Giant space bubble

7624U · 09-30-2008, 22:09

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200809...ntcosmicbubble

Do We Live in a Giant Cosmic Bubble? Clara Moskowitz
Staff Writer
SPACE.com
Tue Sep 30, 7:03 AM ET

If the notion of dark energy sounds improbable, get ready for an even more outlandish suggestion.

Earth may be trapped in an abnormal bubble of space-time that is particularly void of matter. Scientists say this condition could account for the apparent acceleration of the universe's expansion, for which dark energy currently is the leading explanation.

Dark energy is the name given to the hypothetical force that could be drawing all the stuff in the universe outward at an ever-increasing rate. Current thinking is that 74 percent of the universe could be made up of this exotic dark energy, with another 21 percent being dark matter, and normal matter comprising the remaining 5 percent.

Until now, there has been no good way to choose between dark energy or the void explanation, but a new study outlines a potential test of the bubble scenario.

If we were in an unusually sparse area of the universe, then things could look farther away than they really are and there would be no need to rely on dark energy as an explanation for certain astronomical observations.

"If we lived in a very large under-density, then the space-time itself wouldn't be accelerating," said researcher Timothy Clifton of Oxford University in England. "It would just be that the observations, if interpreted in the usual way, would look like they were."

Scientists first detected the acceleration by noting that distant supernovae seemed to be moving away from us faster than they should be. One type of supernova (called Type Ia) is a useful distance indicator, because the explosions always have the same intrinsic brightness. Since light gets dimmer the farther it travels, that means that when the supernovae appear faint to us, they are far away, and when they appear bright, they are closer in.

But if we happened to be in a portion of the universe with less matter in it than normal, then the space-time around us would be different than it is outside, because matter warps space-time. Light travelling from supernovae outside our bubble would appear dimmer, because the light would diverge more than we would expect once it got inside our void.

One problem with the void idea, though, is that it negates a principle that has reined in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely, that our place in the universe isn't special. When Nicholas Copernicus argued that it made much more sense for the Earth to be revolving around the sun than vice versa, it revolutionized science. Since then, most theories have to pass the Copernican test. If they require our planet to be unique, or our position to be exalted, the ideas often seem unlikely.

"This idea that we live in a void would really be a statement that we live in a special place," Clifton told SPACE.com. "The regular cosmological model is based on the idea that where we live is a typical place in the universe. This would be a contradiction to the Copernican principle."

Clifton, along with Oxford researchers Pedro G. Ferreira and Kate Land, say that in coming years we may be able to distinguish between dark energy and the void. They point to the upcoming Joint Dark Energy Mission, planned by NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy to launch in 2014 or 2015. The satellite aims to measure the expansion of the universe precisely by observing about 2,300 supernovae.

The scientists suggest that by looking at a large number of supernovae in a certain region of the universe, they should be able to tell whether the objects are really accelerating away, or if their light is merely being distorted in a void.

The new study will be detailed in an upcoming issue of the journal Physical Review Letters

Any amature Scientists have a theory on what is doing that ?

**Razor** · 09-30-2008, 23:01

This kind of thinking makes my brain bleed.

GratefulCitizen · 10-01-2008, 00:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7624U

Any amature Scientists have a theory on what is doing that ?

I'll bite.

Perhaps they should revisit their underlying assumptions.
Scientists love to pretend that their arguments do not begin with some basic assumptions.

The Copernican principle is an assumption.
The value of c being fixed throughout the history of the universe is an assumption.

You will often see attempts to "prove" these assumptions.
Such arguments usually amount to the logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent".

Concerning the value of c being historically constant:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0305457v3.pdf

Penn · 10-01-2008, 00:16

In order to discuss this we have to first understand the basic’s of “Quantum Mechanics”, which is the understanding or the investigation of systems at the atomic level. It is also the intense study of those systems. We study, at least in my mind, those systems to understand the function of classical mechanics. That is; the study of everything from the particle to the galaxies. Simply put, by studying the atom and its reaction to and in its environment; and the study of its interaction as it collides with the nucleus of an atom, it should reflect in its microcosm a similar reaction in the universe. Hence, the adherence to the laws of Newton and the Copernican test to justify any relevant application as it applies to physical properties as we know them here on earth, or as we have formulated as absolutes to comprehend our experience in this physicality.

