PDA

View Full Version : Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?



Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-01-2013, 08:25 PM
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/is-everything-we-know-about-the-universe-wrong/

Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?There's something very odd going on in space - something that shouldn't be possible. It is as though vast swathes of the universe are being hoovered up by a vast and unseen celestial vacuum cleaner. Sasha Kaslinsky, the scientist who discovered the phenomenon, is understandably nervous: 'It left us quite unsettled and jittery' he says, 'because this is not something we planned to find'.

The accidental discovery of what is ominously being called 'dark flow' not only has implications for the destinies of large numbers of galaxies - it also means that large numbers of scientists might have to find a new way of understanding the universe. Dark flow is the latest in a long line of phenomena that have threatened to re-write the textbooks. Does it herald a new era of understanding, or does it simply mean that everything we know about the universe is wrong?

14 billion years ago there was nothing; then everything exploded into existence and the universe was born, but a new generation of cosmologists are questioning this theory. Cosmologists have created a replica of the universe by using equations; it’s called the standard model of cosmology and it’s the reason behind the Big Bang theory; however, this model is now doubted. Professor Alan Guth’s theory challenges the Big Bang by stating that the universe started out small, allowing the temperature to even out everywhere, before expanding on a massive scale.

Stars nearer the edge of a galaxy move just as fast as those in the centre. This made cosmologists think that galaxies needed more gravity, but the only way to get more gravity was to create it. Astrophysicist Dan Bauer is hunting for dark matter half a mile under the dark plains of Minnesota in order to trace and record it more effectively. The discovery that the universe is speeding up suggests that a new force is powering the universe. This force is known as dark energy, and cosmologists have no idea what it is.

The combination of the standard model, inflation and dark matter has given way to a new theory called dark flow. The nature of this theory could show that our universe isn’t the only one. The standard model of cosmology has withstood much criticism, therefore making the theory stronger; however it could still be totally wrong. Man knows next to nothing about the universe. -Tyr

aboutime
10-01-2013, 08:32 PM
Not something I lose any sleep over since Man has trouble understanding other Men, and Women on Earth as well.

Of course. We would all like to know more about how we got here, and how long we can expect to stay here.

But. With everything else seemingly coming apart around us on a daily basis.

The last thing we might be worried about is...what will happen in the next BILLION years.

No disrespect intended to anyone here. But. For obvious reasons. I do believe we have more important things to be WORRIED about.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-01-2013, 08:52 PM
Not something I lose any sleep over since Man has trouble understanding other Men, and Women on Earth as well.

Of course. We would all like to know more about how we got here, and how long we can expect to stay here.

But. With everything else seemingly coming apart around us on a daily basis.

The last thing we might be worried about is...what will happen in the next BILLION years.

No disrespect intended to anyone here. But. For obvious reasons. I do believe we have more important things to be WORRIED about. While I understand the sentiment my friend life goes on and man's quest for greater knowledge must continue. I try to explore other sources of knowledge always. A good study of our universe helps put into perspective man's role and serve to show us just how puny we are in the greater scheme of things IMHO.--Tyr

Noir
10-02-2013, 05:42 AM
This was a key discussion pre-Planck, but our newest sky-survey which replaced WMAP, has put cold water on 'dark flow'. While there was debate before (and no doubt will be again) the flow itself should be much more obvious given the detail of Plancks scan, and its not.

Both Planck and LHC have supported the cosmological standard model this past few years, where some where hoping they would open up further the possibility of multiverses, and other weird science. However, the data hasn't been fully analysed yet, do maybe their is space for Dark Flow to creep into the numbers....

"A potential portal to other universes seems to have closed. The sharpest map yet made of light from the infant universe shows no evidence of "dark flow" – a stream of galaxy clusters rushing in the same direction that hinted at the existence of a multiverse.

That is the conclusion of 175 scientists working with data from the European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft. But champions of dark flow
are not ready to give up yet, including one Planck scientist who says his team's analysis is flawed.

The first suggestion that the flow existed came in 2008, when a group led by Alexander Kashlinsky of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, scrutinised what was then the best map of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the big bang's afterglow. NASA's WMAP satellite measured the temperature of this ancient light, revealing fluctuations in the density of matter in the very early universe.

