Andromeda Galaxy M31
One hundred years ago this Spring, the first article on galaxy Spectral-line Redshifts was published by Vesto Slipher which dramatically changed cosmology.
However, few have ever read this original paper, or the several other articles and books considered cosmology landmarks of past century.
These papers are so rarely read perhaps because it takes more than a bit of effort and sometimes expense to find them. One result is that many of the papers are seriously misunderstood; particularly about which topics were and were not actually discussed, and whether they were reporting on experiments or observations or merely theorizing. To help you clarify this for yourself here are a few primary cosmology papers for your intellectual appetite and entertainment.
Redshift, Spectral Line:
“The radial velocity of the Andromeda Nebula,” Slipher, Vesto (1913)
Even earlier, in 1895, a co-founder of Astrophysical Journal, James Edward Keeler, obtained redshifts for Saturn’s rings (A Spectroscopic Proof of the Meteoric Constitution of Saturn’s Rings) — essentially the first use of Doppler effect to measure astronomical object velocity.
Hubble’s Original Redshift Graph
Galaxy Radial Velocity:
“A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebulae,” Hubble, Edwin (1929) Note how this paper does not discuss Universe Expansion. (Hubble in part, used Slipher’s high quality 1913 redshift data.)
“O KPИBИ ЗHE ПPOCTPAHCTBA (On the Curvature of Space),” Friedmann, Alexander (1922) manuscript in original Russian. Analysis; not an experiment.
On the Curvature of Space,” Friedmann, Alexander Translated into English, Friedmann Archives
“Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extra-galactiques,” Lemaître, Abbe’ Georges (1927 in the original French) Analysis; this is not an experiment. It is only mathematical speculations that step into physics and drew Einstein’s retort “Your calculations are correct, but your physics are abominable.”
“A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and increasing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extra-galactic nebulae,” Lemaître, Abbe’ Georges (1931, Translated by Lemaître himself.) This paper does discuss Universe Expansion. I particularly enjoy reading the last two paragraphs.
Posted in Basic Astrophysics, Basic Science, Conjectures OverInterpreting Data, Cosmic Microwave Radiation, Dark Matter, Experiments, Models, Observations Change Ideas, Redshift, Spectral Line, Structure
(c) Copyright 2012 David Dilworth
This article Voted 3-Quarks Daily Semi-Finalist 2012
iPhone-4 (Credit: Jason Hiner / TechRepublic)
What gives more detailed images (higher resolution) – an iPhone or the satellite camera used to propel Big Bang into the leading Cosmology concept?
News Flash: (June 17, 2012) This article was just voted one of the best science blog articles of the past year at 3-Quarks Daily. Thank you for your votes.
Well lets find out by trying this puzzle: See if you can figure out what fairly well-known astronomical phenomenon this is a photograph of :
COBE Astrophotography Surprise
Here’s a hint. This first photograph of the mystery phenomenon is presented with the same angular resolution as the camera on Cosmic Background Explorer – Differential Microwave Radiometer (COBE-DMR or COBE).
(“Angular Resolution” simply means how much detail is in an image. A camera with more megapixels has a greater angular resolution; more is better.)
The COBE satellite’s data / images were described as “echoes of Big Bang” and used to first claim cosmic microwave radiation is purely from “background,” not from stars or galaxies or space dust or gas. COBE’s “background” radiation map was used to eliminate the “ Steady-State” cosmology – Big Bang’s popular competitor at the time.
Can’t see anything? Try this sharper version of the same image with a resolution identical to the best NASA technology (WMAP) for cosmic microwave radiation.
Can you guess what it is yet? or is it still too obscure?
Well, when you are ready – lets take a look at it with the resolution of an ordinary camera.
IAU has no Definition for Big Bang
(c) Copyright 2011 David Dilworth
3 Quarks Daily Semi-Finalist Logo
“…the [Big Bang] definition is a mess.” – Prof. P. James E. Peebles, Princeton University, Feb. 2011
News: (Carmel, California) The world’s most widely respected astrophysics organization, the International Astronomical Union (or IAU), has affirmed that it has no definition for any Big Bang model.
