"Gravity is Driving Growth of the Universe" --Astronomers Confirm via 600,000 Galaxies
Follow the Daily Galaxy
Add Daily Galaxy to igoogle page AddThis Feed Button Join The Daily Galaxy Group on Facebook Follow The Daily Galaxy Group on twitter
 

« Fossil Discovery Shows The Antarctic Icecap is 33.6 million Years Old (Today's Most Popular) | Main | Cassini Mission's 10-Year Saturn Probe Discoveries Celebrated --"From Titan's Earth-like World to the Mystery of the Giant Hexagon" »

June 29, 2014

"Gravity is Driving Growth of the Universe" --Astronomers Confirm via 600,000 Galaxies

 

2317-galaxy

 

Nearly 100 years since Albert Einstein developed general relativity, the theory has passed its toughest test yet in explaining the properties of observable Universe. Refuting recent cosmological speculation that gravity "is an illusion" (see below), the most precise measurements to date of the strength of gravitational interactions between distant galaxies show perfect consistency with general relativity’s predictions.

Samushia and his colleagues analysed more than 600,000 galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey III (SDSS-III) Baryon Oscillations Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) catalogue to come up with a measurement of how much galaxies clump together within the vast volume that they occupy.

"While the Cosmological Principle tells us that the Universe should have same properties in every direction, observations do not match this picture," explains Lado Samushia, of the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation at the University of Portsmouth. "Because galaxies are themselves parts of larger structures that are growing, they tend to 'infall' towards each other. This infall gives an apparent effect that we only see in the direction towards us, because of the way in which we observe the galaxies."

Using the observed distortions in galaxy positions, the team were able to measure the strength of gravity with a precision of 6 per cent, the strongest constraint of its kind as yet. The measurements turned out to be perfectly consistent with the predictions of Einstein’s general relativity theory.

More than 600 000 galaxies from the BOSS survey were utilized to measure the strength of gravitational interactions of galaxies extremely far away from each other. This is a visual representation of that measurement; the amount that the circles are distorted, or squashed from perfect concentric rings, indicates the velocity that galaxies are falling towards each other and hence the strength of the gravitational interactions.

"Gravity is the main driving force behind the growth of structure in the Universe. According to general relativity, gravity is a manifestation of the space-time curvature – massive objects curve the space-time around them, which affects the movement of other objects around them. It’s a very elegant theory that has been successful in explaining the outcomes of many experiments, however it is not the only theory of gravity," explained Samushia. "Theoretical physicists have proposed many alternative theories and modifications of general relativity and the challenge for observational physicists is to test the alternative theories with ever increasing precision."

More than 600 000 galaxies from the BOSS survey were utilized to measure the strength of gravitational interactions of galaxies extremely far away from each other. This is a visual representation of that measurement; the amount that the circles are distorted, or squashed from perfect concentric rings, indicates the velocity that galaxies are falling towards each other and hence the strength of the gravitational interactions.


In January 2010, Erik Verlinde, professor ofTheoretical Physics and world-renowned string theorist, caused a worldwide stir with the publication of On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton, in which he challenged commonly held perceptions on gravity, going so far as to state ‘for me gravity doesn’t exist’. If he is proved correct, the consequences for our understanding of the universe and its origins in a Big Bang will be far-reaching.

"Everyone who is working on theoretical physics is trying to improve on Einstein," says Robbert Dijkgraaf, UvA University Professor and current director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (where scientists including Turing, Oppenheimer and Einstein have worked) In my opinion, Erik Verlinde has found an important key for the next step forward."

Verlinde, who received the Spinoza prize (the Dutch Nobel Prize) from the Netherlands Organisation for Science, is famous for developing this new theory, or idea, on gravity in which he says that gravity is an illusion. "Gravity is not an illusion in the sense that we know that things fall," says Verline." Most people, certainly in physics, think we can describe gravity perfectly adequately using Einstein’s General Relativity. But it now seems that we can also start from a microscopic formulation where there is no gravity to begin with, but you can derive it. This is called ‘emergence’."

