. Drop the insults. Rethink it all. Good luck.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2015
The problem with big bang theory is highlighted very early on- the singularity had properties at, or very close to, infinite density & infinite mass in an infinitely small space. Infinite mass & density are essentially magic or immaterial miracles & have no correlation to physical reality which is the foundation for modern empirical science which cites BB theory as the origin of everything. Its a slight contradiction. & theres no such thing as "close to" infinity!? How can you be close to something that has no end? The concept of infinite is no limitation. You can never be half way or three quarters of the way to infinity, how far is that exactly? It makes no logical sense at all. Its nonsense. You can never be close to infinite as no matter where you are there is still an infinite way to go. If such things are true they can never be understood from a material perspective because infinity breaks every faculty & tool we have at our disposal to understand the material world.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2015
Current BB theory comes off as just another creation myth with lots of mathematical speculation & conjecture accompanying it in an attempt to lend it legitimacy in empiricism. If we are to have creation myths that cannot really be proven or understood scientifically & rely heavily on assumptions about phenomenon & events so far & distant we can never know them to be true or real, lets not have them & call it scientific knowledge & understanding. Its not. The ideas cannot be tested or demonstrated to be true. Its not science. BB is essentially an aspect of a belief system dressed up as science.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2015
as far back as 2006 it was shown that redshift had an intrinsic property


Intrinsic redshift is long dead. Arp's model just doesn't agree with the largest datasets.

http://arxiv.org/.../0506366

Of course they cannot put zero on it. That could be out of imagination of majotity of astronomers that have built their careers on dark matter and energy.


There is an entire field of cosmology that attempts to put lambda to zero, it's called modified gravity. It is taken seriously, proof you are talking rubbish.

...


Ummm no.

http://arxiv.org/...1666.pdf
IMP-9
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2015
Ummm no.

http://arxiv.org/...1666.pdf


That's a theory paper, it's just quoting results. It does not show the effect is actually occurs.
antonima
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2015
E=mc^2, so the photon field emitted will exert just as strong a gravitational force as the mass that was burnt.
Nice analysis.


Thanks! Shell theorem is one of the several concepts in physics I can wrap my head around. Our sun only burns something like .05% of its mass over its entire lifetime, so this probably isn't a very dominant phenomenon.

What peaks my interest is : gravity exerted by a photon. If a photon is emitted towards an observer, and the speed of gravity is also c, how does the observer perceive this gravity? It won't reach the observer until the photon does. Does this gravity field get bunched up? On the opposite end: if a photon is moving away at the speed of light, does it's gravitational field get diluted??
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2015
E=mc^2, so the photon field emitted will exert just as strong a gravitational force as the mass that was burnt.
Nice analysis.


Thanks! Shell theorem is one of the several concepts in physics I can wrap my head around. Our sun only burns something like .05% of its mass over its entire lifetime, so this probably isn't a very dominant phenomenon.

What peaks my interest is : gravity exerted by a photon. If a photon is emitted towards an observer, and the speed of gravity is also c, how does the observer perceive this gravity? It won't reach the observer until the photon does. Does this gravity field get bunched up? On the opposite end: if a photon is moving away at the speed of light, does it's gravitational field get diluted??


how can the speed of gravity be C? Gravity is obviously an instantaneous communication between 2 masses else the planets would decay in orbit in no time and be flung into interstellar space.
antonima
5 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2015

how can the speed of gravity be C? Gravity is obviously an instantaneous communication between 2 masses else the planets would decay in orbit in no time and be flung into interstellar space.


If gravity is any faster than c it would violate causality. Suppose a photon is traveling at speed c towards the observer. If that observer has an EXTREMELY precise accelerometer he could detect the photon's pull on himself before it arrives. Since photons travel through vacuum with speed C, it would effectively be superluminal communication, because a signal moved between the source and the observer faster than C.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2015

how can the speed of gravity be C? Gravity is obviously an instantaneous communication between 2 masses else the planets would decay in orbit in no time and be flung into interstellar space.


If gravity is any faster than c it would violate causality. Suppose a photon is traveling at speed c towards the observer. If that observer has an EXTREMELY precise accelerometer he could detect the photon's pull on himself before it arrives. Since photons travel through vacuum with speed C, it would effectively be superluminal communication, because a signal moved between the source and the observer faster than C.