I’m painfully aware of abundant serious problems in physics of the largest phenomena, meaning “Standard” Cosmology-astrophysics (Big Bang/LCDM). Those include definitional and procedural problems, along with fundamental substantive errors and logical flaws likely created and nurtured by serious cognitive biases.
However, for some reason, I assumed that physics of the smallest phenomena, Particle physics, was a very different story. Perhaps due to my indirect and limited exposure to it, I always imagined particle physics as a gold standard where proper physics experiments are conducted. After all they’ve got laboratories to look at things closely with immense control, while we have to struggle with totally uncontrollable, ancient phenomena, no closer than billions of miles away.
Concerning my nagging questions about particle physics, how all those ideas that just wouldn’t add up or make sense, I figured that particle physicists must know what they were doing, they were just terrible at explaining their ideas . . .
Well . . . maybe not.
The Higgs Fake: How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee by Alexander Unzicker, exposes my embarrassingly innocent belief that high energy particle research is built upon responsibly conducted experiments. This book, by an award-winning science writer, relentlessly exposes legitimate problems to the point where the credibility of high energy particle experiments almost fully evaporates and disappears.
Is Mathematics Converting Cosmology into a Priesthood ? (Credit – Sydney Harris)
Let’s start with an analogy.
Question 1. Can you safely drive a car without understanding any mathematics of vehicle dynamics ?
A: Of course. Every day Hundreds of millions of people drive cars in full control and safety — without understanding any math.
Obviously they learned vehicle dynamics physics using a “language” other than math. Continue reading
Relational Mechanics using Mach’s Principle and Weber’s Gravitational Force
The perpetually fascinating Andre Assis has just published a new cosmology book entitled —
“Relational Mechanics and Implementation of Mach’s Principle with Weber’s Gravitational Force” by Apeiron, Montreal, 2014. (542 pages, 26 Chapters, 3 Appendices, 340 figures and 595 references.)
The book presents a comparison between Newtonian mechanics, Einstein’s special and general relativity, and relational mechanics.
“Relational Mechanics” is a quantitative implementation of the ideas of Leibniz, Berkeley and Mach. This volume explains how to integrate those with Weber’s force law for gravitation and the principle of dynamic equilibrium.
It is a new formulation of mechanics intended to replace not only Newton’s classical mechanics, but also Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity.
The book discusses the differences between relative and absolute motion, inertial frames of reference, the distinction between the kinematic and dynamic rotations of the Earth, the principle of equivalence, and proportionality between inertial and gravitational masses.
Andromeda Galaxy M31
Reference: “Dark Matter Comes and Goes at April Meeting” – American Physical Society APS News. June 2013, Vol 22, #6, Pgs 1 & 7.
This article is a summary regarding Dark Matter at the APS April 2013 Astrophysical Conference in Denver CO. Various earlier reports regarding possible Mysterious Dark Matter detection all fizzled under scrutiny. But they will keep trying (as long as money is available).
Reference: “Gigantic IceCube Tightens Limits on Theories that Predict Dark-Matter Particles” by Schwarzchild, Physics Today, May 2013, pgs 14-16.
This image shows a “slice” of the Universe some 11 billion years back in time. The shape is that of the Hubble tuning fork diagram, which describes and separates galaxies according to their morphology into spiral (S), elliptical (E), and lenticular (S0) galaxies. On the left of this diagram are the ellipticals, with lenticulars in the middle, and the spirals branching out on the right side. The spirals on the bottom branch have bars cutting through their centers. The galaxies at these distances from us are small and still in the process of forming. This image is illustrative; the Hubble images used were selected based on their appearance. The individual distance to these galaxies is only approximate.
Credit: NASA, ESA, M. Kornmesser
A research team led by Bomee Lee of University of Massachusetts reported that ~11 billion years ago large galaxies had the same ratio of young (blue) to old (red) galaxies.