"We have other phenomena in Physics like this," Verlinde continued. "Take a concept like ‘temperature’, for instance. We experience it every day. We can feel temperature. But, if you really think about the microscopic molecules, there’s no notion of temperature there. It’s something that has to do with the property of all molecules together; it’s like the average energy per molecule."

To Verlinde, gravity is similar. It’s something that only appears when you put many things together at a microscopic scale and then you suddenly see that certain equations arise. "As scientists," he observes, "we first want to understand nature and our universe. In doing so, we have observed things that are deeply puzzling, such as phenomena related to dark matter. We see things happening that we don’t understand. There must be more matter out there that we don’t see. There’s also something called ‘dark energy’. And then there’s the whole puzzle of the beginning of the universe. We now have what is called the ‘Big Bang’ theory.

Verline belives his ideas will shed new light on the concept of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ and why they’re important in relation to gravity.

"We think we understand gravity in most situations," he says "but when we look at galaxies and, on much larger scales, at galaxy clusters, we see things happening that we don’t understand using our familiar equations, like Newton’s equation of gravity or even Einstein’s gravity. So we have to assume there’s this mysterious form of matter, which we call dark matter, which we cannot see. Now dark energy is even weirder, in the sense that we don’t even know what it consists of. It’s something we can put in our equations to make things work, but there’s really a big puzzle to be solved in terms of why it’s there and what it’s made of. At present, we have not really found the right equations to describe it. There’s clearly progress to be made in terms of finding a bettertheory of gravity, and understanding what’s happening in our universe."

For example, the Big Bang theory is the idea that at a particular moment things suddenly started exploding and growing, and that our universe got bigger, which Verlinde finds illogical to think it came from this one moment.

"It’s illogical to think there was nothing and then it exploded. We use concepts like time and space," he adds, "but we don’t really understand what this means microscopically. That might change. The Big Bang has to do with our understanding of what time should be, and I think we will have a much better understanding of this in the future. I think we will figure out that what we thought was the Big Bang was actually a different kind of event. Or maybe that we should not think that the universe really began at a particular moment and that there’s another way to describe that."

Verlinde believes that the information we have today and the equations we now use only describe a very small part of what is actually going on. "If you think that something grows, like our universe, than something else must become smaller," he observes."I think there’s something we haven’t found yet and this will help us discover the origins of our universe. In short, the universe originated from something, not from nothing. There was something there and we have to find the equations. It has something to do with dark energy and how that is related to dark matter. If we understand the equations for those components of our universe, I think we’ll also have a better understanding of how the universe began. I think it’s all about the interplay between these different forms of energy and matter.

The Big Bang theory works well in the sense that it gives us some understanding of how particular elements in our universe came about and there are other things that we can observe, like the radiation that came from the Big Bang. But the whole idea of an expanding universe that started with a big explosion will change. "You need to think about the equations in a bigger setting," Verlinde observes. "You need to describe more than just the matter particles. You need to know more about what space/time is. All these things have to come together in order to be able to explain the Big Bang."

Quantum mechanics took approximately 26 years to develop, Verlinde concludes. "We’ve had string theory for 40 years and nothing yet has come out of that which can be directly tested with observations or experiments. I think my idea has a greater chance of being tested with observations, which is an exciting thing. I think it will take no more than 10 or 15 years."

The end result be belives will lead to a paradigm shift in how people think that the universe was created.

The Daily Galaxy via  Royal Astronomical Society, University of Amsterdam, and Erik Verlinde

The Daily Galaxy via

Comments

Excellent article. Love reading someone's ruminations that they present as such with all the little caveats and don't knows instead of trying to turn them into decrees. Refreshing.

You can't get something from nothing, there has always been something. The observable universe is small and hints at much larger structures than what we can see.

I understand you can observe stuff through a telescope, but can you really test it? Seems like our calculations on the size and distance of everything changes very few years, i cant imagine it does anygood for new theories relying on that math.

"You can't get something from nothing, there has always been something. The observable universe is small and hints at much larger structures than what we can see. "


Im starting to think our universe and maybe others expand and contract over billions of years. Its kind of depressing if that is the case though knowing that nothing known or created could ever make it to the next time period and new big bang.