Truths if you will, to define this reality. The problem arises by the simple question that if gravity is true here it should be true everywhere. Simple enough, but that doesn’t appear to be the case, which leads us to the two fields of physics.

Physics is broken into two fields of study, one is classical and the other is quantum. Classical studies the laws, gravity, light speed, Newton etc, in essence what in measurable, or what can be observed, while Quantum studies typically what is not observable.

The logical part of CM states as a principle; atoms, and the electrons in atoms will expands at the speed of light and collide with the nucleus and therefore make stable atoms, or stationary atoms impossible, according to the classical studies, the laws, or moving bodies governed by the laws adhere to this principal; but in the “natural world” electrons remain in a orbit around the nucleus and this contradicts the fundamentals of electromagnetism, which, if you will, is what our experience is based on, here on earth in relation to the universe at large.

What Quantum mechanics investigates is why the electron stays in place, or in their orbit; which by their doing so, negates Newton’s laws of motion and gravitational certainty. Quantum mechanics measures the wave of gravitational light to explain why it stays in its orbit, which can not be explained by the classical laws Newtonian electromagnetism.

When combining these two disciplines’; the laws of the physical universe; Newtonian logic, to explain that the forces of electromagnetism, our static solar system, in relation to the galaxy, all should remain stationary and measurable. It is not, planets’ expand and collide. What Quantum mechanics tries to answer is that measurable prediction; as measured in gravitational light electromagnetism to predict what and where in the void, an electron or planet would appear base on its light wave’s gravitational signature.

The unity of these two, Quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, leads us to wave particle duality, a theory in which the particle and the wave is neither one, nor the other.

It gets technical from here and it is where Einstein Theory of Relativity begins.

Is anyone interested?

charlietwo · 10-01-2008, 01:51

If it weren't 0250, I would consider pondering some of the points in this article, but I'll hold it off for tomorrow morning as I love this kind of stuff.

The real question that I know everyone else is thinking: What are all of the tortoises who hold up the world standing on?

**Kyobanim** · 10-01-2008, 04:18

I just want to know one thing. . .

Where's my warp drive?

Doc Z · 10-01-2008, 05:41

Hi Penn,

I read your post on Quantum Mechanics in relation to GR. It seems you captured the general gist. The qualm I am having is with Variable Light Speed. Now, I read the article you posted by Jo˜ao Magueijo. With VLS there are major causality issues which he never addresses a solution to. In fact he ends his essay stating the causality issue and leaves it at that.

The author even mentions in his premise that there has been no observable evidence in support of VLS as of yet. I skimmed over the math, as I am by no means an expert mathematician, especially when it comes to physics. I will be shooting my friend who is a Nuclear Engineer with NASA this link to see what he thinks of it.

I hope it is realized that VLS would mean that our Universe is far older than our present estimates as Parallax would be extremely scewed. I for one would love VLS to be possible, unfortunately though our observation of light and how it functions has yet to provide merit to VLS.

Just my 2 ever-devaluating cents

GratefulCitizen · 10-01-2008, 07:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Z

The author even mentions in his premise that there has been no observable evidence in support of VLS as of yet. I skimmed over the math, as I am by no means an expert mathematician, especially when it comes to physics. I will be shooting my friend who is a Nuclear Engineer with NASA this link to see what he thinks of it.

I hope it is realized that VLS would mean that our Universe is far older than our present estimates as Parallax would be extremely scewed. I for one would love VLS to be possible, unfortunately though our observation of light and how it functions has yet to provide merit to VLS.

Magueijo's statements in 2.1 and 2.3 address the point I was trying to make.
(c being constant throughout history is an assumption)

Concerning the lack of observable evidence in support of VLS:
This does not logically lead to the conclusion that VLS is invalid.
To conclude that VLS is invalid would be a case of denying the antecedent.

That being said, I am not necessarily a proponent of VLS.
Rather, I am an opponent of the constant addition of assumptions in support of a given theory.