Galaxies can be objectively divided into two types: Young and Blue vs Old and Red. Young blue galaxies are rich in star formation, while red galaxies have little star formation. Continue reading
(c) Copyright 2013 Louis Marmet
The WMAP estimate of the age of the Universe, 13.77 ± 0.06 Gyr (billion years), is challenged once again by two recent publications. The study of a nearby star shows that it is older than the Universe. The other study finds that starburst galaxies already existed one billion years after the Big Bang. These new results add weight to the arguments that the Universe is much older than claimed by some cosmologists.
Methuselah Star (HD 140283) relative to our other neighboring stars. Credit: DailyGalaxy.com
The first study reports new measurements made on a star called HD 140283. This “Methuselah” star, located only 190 light-years away from us, is estimated to be 14.4 ± 0.8 Gyr-old. The improvement in the estimate of its age results from a more accurately known distance to the star obtained from parallax measurements using the Hubble Space Telescope. The more accurate determination allows a better measurement of its absolute luminosity. Using the luminosity, the known composition of the star from spectroscopic data and temperature measurements, models of stellar formation allow a reevaluation of its age.
A Higgs Boson? – Likely
“The preliminary results with the full 2012 data set are magnificent and to me it is clear that we are dealing with a Higgs boson though we still have a long way to go to know what kind of Higgs boson it is
Higgs boson trails
,” said CERN’s CMS Experiment Leader and spokesman Joe Incandela
(a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara) at a Particle Conference in Italia
This is a bold step forward as, in the midst of last year’s Public Relations circus and media firestorm, Prof Incandela was brave enough to say “We don’t know if its a Higgs boson.”
However, some CERN physicists remain concerned that it is still too early to call the particle detection a “Higgs” until the evidence is totally irrefutable. This is in part due to a slight but persistent excess of gamma-gamma decays. They are not alone.
Rocket Explosion From Software Bug (Ariane 5)
Oxymoron: “Bug-Free Software”
The $500 million dollar European satellite carrying Ariane-5 rocket blew up 37 seconds into its first launch – because of a one line software bug.
The $1.4 billion US Air Force B-2 bomber wouldn’t fly on its maiden flight — thanks to a software bug.
Later a B-2 bomber crashed and burned due to another software bug.
“If debugging is taking bugs out of software – then programming must mean putting bugs in . . .” – Doug Goodall, Assembly Language Poet, 1989 (1)
This article is to let us ponder the complexity and potential flaws of computer programs used in astrophysics and cosmology.
You’ve probably heard a thousand times that a Proton is made up of three Quarks: Two Up-Quarks and one Down-Quark. Right?
So lets just take a quick look to see how they add up.
OK – an Up Quark weighs in at 1.7 to 3.1 (MeV/c — Million Electron Volts divided by by the speed of light. That is its “rest-mass.”)
and a Down-Quark weighs in at 4.1-5.7 (MeV/c)
So two Up Quarks ~ 3.4 to 6.2 MeV/c
And One Down Quark ~ 4.1 to 5.7 MeV/c
Total ~ 7.5 to 11.9 MeV/c
Now a Proton weighs in at 938 MeV/c.
Whoa ! That doesn’t add up. This means a Proton is at least 80 times heavier that the three quarks !
(c) Copyright 2012 Louis Marmet
Q2343-BX442: A false color composite image of galaxy BX442 generated with data from NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii. (Credit: David Law/Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics)
A team of astronomers have reported the discovery of the oldest spiral galaxy known so far. What makes this discovery interesting is that this grand-design spiral galaxy already existed 3 billion years after the Big Bang when the universe was too hot and chaotic to allow such a regular structure to survive long enough to be seen.
Usually, galaxies born this early after the Big Bang look clumpy and irregular. When the astronomers saw the regular spiral arms of this unusual galaxy, they studied it further with the Keck Observatory in Hawai’i. The results confirmed that grand-design spiral galaxies existed at a very early age of the universe.
“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” – Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1)
Gold Rush Prospectors
Q: What’s the difference between a religious fanatic and an extreme science “enthusiast” ?
A: I’m beginning to wonder.
Neither seems to understand that there are boundaries to science.
