redshift = expanding universe?

[Artlav]

The Nobel Physics prize got handed out a few weeks ago for the discovery of accelerated expansion of the universe.

And that proves what?
Since when appeals to authority prove anything?

 

[Urwumpe]

And that proves what?

It proves that this result is extremely popular, despite it being not really more solid as other findings in astrophysics, that suggest slowing down acceleration or even a wobble.

 

[RisingFury]

And that proves what?
Since when appeals to authority prove anything?

They don't hand out a Nobel Physics prize out easy. Redshift isn't the only experiment we can do to show the accelerated expansion of the universe.

I only posted the "appeal to authority" because I'd already posted a more detailed post before. One only needs to read.

 

[Urwumpe]

They don't hand out a Nobel Physics prize out easy.

Sure? The significance of the discoveries of many Nobel Physics prizes had been pretty low in hindsight.

 

[RisingFury]

It proves that this result is extremely popular, despite it being not really more solid as other findings in astrophysics, that suggest slowing down acceleration or even a wobble.

Popular my ass. The only thing that matters in science is the truth.

The finding has been confirmed by many independent experiments and what earned it the Nobel prize is the surprise.

We'd expect the universe to slow down in it's acceleration. Sure, it could expand into infinity, kinda like an object with escape velocity. Or it could crunch, kinda like an object that falls back down. But no, it's rushing away from itself and we have no idea why. It's contrary to our current understanding.

 

[N_Molson]

I seriously doubt we can know what the Universe will become. Laws of physics and of our sciences are part of it. Who knows, constants could shift, or other weird stuff like that, which would invalidate all our previsions... :shrug:

This already happened, if all the Universe started from a infinitely small point.

 

[Urwumpe]

Popular my ass. The only thing that matters in science is the truth.

In science - but the Nobel Prize is not a scientific prize. It is a science prize. It is not awarded for the best scientific discoveries - because how can you measure it? I even think the ignobel prize is much closer to the best science, but that is just my feeling, I like how dedication and asking unpopular questions is rewarded, because the popular science way is dangerous for me:

Only because it is popular, this does not mean it is the truth - the truth is usually pretty unpopular.

And the Nobel Prize is pretty much awarded for popularity. Who is popular, will become more popular with it.

 

[RisingFury]

Sure? The significance of the discoveries of many Nobel Physics prizes had been pretty low in hindsight.

Point them out

 

[Urwumpe]

Point them out

Awarded since 1901, not that hard to find examples:

Von Lenard in 1905 for example is one of such awards, that didn't have much impact - while many technologies had been based on cathode rays, it did not result in much new science, and relatively quickly became replaced by better technology.

Or take the many "particle discovery" awards in the 1930s. Every new discovered particle resulted in a Nobel Prize, even if the important work had been done by others before, making it possible to discover such particles and have a theory of atoms.

Or take the bubble chamber - it was only useful for a very short time, and its scientific value had been pretty limited since it was only photographic. It was just an evolution - a useful one maybe.

It is not like there had not been better science around to award, just look what followed after each example, and how long people worked already on their science before it got rewarded.

It is not like there was no alternative to rewarded small improvements or small discoveries.

Just to highlight this better: The wire chamber, that improved the bubble chamber a lot and which permits still much better science, was already invented 8 years after the Nobel Prize for the Bubble Chamber was awarded (1960) or 16 years after the Bubble Chamber was invented (1952). But didn't get its Nobel prize until 1992.

The Bubble Chamber did not have any big scientific discoveries until the 1970s. And was no longer used productively since the 1980s - wire chambers already replaced it.

 

[Keatah]

If the universe is expanding, continuing the big-bang inflation.. Isn't the size of the atoms and sub-atomic particles that make them up expanding too? And the space between them?

 

[Fizyk]

Isn't the size of the atoms and sub-atomic particles that make them up expanding too? And the space between them?

The elementary particles don't even have a property called "size", so it can't change The space between them indeed expands, but it's very slow on these scales (try multiplying Hubble constant by the size of an atom, or even by the size of a planet, and see what velocity you get), so the interactions between them are strong enough to hold them in place.

