Thursday, October 19, 2006

Stirring Things Up


Today's Cassini photo was taken September 25. Saturn's F Ring is pulled into knots and curls by the influence of unseen satellites. These objects have not been seen, but we can detect their influence. Small Black Holes could be closer than we think, maybe in our neighbourhood.

The infra-red photo below is from the Spitzer Space Telescope. 210 million years ago the dwarf galaxy M32 smashed into Andromeda, creating ripples in the bigger galaxy's disk. Andromeda is slowly approaching our galaxy and will collide with us in 5-10 billion years. There is unseen mass between them, possibly ten times a galaxy's mass pulling the Milky Way and Andromeda together.


Expansion of the Universe is not uniform. Individual motions of galaxies can oppose the Hubble flow, like trout swimming upstream. The Milky Way and thousands of other galaxies are falling at 600 km/sec toward an unseen mass called the Great Attractor. This object has the mass of 10^16 Suns or 100,000 galaxies! It may be a true Black Hole, so monstrously massive that nothing can escape. There is evidence of another Great Attractor some 700 million years away.

These monsters could be common, yet they are not counted in mass surveys. The missing 2/3 ascribed to "dark energy" may be hidden from us. It is foolish to think that humans know all that is out there. That is like Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius not realising that he is falling into an abyss.

Final photo is from the Hubble space Telescope. The Antennae galaxies NGC 4038 and NGC 4039 are in the process of colliding. I prefer to call this "mating."

A physicist can go with the flow, avoid risk, and not stand out. One can profess that the Universe is dominated by "dark energy" and the Sun circles the Earth. Such people end up complaining about their unsatisfying lives because they never make a difference. It is much more fun to stir things up!

12 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4:30 PM  
Blogger nige said...

Hi Louise,

Regards rotating galaxies, I don't want to take up too much space and time, but maybe could you perhaps take a look at http://www.gravity.uk.com/galactic_rotation_curves.html.

John Hunter's cosmology (on linked pages to that one) is totally wrong and I've given detailed reasons myself why his cosmology theorising is wrong in my comment number 12 at
http://nige.wordpress.com/2006/09/22/gravity-equation-discredits-lubos-motl/#comments.

However, his use of the equation E = mc^2 = mMG/R (as long as you accept that Hunter is wrong about R being the radius of the universe, and accept that R is somewhat less than that), to explain the galactic rotation curves without darm matter is interesting.

My analysis of gravity mechanism indicates that the Friedmann solution to general relativity for the critical density is false because it exaggerates the density of the universe (as given by my mechanism by a factor) factor of exactly 0.5e^3 ~ 10.

Of course, in the Lambda-CDM model where you introduce fictitious dark energy as well as unobserved dark matter, the mainstream theoretical density / observed density ratio is not exactly 10. But it is ~10 when you dump dark energy and use a value of density which is based on calculations utilising the same value of Hubble constant (the observed density determination depends partly on the Hubble constant, for volume).

Best wishes,
nigel

12:17 AM  
Blogger Rae Ann said...

After making my comment yesterday about it being obvious that the universe was a sphere, the questions began bugging me about whether or not it was really all that obvious. If the universe is not expanding uniformly then maybe it isn't a sphere. I guess I'm wondering what the 'boundary' is and what it is made of. And at what point did the expansion become non-uniform? A kind of funny image comes to mind of a snowglobe with all the little flakes swirling around inside.

3:50 AM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

HI Nigel, Rae Ann. Both citations are very interesting (and your reference to my work is very nice). By discussing these ideas we are getting closer to the solution. It is possible to modify the equations by some dimensionless constant as Nigel has suggested. Emphasis on "dark energy" prevents science from finding the answers.

General Relativity says that the very presence of mass, any mass will cause Space/Time to be curved. Flat space is quite absurd. The colourful pictures from the WMAP team show temperature fluctuations of less than 1 in 10,000. Overall the Universe is smoother than a ball bearing.

Again I enjoy both your thoughtful posts.

1:15 PM  
Anonymous paul valletta said...

"General Relativity says that the very presence of mass, any mass will cause Space/Time to be curved. Flat space is quite absurd. "


This is obvious for dimensional, "matter" that exists as 3-D physical entities.

On the question of 2-D matter energy, one can assume that curvature is linearly across the surface.

If one stands upon the Earth, the total "spherical" curvature may be 3-D, but look down at your feet and the ground you stand upon is flat, it is representative of 2-D?

Globally, the Earth is 3-D, locally it is 2-D!

Gravity upon Mass objects is Geometrically a Dimensional observation?...for instance, the surface tension between two locally compacted 3-D charged objects, effects the Global definition of Mass of the objects?

