It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Accelerating universe? Not so fast

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 05:52 AM
link   
For those who do not want to click on the link the bottom line is.... the cosmic yard stick we have been using based on the brightness of one type of supernovae appears to be wrong ! The one type chosen has changed over the history of the universe..

Actually this really is a big deal for our cosmic yard stick.





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 universe 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.




"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."

phys.org...




posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky
Are you rapping while you are typing this?



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky


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."

So then the yard stick of red and blue shift changes the further out we look?

So then our previous estimates of the Universe were wrong again?

No….



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

So first there was an eternal universe, then there was a big bang, then the big bang never existed and it was the death of theism, and now there is a big bang again, but we just miscalculated a few numbers.

I love speculation and all, but I think I am going to stick with general relativity until everyone gets their theories thoroughly peer reviewed.
edit on 11-4-2015 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
For those people who felt small when faced with the size of the universe - they just got bigger. The earth is now a much larger percentage of the universe than we thought it was.

But by how much? Does this new measuring stick tell us how much less of a universe there is? And is the multiverse now reduced to the size of a breadbox? Those are my questions three.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

I must admit I still feel the same in size and bulk ! I have always had a problem with the methodology of measuring distances in this universe even though I think I understand red and blue shift. Dark energy accelerating the universe at an ever increasing speed was weird to begin with IMO but I wanted more data before calling it B.S. That info and data is still out and has not been disproven as of yet... But it does make one wonder in my case.

We are entering a very exciting stage (for us primitives) in an understanding of our universe due to some fairly neat scientific gizmos that are providing new and more refined measurements of all the stuff that is out there.... If we could spend some small percentage on true science gizmos instead of the science of war no telling what we could learn at a much compressed time frame..

Myself I am still an "M" theory kinda guys for I like Branes and the multiverse ... Probably wrong but I like it !


edit on 11-4-2015 by 727Sky because: ..



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Did somebody change the parameters of the universe again?!

So does this mean the universe is younger or older?



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: 727Sky

So first there was an eternal universe, then there was a big bang, then the big bang never existed
Saying "then the big bang never existed" is hardly a fair representation of the reaction of the scientific community to one paper suggesting that. I can show you a paper saying we may all be living in a giant black hole but that idea isn't exactly mainstream either.


originally posted by: solargeddon
Did somebody change the parameters of the universe again?!

So does this mean the universe is younger or older?
I don't see how it will affect age estimates of the universe, so I'd say no change there.

Apparently they still think the universe's expansion is accelerating, just not accelerating as fast as they thought before, and more research is needed to put a number on the difference. It's been 17 years since the 1998 data came out, so it's not surprising we'd get some more accurate data 17 years later.

edit on 11-4-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: 727Sky

So first there was an eternal universe, then there was a big bang, then the big bang never existed and it was the death of theism, and now there is a big bang again, but we just miscalculated a few numbers.

I love speculation and all, but I think I am going to stick with general relativity until everyone gets their theories thoroughly peer reviewed.


I too will stick with general relativity and perhaps they (CERN) should be looking more closely at dark energy to answer the expanding universe question.




As noted above, the geometry and evolution of the universe are determined by the fractional contribution of various types of matter. Since both energy density and pressure contribute to the strength of gravity in General Relativity, cosmologists classify types of matter by its "equation of state" the relationship between its pressure and energy density. The basic classification scheme is:

Radiation: composed of massless or nearly massless particles that move at the speed of light. Known examples include
photons (light) and neutrinos. This form of matter is characterized by having a large positive pressure.

Baryonic matter: this is "ordinary matter" composed primarily of protons, neutrons and electrons. This form of matter has essentially no pressure of cosmological importance.

Dark matter: this generally refers to "exotic" non-baryonic matter that interacts only weakly with ordinary matter. While no such matter has ever been directly observed in the laboratory, its existence has long been suspected for reasons discussed in a subsequent page. This form of matter also has no cosmologically significant pressure.

Dark energy: this is a truly bizarre form of matter, or perhaps a property of the vacuum itself, that is characterized by a large, negative pressure. This is the only form of matter that can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, or speed up.

One of the central challenges in cosmology today is to determine the relative and total densities (energy per unit volume) in each of these forms of matter, since this is essential to understanding the evolution and ultimate fate of our universe





As the universe inflated, the tiny quantum fluctuations grew to become tiny variations in the amount of matter from one place to another. A tiny amount is all it takes for gravity to do its thing. Gravity is one of the basic forces of nature and controls the evolution of the large scale structure of the universe. Without gravity there would be no stars or planets, only a cold thin mist of particles. Without the variations in the particle soup initiated by the quantum fluctuations, gravity could not begin to concentrate tiny amounts of matter into even larger amounts of matter. The end result of the pull of gravity: galaxies, stars and planets. The fluctuations, mapped in detail by the WMAP mission, are the factories and cradles of life.


map.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
For those who do not want to click on the link the bottom line is.... the cosmic yard stick we have been using based on the brightness of one type of supernovae appears to be wrong ! The one type chosen has changed over the history of the universe..

Actually this really is a big deal for our cosmic yard stick.





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 universe 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.




"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."

phys.org...


Funny how they think shifted light is going back in time.

Naively adorable.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: universalbri
Funny how they think shifted light is going back in time.