All theories, studies, and thought neccesarily begin with some sort of assumption or assumptions.**
From there, experimentation, observation, and logic lead to conclusion.
Whenever popular cosmology theories run into problems (or refutations of the desired conclusion), rather than revisiting the root assumptions, the problems are usually addressed by tacking on another assumption.
(Dark matter, dark energy, Oort cloud, etc...)

"Evidence" supporting these new assumptions is inferred rather than observed.
Logically speaking, this is a case of affirming the consequent.

Eventually, these additions start to bear a strong resemblance to Skinner's constant.
Occam's razor is a useful tool.
Maybe it's time apply it and revisit some of the base assumptions.

-My relative .02

**
Consider the case of Euclidean geometry.
5 basic assumptions:
1. A straight line can be drawn between any two points
2. A finite line can be extended infinitely in both directions
3. A circle can be drawn with any center and any radius
4. All right angles are equal to each other
5. Given a line and a point not on the line, only one line can be drawn through the point parallel to the line.

For 2000 years, various people tried to prove the 5th assumption from the other 4.
Euclid's genius was in recognizing that it had to be assumed.

In the last 200 years, different geometries (all logically consistent) have been constructed by changing some of the assumptions.

Ironic to this thread, replacement of the 5th assumption lead to the development of hyperbolic geometry, useful in relativity.

Sdiver · 10-01-2008, 07:52

For those of you reading this thread, I brought this along to help out.

Help yourselves.

Red Flag 1 · 10-01-2008, 08:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sdiver

For those of you reading this thread, I brought this along to help out.

Help yourselves.

Just a couple now, and a couple for later.

All this on top of the financial mess...............Hell, give me the whole bottle!!

RF 1

RF 1

Penn · 10-01-2008, 08:20

Doc Z and Grateful prove your question, or your point. I hate wasting my time. If your are serious, I have a few question you can help me explore; as we are way pass a+b=c.

Newton’s laws state that an object remains in place until a force acts on it; and once acted on, will remain in motion until a net force of equal quality acts upon it.

We know this in theorem as: “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”, but what it really defines is inertia, which is the resistance of an object to a change in its state of motion, or rest, along a straight line. Its one of the founding principles in classical physics use to define motion, time, speed and force; elegantly stated as time divide by distance equals speed, or the impact of a Barrett 50 cal round on a rag head at 1000 yards is a finite calculation responding to acceleration provided by grain load (force) vs. gravity, weight, and wind.

In a vacuum the round continues along its path unimpeded. Replace the word round with the word light and the question is: what of objects held in electromagnet space, or in the static balance caused by the electromagnetism, that’s moving in constant speed as measured in distance by the speed of which light travels’ . Are they moving through the vacuum of space at a constant speed relative to the measurements of other bodies within the static balance, or are they only relative to the speed of each others within the static balance confine as measured. Additionally, in which direction are they, or are we moving, as measured by light, relative to our position in the galaxy.

If we can explore these few question we should be able to contemplate where it will lead next in our discussion; if you can't, I'll sign off as I have other things to do.

Doc Z · 10-01-2008, 09:16

Penn,

I seem to have made a mistake. I was making a response to GratefulCitizen's reference to VLS and seem to have unwittingly addressed you. Kind of brain fried on that one I suppose.

I understand your point. You are utilizing GR to question the very nature of C. I have never thought of FOR (Frame of Reference) in relation to our perception of Light Speed. GR clearly states there is no "Ultimate FOR" which would lead one to question the very notion of the "Constant" of light speed. Mathematically though we come to causality issues.

I need to ask what would cause you to compare an object with a "Rest Mass" (such as a projectile) to a photon. It does provide an illustration of the particle moving, but one may erroneously apply Newton's Laws to the scenario when there is no Rest Mass.

Grateful Citizen,

I think there is a misunderstanding of how cosmology operates. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are abstract names for things we have little knowledge of. We see the effect being caused and know from observation that what we know to be out there is not enough. I don't think any reputable cosmologist has come out and stated the nature of these exotic elements.

As I am sure you know, we are in the infancy of cosmology and physics as of right now. We have no idea what happened prior to 1 Planck time. We can't discern anything as the Laws of Physics did not exist as they breakdown within a singularity. I can imagine though that in 200 years humanity will be looking back at us much the same as we look back to the status quo broken by Galileo in his time.