Current theory holds photons to be mass-less, how then can gravity interact with or impart influence upon? Einstein rings do not count as evidence as they are merely observations of an effect not understood by mainstream science. Besides, SaG A demonstrates no such lensing as well as a vast majority of massive objects not cherry picked as "evidencnce."
allergg
1 / 5 (1) Apr 14, 2015
So, in other words, a beam of light streaming through space has gravity ? The light beam can distort a planet's orbit ? I don't think so. I think gravity simply disappears as matter dissappears.

Ghengis
not rated yet Apr 14, 2015
Sorry, I don't get the way this data is being used.
The nearby Type 1a are redder than more distant ones, but we have no theory as to how that comes about, yet we have used the data to challenge another theory.
If we don't understand the data (we have no mechanism to explain it), how can we possibly know what it means in wider contexts? Surely we need to have a plausible mechanism to explain the data before we can attribute any credibility to it. At present it could mean absolutely anything!!!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 14, 2015
Thanks, Schneib, for solidifying my thought process...
Sure, Whyde. You don't start denying when you make a mistake, you just note it and move on like a sane person. It's refreshing and pleasant.

A certain guy named Einstein said - "A person who has never made a mistake has never tied anything new."
I'm gonna add - Or learns...
Still working on my response about photons doubling as a gravity carrier particle...
antonima
5 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2015

Current theory holds photons to be mass-less, how then can gravity interact with or impart influence upon? Einstein rings do not count as evidence as they are merely observations of an effect not understood by mainstream science. Besides, SaG A demonstrates no such lensing as well as a vast majority of massive objects not cherry picked as "evidencnce."


I'm not a physicist, I have no idea <:) but I believe the theory of relativity requires gravity to travel at some finite speed. Also, doesn't gravitational lensing prove this?
antonima
not rated yet Apr 15, 2015
So, in other words, a beam of light streaming through space has gravity ? The light beam can distort a planet's orbit ? I don't think so. I think gravity simply disappears as matter dissappears.


I'm not sure. I remember reading somewhere that as an object gains relativistic kinetic energy it DOES NOT translate to increased gravity due to the gain in mass, so you may be right.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2015

Current theory holds photons to be mass-less, how then can gravity interact with or impart influence upon?
Photons' *rest mass* is zero. However, they are never at rest; photons by definition move at the speed of light. They have momentum, and they exert gravity, though it's very weak, because of E=mc².

Einstein rings do not count as evidence as they are merely observations of an effect not understood by mainstream science.
This is word salad. General relativity explains Einstein rings (and Einstein crosses as well). That's why they're called "Einstein rings" and "Einstein crosses" duh.

Besides, SaG A demonstrates no such lensing as well as a vast majority of massive objects not cherry picked as "evidencnce."
This sentence doesn't have any apparent meaning.

contd
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2015
I'm not a physicist, I have no idea <:) but I believe the theory of relativity requires gravity to travel at some finite speed.
Correct. In fact, the orbit of Mercury can only be explained if the speed of gravity is the speed of light. Newtonian Universal Gravitation cannot explain Mercury's orbit because it assumes an infinite speed of gravity; Einsteinian General Relativity explains it quite neatly due to its assumption of the speed of gravity being the speed of light.

Also, doesn't gravitational lensing prove this?
No, gravitational lensing proves that gravity warps spacetime, not that the speed of gravity is finite. You were close, though. ;)
fulely
1 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2015
The expansion of space is created by antihydrogen fusion converting antihelium to high energy photons in a self contained 2 dimensional 12 foot disc named Relativistic Perturbation Mantle proves that Dark Matter makes dark-energy thru the conversion of antihelium surrounding the fusion into light in the configuration of the Fibonacci spiral copying the fusion into light like a antimatter flashlight. This energy is made from antihydrogen fusion wrapped in antihelium then antioxygen cooling the fusion back to antihelium sealing it in. Now trapped the fusion starts to convert the antihelium ring to light. Rpmantle
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 20, 2015
Fibonacci spiral
ummwut

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.