Scaled up into moving bodies, the rotational curve of non colliding Galaxies gives evidence of a 2-D "surface-tension" ?

Basically, the large scale great attraction felt by Galaxies, is NOT 3-D, it is a 2-D "space-flat" effect.

Again "General Relativity says that the very presence of mass, any mass will cause Space/Time to be curved. Flat space is quite absurd. "

Flat space is where matter/energy is not 3-D, it is made from 2-D field energies, therefore it is NON visable?

6:02 PM  
Anonymous paul valletta said...

Sorry, "Flat space is where matter/energy is not 3-D, it is made from 2-D field energies, therefore it is NON visable? "

Just as you look down at your feet and observe a non-curved solid ground, you do not observe the 3-D gravitational curvature unless you gaze to the horizon?

From the observational perspective, the effect of gravity to an observer standing on Earth is locally the surface, for an observer at a sufficient distance above the ground, the effect of gravity (on the man standing below, in contact with the ground) can be deduced by the whole 3-D Mass of Earth?

6:10 PM  
Blogger nige said...

Hi Louise and Paul,

I'm convinced General Relativity is only right in a very limited way - namely the conservation of mass energy which results in the contraction; it suffers from a "landscape" problem in describing cosmology and is really bad physics for that and other reasons such as ignoring the effects of the redshift or perhaps slowing of gravity causing gauge boson radiation in an expanding universe.

It needs to be completely rebuilt from scratch using QFT as the basis!

The correct theory is Yang-Mills quantum field theory, and "general relativity" should be built from that. Lee Smolin has already done the major work by showing that the field equation from general relativity (without a metric, which can be supplied by a simple mechanism) is given by the fact that the Feynman path integral is effectively the sum of all relevant interaction graphs in a Penrose spin network.

In particular, Lunsford has disproved dark energy/CC on the basis that a 6-d unification (3 distance dimensions, 3 time dimensions; ie something looking suspiciously like Euclidean geometry pre-Minkowski) unifies general relativity with electrodynamics. He was suppressed from arXiv, but was published in a peer-reviewed physics journal.

I'm also keen on applying Woit's theory of the Standard Model using representation theory (see page 51 of Woit's paper http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0206135, where he gets the standard model including chiral symmetries from Lie and Clifford algebras in low dimensions. The main issue then is the full mechanism for energy-dependent symmetry breaking.

Kind regards,
nigel

4:18 AM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

Thanks again for such thoughtful comments. A chapter in my book will deal with the flat vs. curved business, starting with Earth. Locally, Earth can be considered flat. When planning a house or even a town we need not take into account Earth's curvature.

It is interesting how Hunter's equations resemble mine. I appreciate how Nigel and Paul choose to work outside the box. Another friend commented that you would have to be Martin Rees to publish anything original. Even those at the top are discouraged from being original, assuming that they want to. Even in the 1930's Einstein had difficulty publishing some papers.

Smolin's work is very promising. It is encouraging that his and Woit's books are getting read.

7:11 AM  
Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

10 21 06

Hello:
Rae Ann you made an exceedingly profound statement, imho. It isn't obvious to me or other physicists what the large scale structure of the universe is. The COBE and WMAP teams provided us with data that has folk thinking that the large scale structure might be a horn or an ellipsoid or whatever else shape fits the data. When you ask about the boundary of the universe, as well as the consideration of snowflakes you are onto something.

I think that there is a fractal discretization of spacetime and certainly snowflakes are fractals....More on this some other time:)

1:31 PM  
Blogger Rae Ann said...

Mahndisa, thanks! Sometimes I feel like a little kid with childish questions and ideas, so it's really nice to hear what you said. :-)

Louise, thanks for allowing me to speak here!

4:56 AM  
Blogger Jim said...

I would like to know why light is slowing down, in particular if it relates to quasar redshifts not having time dilation slow down effects unlike measureable supernova showing dark energy expansion. Hawkings thinks gravity from black holes slows down quasar like curves. If light is slowing down, then couldn't it be speeding up someplace else in the universe? For example, phonon black holes travel in a slower medium then do photon black holes. could this medium have changed since the time of the early quasars? and did light travel much faster shortly after the big-bang in the early universe?

5:24 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

I would like to know why light is slowing down, in particular if it relates to quasar redshifts not having time dilation slow down effects unlike measureable supernova showing dark energy expansion. Hawkings thinks gravity from black holes slows down quasar like curves. If light is slowing down, then couldn't it be speeding up someplace else in the universe? For example, phonon black holes travel in a slower medium then do photon black holes. could this medium have changed since the time of the early quasars? and did light travel much faster shortly after the big-bang in the early universe?

5:25 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page