"Gravity is Driving Growth of the Universe"

Yeah, isn´t it amazing? What a magical force it is.

Just think about it:

A tiny Higgs Boson of just 126 GeV (1e-9) which "gives weight and formation of all other gases and particles" "rules the entire Universe"!

Quote:
"Using the observed distortions in galaxy positions, the team were able to measure the strength of gravity with a precision of 6 per cent, the strongest constraint of its kind as yet".

AD: The 2 fundamental forces of "gravity" and electromagnetism have the same qualities and cosmological laws.

The electromagnetic force is a force of infinite range which obeys the inverse square law, and is of the same form as the gravity force. From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3

So here we have it: Which force of the 2 is more likely to rule the Universe?

The weakest link of them all, "gravity", the Higgs Boson at 126 GeV, or the electromagnetical force?

Quote:
"The electromagnetic force holds atoms and molecules together. In fact, the forces of electric attraction and repulsion of electric charges ARE SO DOMINANT OVER THE OTHER THREE FUNDAMENTAL FORCES that they can be considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually apparent only at high resolutions, and as small corrections."

Take that tiny little Higgs Boson and the entire Assembled Gravity Society. Electromagnetic forces is what binds atoms and molecules together and with much stronger force.

GRAVITY RULES EVERYTHING - IF INTERPRETED AS ELECTROMAGNETISM

Natural Philosopher
Ivar Nielsen


I'm with Verlinde. From the time I began thinking as a youth, my best "take" on existence has been to adopt the idea that "There's no such thing as nothing". By definition and best logic, "nothing" simply does not exist. Therefore, all that exists didn't come from "nothing". Only religions postulate how "something" can result from "nothing", and I laud modern science for not falling into the easy explanation about how a all existence was "created" from "nothing" by some completely unproven and unobserved superior being (e.g. a god of one description or another). Thanks, Dr. Verlinde. Keep working.

@ACTORartistPOET, you wrote

Only religions postulate how "something" can result from "nothing"

AD: The mythological and religious expression of "in the beginning", shall not be taken literary. This means, in the best of the tellings, "before anything firm land or soil", was created.

Take for instants the Egyptian Ogdoad Story of Creation where 4 primeval elements and their complementary qualities always exist.

"The eight deities were arranged in four female-male pairs: Naunet and Nu, Amaunet and Amun, Kauket and Kuk, Hauhet and Huh.

Together the four concepts represent the primal, fundamental state of the beginning, they are what always was. In the myth, however, their interaction ultimately proved to be unbalanced, resulting in the arising of a new entity. When the entity opened, it revealed Ra, the fiery sun, inside. After a long interval of rest, Ra, together with the other deities, created all other things".

"Ra" is traditional interpreted as representing the "Sun", but this should really be "the galactic light", which is more logical since everything in our galaxy is formatted in the galactic center, in the Garden of Eden, from where "everything is driven out".

This really confirms the modern observation of the galactic rotation and the objects moving away from the center instead of being drawn into the center according to gravity, which is directly contradicted by the "galactic rotation anomaly".

This is a telling of eternal primeval stages of elements in the space, in which everything is eternally created, dissolved and recreated.

Here there’s no big Bang but eternal creation. An ancestral knowledge, which is told all over the world in the many global Stories of Creation.

That really is: If correct interpreted and compared to modern cosmological observations and motions in the Milky Way galaxy, the ancient tellings are more correct and logical than the modern theories, and this is specifically because of the cyclical perception of the creation.

"Once upon a time" is not a term that can be used in connection with ancient Creation Myths - this term is just connected to the modern and linear time-perception and thus also connected to a Big Bang - which never happened.


Post a comment

« Fossil Discovery Shows The Antarctic Icecap is 33.6 million Years Old (Today's Most Popular) | Main | Cassini Mission's 10-Year Saturn Probe Discoveries Celebrated --"From Titan's Earth-like World to the Mystery of the Giant Hexagon" »




1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8





9


11


12


13


14


15

Our Partners

technology partners

A


19


B

About Us/Privacy Policy

For more information on The Daily Galaxy and to contact us please visit this page.



E