 

[Cras]

This already happened, if all the Universe started from a infinitely small point.

The Universe did not start from an infinitely small point. Inflationary Cosmology makes it clear that there was a universe before the big bang. The old theory of an infinitely small point with infinite density and infinite energy raised serious compatibility issues with the horizon temperature, nor does it explain why the big happened and where matter came from.

The big bang is the inflaton expanding the three enlarged spacial dimensions into the forms we recognize them today.

If the universe is expanding, continuing the big-bang inflation.. Isn't the size of the atoms and sub-atomic particles that make them up expanding too? And the space between them?

First off, the issue is the expansion is INCREASING. Expansion on its own is not that big of a deal, since the original equations of General Relativity suggest that the universe should be either expanding or contracting and that it is extremely unlikely to exists in a sort of equilibrium that would entail a static universe.

And the increase in the expansion rate is not the same inflationary expansion that was part of the big bang. That inflaton has gone and expansion slowed down, but at some point it appears that it has increased again. We have an explanation for the inflaton at the big bang as being the Higgs field, but figuring out why expansion is speeding up again is more than likely going to require a new explanation.

But yes, the size of atoms, and the space between does indeed grow, but its change is not noticeable nor even relevant. Spacial expansion can only really be seen on the largest of scales, between two objects massively separated in distance from each other. As it has been said earlier in this thread, the further apart two objects are, the faster they are flying apart due to the expansion of the universe, and this rate is increasing.

Fizyk brings up the good point on the forces of nature. Expansion of space is not a big enough force to overcome electromagnetism or the strong force, so atoms will not get ripped apart from the expansion. Nor is the expansion big enough at scale to overcome gravity's attraction, so no worry about galaxies getting ripped apart, rather picture galaxies flying apart from other galaxies, but within, the structure is intact.

But elementary particles don't have size? I thought the age of point-particles was over...it is time to embrace the Strings, which clearly says that the elementary components of the universe have definate size and patterns.

 

[Izack]

Awarded since 1901, not that hard to find examples:

Von Lenard in 1905 for example is one of such awards, that didn't have much impact - while many technologies had been based on cathode rays, it did not result in much new science, and relatively quickly became replaced by better technology.

Or take the many "particle discovery" awards in the 1930s. Every new discovered particle resulted in a Nobel Prize, even if the important work had been done by others before, making it possible to discover such particles and have a theory of atoms.

Or take the bubble chamber - it was only useful for a very short time, and its scientific value had been pretty limited since it was only photographic. It was just an evolution - a useful one maybe.

It is not like there had not been better science around to award, just look what followed after each example, and how long people worked already on their science before it got rewarded.

It is not like there was no alternative to rewarded small improvements or small discoveries.

Just to highlight this better: The wire chamber, that improved the bubble chamber a lot and which permits still much better science, was already invented 8 years after the Nobel Prize for the Bubble Chamber was awarded (1960) or 16 years after the Bubble Chamber was invented (1952). But didn't get its Nobel prize until 1992.

The Bubble Chamber did not have any big scientific discoveries until the 1970s. And was no longer used productively since the 1980s - wire chambers already replaced it.

I think the point was that Nobel prizes don't go out to people like houseklh up there, who aren't educated in the higher sciences, and thus don't have significant ground to challenge laureates, or accepted science in general. :tiphat:

 

[Linguofreak]

If the universe is expanding, continuing the big-bang inflation.. Isn't the size of the atoms and sub-atomic particles that make them up expanding too? And the space between them?

Yes and no. The expansion does in theory affect them, but it's slow enough on small scales to be drowned out by the effects of electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces (or, at least for more massive objects, even gravity).

EDIT: Whoops, didn't notice Fizyk's post. Also note that an end to the universe in a "Big Rip" is theoretically possible, and in this scenario the expansion of the Universe would accelerate to the point that it would rip apart everything but fundamental particles (quarks, electrons, neutrinos, etc, which are, as far as we know, indivisible).

