“In 1998, cosmology was shaken at its foundations as two research teams presented their findings. Headed by Saul Perlmutter, one of the teams had set to work in 1988. Brian Schmidt headed another team, launched at the end of 1994, where Adam Riess was to play a crucial role. …

“The two research teams found over 50 distant supernovae whose light was weaker than expected — this was a sign that the expansion of the Universe was accelerating. … For almost a century, the Universe has been known to be expanding as a consequence of the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago. However, the discovery that this expansion is accelerating is astounding. If the expansion will continue to speed up the Universe will end in ice.

“The acceleration is thought to be driven by dark energy, but what that dark energy is remains an enigma — perhaps the greatest in physics today. What is known is that dark energy constitutes about three quarters of the Universe. Therefore the findings of the 2011 Nobel Laureates in Physics have helped to unveil a Universe that to a large extent is unknown to science. And everything is possible again.”

— the academy

Comments

  1. #1 Dov Henis
    October 4, 2011

    Neutrino Velocity > Light Velocity?

    I. From
    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/live-chat-have-neutrinos-broken.html?ref=em&elq=94d706ec04024fdc9b3ae6e49236f125
    3:05
    Alfons Weber:
    OPERA has only measured the average speed of the neutrinos from CERN to Grand Sasso. But there is no reason to assume that the neutrinos became faster or slower on their way. We actually don’t know of any mechanism that could have accelerated or decelerated them on the trip.

    Dov Henis:
    ***If the total arriving neutrinos mass is less than the total starting mass their velocity would accelerate: some of the mass reconverts to energy (Einstein) acting on a decreasing mass (Newton)…

    II.
    A.
    From “Galaxy Clusters Validate Einstein’s Theory”
    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/galaxy-clusters-validate-einstei.html?ref=em&elq=94d706ec04024fdc9b3ae6e49236f125

    “a classic prediction of general relativity: that light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light. As a result, photons emitted from the center of a galaxy cluster—a massive object containing thousands of galaxies—should lose more energy than photons coming from the edge of the cluster because gravity is strongest in the center”
    B.
    Energy/mass dualism and light, why not and neutrino…

    By the below updated comprehension of gravitation light will lose MASS as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the MASS loss suffered by the light. It is due to the energy/mass dualism that the loss of mass would be loss of energy…

    The universe cycles between two poles: singularity/all-mass , and maximum-expanded/nearly-all-energy.
    E=Total[m(1 + D)] (D = distance travelled by mass since singularity)

    Update definition of gravitation per the above E,m,D relationship. The essence/definition of gravitation is:

    “Gravitation Is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass”.

    C.
    What, whence and whither, mass format:

    In the expanding universe the point of formation of the light, or of the neutrinos, of any mass format, is – “as far as the mass format is concerned” – its singularity point. Its motion distance is D. Its m decreases as D increases, maintaining a constant mD = E and therefore accelerating …

    Look Ma! It’s Converting!

    Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
    http://universe-life.com/
    http://universe-life.com/2011/09/21/the-lhc-chases-its-tail/

    PS:
    Universe expands per Newton’s motion laws, obviously…
    Also, universe physics constants should vary, probably slightly, between galaxies clusters due to varied clusters sizes…
    Also, the clusters formed by dispersion at inflation…
    DH

  2. #2 Collin
    October 5, 2011

    DH, that’s a very disorganized post. I respect your right to think speculatively about physics — I do that too — but it doesn’t look like you’re actually exercising that right. You need to collect these hypotheses into a neat persuasive essay, so other thinkers can make heads-or-tails of it. That’s the difference between speculation and crackpottery.

  3. #3 NJ
    October 5, 2011

    Collin@2:

    You need to collect these hypotheses into a neat persuasive essay, so other thinkers can make heads-or-tails of it. That’s the difference between speculation and crackpottery.

    Another difference, I submit, is that one may project about things in the next century whereas the other believes it gets information from the next century.

    DH@1:

    Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

    Distinction clearly made, n’cest-pas?

  4. #4 Greg Laden
    October 5, 2011

    Maybe that’s 22nd century BC?

Current ye@r *