Naively adorable.
The light we see from the sun was emitted about 8 minutes ago, so looking at sunlight isn't going back in time, it's looking at what the sun looked like about 8 minutes ago. This has nothing to do with any shifting, since light from the sun isn't shifted to any significant degree.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph



I love speculation and all, but I think I am going to stick with general relativity until everyone gets their theories thoroughly peer reviewed.


Brian Schmidt and his colleagues were awarded a Nobel prize for their theory that the universes' growth is accelerating, if this new theory is correct then should their awards be revoked? And if this new theory warrants a Nobel prize then what of the theory that disproves the current theory, and what if-

Theories are theories until they become fact, until then theories is all we have and eventually we will find the right one, it'll just take some time to silt through the sludge to find the gold.

edit on 11-4-2015 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie


Brian Schmidt and his colleagues were awarded a Nobel prize for their theory that the universes' growth is accelerating, if this new theory is correct then should their awards be revoked? And if this new theory warrants a Nobel prize then what of the theory that disproves the current theory, and what if-

Did you actually read the article linked in the OP? There's nothing there that suggests that the expansion of the universe isn't accelerating, just that it's not doing it as quickly as first thought. Did anyone ask if they should revoke van der Waals's Nobel because someone later improved on his equation of state? This is how science works -- we improve our understanding of something as new data is gathered.


Theories are theories until they become fact, until then theories is all we have and eventually we will find the right one, it'll just take some time to silt through the sludge to find the gold.

Except that's not how scientific theories work at all. A scientific theory doesn't magically accumulate data until it levels up and becomes a fact. Theories link facts (i.e. observations) about some phenomenon together into a framework to descirbe and explain that phenomenon.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Given that you are open to new ideas, its worth pointing you to a fellow who has spent many years refining a new model of the universe. He has prepared a set of lectures .
One of his key points is that no amount of positive evidence can make a theory correct, but one point that disagrees can prove it wrong (or incomplete). He has issues with relativity, dark matter and quantum physics - or rather the 'laws' that people have derived and 'voodoo' (eg dark matter) to make them relevant in more cases.
I have watched the series and am amazed. His model re-instates the 'ether' of earlier days, and after 40 20 minute lectures, so feel quite enlightened.
But you must approach with a scientific mind - keep your emotions in check. He calls lots of rather important people somewhat derogatory terms. I think thats because he's had enough of the voodoo...

Anyways, I am very keen to hear other people's opinions. He had to invent a new math construct in his theory - vector division - for those math-oriented folk.

Oh forgot to discus the OP... his explanation is simple - ethereal drag on light - ether is of course the [binary] medium through which light flows - all transverse waves require a binary medium. The drag is extremely minute, but over galactic distances manifests itself as a red-shift.
edit on 11/4/2015 by hmmmbeer because: discus OP



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=19226830]hmmmbeer One of his key points is that no amount of positive evidence can make a theory correct, but one point that disagrees can prove it wrong (or incomplete). He has issues with relativity, dark matter and quantum physics - or rather the 'laws' that people have derived and 'voodoo' (eg dark matter) to make them relevant in more cases.

though time coupled dark matter in no voodoo imo



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   
i didn't really think we were expanding, nothing accelerates without new added energy, if we all originated like i think all matter did from a central black hole, or a exploded sun (leaving a blackened burnt core), we will only slowdown, unless the sun regrows itself and starts to burn once again after the pressure on its becomes to big once again to hold all this mass. i personally think all states of all planets are possible for all planets like in a cycle over time, i even think if earth were to grow like it does as we have our own massive core, that earth can become a star itself, same as a black hole can have a new earth stage in its life.

another new article suggests stars in the vicinity of black holes that do not even let light escape, i think theres something wrong with your definition of a black hole...

science.slashdot.org... m_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29&utm_content=Netvibes

heres my thoughts and research but i do not expect a soul to check it out...
but i do see however they come closer and closer to my theory over time


drive.google.com...

"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."

Read more at: phys.org...

no because everything in this universe is always changing, and the light intensity changes over time.... during travel... so the closer you get the more intense your measurements, i think light itself cools of in space temperatures. we only measure the speed of light aft3r it has hit our
atmosphere thus slowed down here considerably, and only after it impacts our atmosphere does it even become light, hence no wave forms of light in space. on earth we can see the wave function because light can only exist under circumstances like they are on earth, with oxygen and temperature AND the material itself, needed for a real burn to occur, that's why we do not see light directly in space from the sun or stars, it is not in the human visible bandwidth.


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.

Read more at: phys.org...

dark energy.... how can it be so hard to understand dark energy is just heat.... so small on a distance its hard to measure, we can really measure heats on a real distance very precise and it is invisible....
dark matter lol... unlit matter? matter so fine it can not divide, it can not shed light itself?
super small particles can however hold a tiny amount of heat.

a god particle is so small, it can not hold enough heat to radiate, and thus become visible, thats why we cant find it,
it does not give off light itself due to its super small size. but whatever... i dont hold any scientific papers so...
edit on 12-4-2015 by dennisarends because: (no reason given)


"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."

Read more at: phys.org...

further away then expected means it is expanding faster? what if you just calculated or thought wrong from the beginning....
if something is further away than expected, this does not mean it travelled faster you were just wrong about your starting assumptions made perhaps? our instruments could have been wrong, our basic starting idea could be wrong, we could have become better at measuring.....

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.

Read more at: phys.org...

duh, the ultraviolet light is heat, but hard to measure and visible only thru instrumentation (color humans can see before we can "know"), so the more ultra violet you find the less heat you have to account for....
edit on 12-4-2015 by dennisarends because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join