This flow suggested that the universe had somehow become lopsided, as if space-time itself was behaving like a tilted table and matter was sliding off, says Kashlinsky. That goes against the standard model of cosmology, which says that the universe is increasingly uniform on larger scales, making it unlikely that structures big enough to produce such a tilt would form. Some researchers suggested that, instead, other universes could be pulling on matter in ours, creating the flow. But other groups looking at WMAP data did not detect the controversial motion.

The latest search is based on a new, higher-resolution map of the cosmic microwave background from Planck. The Planck team says their multi-pronged analysis also found no evidence of galaxy clusters gushing along in a coherent stream."

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-05-2013, 06:32 PM
http://physicsfocus.org/andy-newsam-plancks-data-is-extraordinary-but-will-it-teach-us-anything-new/ Planck’s data is extraordinary, but will it teach us anything new?

By Andy Newsam On April 3, 2013 Planck's baby picture of the universe. Image: ESA

The recent results from the Planck satellite have garnered considerable interest among both scientists and the media. But from the discussions that have followed, I am learning at least as much about the nature of science as the origins of the universe.

But first, the science. (If you have heard all you want to about the cosmic microwave background, you may want to skip the next paragraph or two.)

Planck is designed to map and measure the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at higher resolution and over a wider range of frequencies than ever seen before. The CMB itself is a sea of photons left over from the astonishingly high temperature ‘fireball’ of the big bang. As the universe expands after the initial ‘kick’, it cools. When the CMB was formed, the universe was 380 000 years old. Its temperature was 2700C (at this point the universe would have glowed a red colour similar to an electric fire). In the billions of years since then, the expansion and cooling has continued, giving a temperature now of -270C (just 3 degrees above absolute zero) and a glow of microwaves. This glow is the CMB.

The CMB is important as it is the earliest light that it is possible for us to see. Before the CMB was created the universe was effectively opaque. However, imprinted on the map of the microwave sky is information about the universe. Not just at the time the CMB was formed, but much earlier – even well into the first second after the big bang. It is these echoes that Planck is studying. So, what has been discovered in this first data release? The headline numbers are impressive:
• Our basic model of the big bang and subsequent evolution of the universe fits well, with no need (or indeed much room) for any strange tweaks in the early stages.
•The universe is 13.8 billion years old – slightly older than the previous best estimates (though within the uncertainties).
•The universe appears to be made up of 5% ‘normal’ matter (the stuff of stars, planets and us); 26% mysterious, though much sought-after, dark matter; and 69% dark energy which nobody really has a good handle on at all.
•There is an odd, albeit slight, north-south asymmetry and an unexplained cold spot in the south.

So, there is no question that Planck is working very well and the data quality is superb. However, none of these results are actually new. The precision is a significant improvement over previous measurements from the Cobe and WMAP satellites, but it could be argued that, while our understanding is more precise, it is no deeper.

It should be stressed that these are early days for Planck and much more analysis and calibration needs to be done before all the implications can be understood. However, it is important to face the question: Is Planck going to lead to any new science?

There is a useful comparison here with one of the biggest science stories of recent years: the discovery of a new particle at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Here, like Planck, a new area of ‘parameter space’ was set to be explored by better, more sensitive instrumentation. Also like Planck, aspects of the current best-bet theory would be tested to new limits and values of important parameters refined. However, arguably unlike Planck, there were also some specific new fundamental theories with clear predictions that could be tested. Some of these remain to be tested in future years, some have been relegated to history and some, such as the Higgs boson theory, are well on their way to passing their tests. Could the same be said for Planck?

Of course, the comparison is not a perfect one. Both the scale and scope (and cost) of the LHC are far larger than Planck. On one side, we have an unprecedented instrument that carries a significant fraction of the entire field of particle physics on its 27km shoulders. On the other side, a single telescope chipping away at a corner of astrophysics. Nevertheless, there are disgruntled mutterings that perhaps the resources that went into Planck could have been better spent on other, perhaps more risky or speculative missions.
Jury is still out and likely will be for AT LEAST a thousand years to come IMHO. -TYR