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.
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."
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."
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: DeadSeraph
a reply to: 727Sky
So first there was an eternal universe, then there was a big bang, then the big bang never existed
I don't see how it will affect age estimates of the universe, so I'd say no change there.
originally posted by: solargeddon
Did somebody change the parameters of the universe again?!
So does this mean the universe is younger or older?
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.
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.
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...
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.
originally posted by: universalbri
Funny how they think shifted light is going back in time.
Naively adorable.
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.
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.