 

[Urwumpe]

I think the point was that Nobel prizes don't go out to people like houseklh up there, who aren't educated in the higher sciences, and thus don't have significant ground to challenge laureates, or accepted science in general. :tiphat:

maybe, but I think THIS is not something that speaks for the Nobel Prize.

Any argument by authority is evil. It is not important who says something, but what and why he says it. houseklh could, in theory, find really something that turns science upside down. Maybe already in his garage by building his own optics table from DVD player junk. Ok, I know I am now overly optimistic in his personality, but this tiny detail ignored, why should he not be allowed to say that a Nobel Prize laureate is wrong?

I think you should also not always trust that much in accepted science. We maybe never believed in a flat Earth, but we had many other stupid things as accepted science.

Science is always only the best currently possible approximation to the eternal universal truth. Even in history, you have new insights in past events.

 

[Moach]

Science is always only the best currently possible approximation to the eternal universal truth. Even in history, you have new insights in past events.

let the brontosaurus (no longer) stand there as a brutal example of such a case

 

[RisingFury]

why should he not be allowed to say that a Nobel Prize laureate is wrong?

If he wants to challenge a Nobel Prize laureate, sure. But provide more for it than an argument out of ignorance.

Any argument by authority is evil.

Like I said, flip a few pages back through this thread and you'll find some answers.

 

[Izack]

I'm not trusting in accepted science so much as the extroardinary unlikelyhood of such a bold claim having any scientific backing, accepted or otherwise.

 

[Cras]

The Nobel prize takes along time to recognize a specific "advancement" because they not only want it to be verified, but for its significance to science and the quest for knowledge to have a chance to present itself. And that is the general M.O. for all the disciplines represented in the prize.

And there should be no idea that someone does not have the right to question the status quo in terms of cosmological understanding. There is plenty left unknown, or even just poorly explained, but it is when things get questioned more out of misguided notions rather than just plain ignorance, since I tend to see when someone flat out just doesn't know have knowledge of such a level of physics they tend to just follow the crowd. I doubt too many people with little to no physics knowledge will use that ignorance as a springboard to openly doubt relativity for instance. Einstein and relativity is too ingrained in the modern psyche, it is rather the default position to accept that it does exist, even if one has no clue what that actually means for the physical world they inhabit.

Quantum mechanics is a good example here. Ask someone with no science study if they awknowledge quantum physics, they will most likely say sure. Give them a bit of knowledge of entanglement, Copenhagen interpretation, or probability waves, and they will get the idea that QM is fundamentally wrong. Give a lot more education on the subject and they will see it conceptually and understand what it means.

The heart of this thread was doubt, if not flat objection, to the idea that the universe is expanding because of a erroneous understanding of thermodynamics and special relativity. And as any good scientist would do, this gets pointed out. It is not a matter of "Do not question the standard model", quite the contrary, if you are going to question it, get the reasons why straight, and make sure they are in bounds. Raising doubt for doubt's sake is not raising proper peer review, it is raising hell, and for no good benefit.

That is not what the original poster was doing. He felt, by what he saw it, that inflationary cosmology violates special relativity. It in fact does not, nor does photon decay occur in the manner that would resemble red-shift. Simple as that.

Does this mean for certain that the universe is in a state of inflation? Does it then point to my earlier point of the Higgs Inflaton causing the big bang? Of course not. There are alternative points of view on the subject. However the majority, and in this case the majority is quite vast, believe in a universe that is expanding at an increasing rate, and thus, the work is awarded the Nobel Prize.

And so ends another long winded post by Cras.

 

[Moach]

(...)
The heart of this thread was doubt, if not flat objection(...)

finally! :thumbup:


that's correct - i began this thread by presenting a controverse point of view i had been led to by having insufficient information to go with... i KNEW it was incorrect, so i asked in hopes of learning WHY that was - and learn i did


i'd still advise any scientifically-inclided individual to refrain from any installments of "truths written in stone"....

if there's anything that we as a civilization should have learned by now - is that there'll ALWAYS be more to learn... and old "known" things might become irrelevant and/or incorrect in the process - that's just how things work, if not - then we'd "know it all" and there would be no science to do :hmm:


the only men who know all about things are those who know no things at all