All in all I would rather see cosmologists sticking their bare rear ends into the peer-review system, than give up hope of discovery. I mean, how many times did it take Thomas Edison to complete his famous pet project?

-Doc Z

**Team Sergeant** · 10-01-2008, 09:27

I don’t believe we could discuss just one issue when it comes to "space" and arrive at any conclusions.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...erse-void.html

If you’re really interested in this stuff (as I am) go and read everything Clara Moskowitz has written at Space.com. The more pieces added to the puzzle allows for a better understanding of individual articles.

Also visit this page: http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html
And find out what scientists are doing to answer questions relating to particle physics.

“There are many theories as to what will result from these collisions, but what's for sure is that a brave new world of physics will emerge from the new accelerator, as knowledge in particle physics goes on to describe the workings of the Universe. For decades, the Standard Model of particle physics has served physicists well as a means of understanding the fundamental laws of Nature, but it does not tell the whole story. Only experimental data using the higher energies reached by the LHC can push knowledge forward, challenging those who seek confirmation of established knowledge, and those who dare to dream beyond the paradigm.”
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html

Penn · 10-01-2008, 09:31

I was using it as an introduction example; implying if you will the basic's of S/T=D in oder to simpify and to later introduce Mass; as it applies to and reacts to force and energy.
That said, by walking through the axioms, step by step, or historically proven, they would leads us back to the original article on the space bubble. It is my uneducated view, that by doing so, we could reach a point of defining our understanding and place just a little bit better.

GratefulCitizen · 10-01-2008, 09:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Z

Grateful Citizen,

I think there is a misunderstanding of how cosmology operates. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are abstract names for things we have little knowledge of. We see the effect being caused and know from observation that what we know to be out there is not enough. I don't think any reputable cosmologist has come out and stated the nature of these exotic elements.

As I am sure you know, we are in the infancy of cosmology and physics as of right now. We have no idea what happened prior to 1 Planck time. We can't discern anything as the Laws of Physics did not exist as they breakdown within a singularity. I can imagine though that in 200 years humanity will be looking back at us much the same as we look back to the status quo broken by Galileo in his time.

All in all I would rather see cosmologists sticking their bare rear ends into the peer-review system, than give up hope of discovery. I mean, how many times did it take Thomas Edison to complete his famous pet project?

-Doc Z

Understood.
Just a little frustrated at the idea of "let's assume it's there" and then move forward.

Why not consider each case based on its own set of assumptions?
Why not consider the possibility that it's not there and see what that implies?

Concerning the causality issue, do the theories used in calculating this dilemma assume that the speed of light is constant?
If so, it is a case of circular reasoning.

*******
*******

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penn

In a vacuum the round continues along its path unimpeded. Replace the word round with the word light and the question is: what of objects held in electromagnet space, or in the static balance caused by the electromagnetism, that’s moving in constant speed as measured in distance by the speed of which light travels’ . Are they moving through the vacuum of space at a constant speed relative to the measurements of other bodies within the static balance, or are they only relative to the speed of each others within the static balance confine as measured.

According to special relativity:
The speed objects move cannot exceed the speed of light.
Light will be observed as moving the same speed, regardless of the frame of reference.
The observed speed of a non-light object depends entirely upon the frame of reference.

Various independent bodies can be observed as moving in a certain way (and at a certain speed) relative to a given frame of reference.
How they are moving relative to each other (and their speed) will change if the frame of reference is changed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penn

Additionally, in which direction are they, or are we moving, as measured by light, relative to our position in the galaxy.

Unsure what you mean by "as measured by light".

But, for an example:

Suppose there is a spaceship flying at 70% the speed of light, as observed by you while standing on planet Earth.
The spaceship fires a round from its forward-mounted trusty relativistic M2 Browning.
The bullet flys out of the bore at 80% the speed of light, as observed by the crew on the spaceship.

Down on Earth, the bullet appears to be going about 96% the speed of light.
(.7c + .8c) / (1 + ((.7c * .8c) / c^2) ) = .96c

Not sure if that's what you were looking for, but it's a start.