A proton-proton collision event in the CMS experiment producing two high-energy photons (red towers). This is what we would expect to see from the decay of a Higgs boson but it is also consistent with background Standard Model physics processes. © CERN 2012
You might have seen the New York Times Headline on July 4th “Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe”
“I think we have it”
said Rolf-Dieter Heuer, the director general of CERN.
While CERN’s spokespeople were reasonably tentative in their description (they called it “Higgs-like”), they did not exhibit as much caution as the OPERA folks did when announcing the evidence for potentially faster than light Neutrinos. This time CERN went to a lot of skillful effort to make it a media circus – and succeeded.
But did they find a Higgs particle?
For the second year in a row an article from this CosmologyScience.com website was voted one of the best science blog articles of the year at 3-Quarks Daily. This is thanks to friends, colleagues and you readers.
This year articles from two authors on CosmologyScience.com were nominated:
“Observation of two early yet mature galaxies: Rare objects or is Big Bang model inaccurate?” by the brilliant Louis Marmet of Canada’s National Research Council,
Posted in Contest, Fun, News
Its official – no “Faster than Light” Neutrinos at CERN.
CERN (not OPERA) Research Director Sergio Bertolucci announced yesterday at a Japanese conference that they have re-run the Neutrino experiments on four different machines and all neutrinos seem to be obeying the speed limit.
“Although this result isn’t as exciting as some would have liked,” said Bertolucci, “it is what we all expected deep down. The story captured the public imagination, and has given people the opportunity to see the scientific method in action – an unexpected result was put up for scrutiny, thoroughly investigated and resolved in part thanks to collaboration between normally competing experiments. That’s how science moves forward.”
Gigantic pillars of Big Bang are creaking and starting to collapse like colossal dominoes. These are tumultuous times in Cosmology.
Dark Matter -- You're Out !
Recently I described how the “The voice you hear getting louder is Brünnhilde practicing Götterdämmerung” in describing the fruitless and essentially completed search for Higgs Bosons. (Update: See “Did CERN Find a Higgs ? Well not quite. But they probably found a New Particle ! and extended their funding for years“)
Well, now the hypothesis called “Dark Matter” is facing a similar fate.
What a contrast with a mere five years ago when both Dark Matter and Higgs Bosons were expected to be found rapidly.
Spin-Charge Separation Graph
Credit: Nature, Schlappa et al
Amazing news: Researchers in Switzerland have separated an Electron into two smaller quasi-particles – a “Spinon” and an “Orbiton;” meaning they have physically separated the spin and the orbit properties of an Electron.
Until now, standard physics generally accepted that an Electron was a fundamental particle – that it was not made of smaller components.
However, as early as 1980 theorists had predicted an electron could be made of three smaller pieces: A “Spinon” (providing spin), an “Orbiton” (providing the orbit) and a “Holon” (carrying the charge).
It is not always made clear that astronomical images are altered or “cleaned-up” before we see them. You know the colors of gasses and dust are “adjusted” so we can more easily see different astrophysical phenomena. You might be surprised to learn everything that goes into making the celestial beautiful.
Astronomical Image Enhancement Engineer Brant Widgeon explaining . . .
Well, here’s an interview with an Astronomical Image Enhancement engineer, Brant Widgeon, who describes one of the lesser known phenomena that interferes with so many space photographs.
Credit: Lucasfilm Limited
Currently the speed of light in a vacuum is just a hair under 300,000 kilometers per second (more precisely 299,792,458 kps).
“In 1983, the metre was redefined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.“
Because the speed of light (known as “c” to mathematicians and physicists) does not exactly match 300,000 kilometers per second, it makes calculations for physicists and mathematicians unnecessarily tedious.
Cherenkov Radiation Credit: Wikipedia
A recent criticism of the apparently Faster-than-light (FTL) Neutrinos inspiring a lot of discussion is the claim that if Neutrinos are going FTL – they must cause Cherenkov radiation.
Why? That doesn’t make sense. And its never been observed so how would anyone test that?
Cherenkov Radiation Requires Charged Particles – But Neutrinos Have No Charge
The beautiful blue-violet glow of Cherenkov Radiation is only caused by charged particles, primarily electrons.