A vast cavern is the stage for tests to find the 'God particle'

The Times ^

[donh]

Good, does that mean you will not use the jesuit ploy again?

Sore though the temptation is, I will attempt to restrain myself--if I lapse, I hope you will be kind enough to remind me.

[conservababeJen]

[AndrewC]

I hope you will be kind enough to remind me.

I acquiesce to your request.

[longshadow]

But it is not only space that is "expanding", something is moving along with it.

Ah, if you mean the matter that is embedded in the space, it gets a "free" ride, so to speak. THe key point is that no force acts on the matter, hence it isn't accelerated, hence it's kinetic energy and momentum don't change. The objects (matter) aren't in motion per se; space is just getting bigger.

[man of Yosemite]

It was white, the same intensity as the stars around it, No color at all. The light spoked out evenly, but appeared no bigger than a pea. It happened very rapidly and left no visible trace in the air. It was somewhere around 1979, looking directly upward near Mammoth Lakes, California. It wasn't moving across the sky, but straight at us is a possibility. Thanks for the input.

[ALS]

Your description is precisely what I witnessed. It was in the high NE sky.

I know it was a star because I had been using that particular star to grid out that area. I just wished I knew which one it was.

[AndrewC]

Ah, if you mean the matter that is embedded in the space, it gets a "free" ride, so to speak.

Free ride or not, the force between 2 particles that were nanometers apart at T₀ and "light years" apart at T₁ is changed substantially.

[longshadow]

Free ride or not, the force between 2 particles that were nanometers apart at T0 and "light years" apart at T1 is changed substantially.

First, I'm not sure what "force" you are referring to, and second, the Inflationary epoch was so short that nothing was "light years" apart when it ended. My recollection is that at the end of the Inflationary epoch the Universe was something on the order of the size of a grapefruit.

[conservababeJen]

No argument here. I'm still fuming that the mods let their (ALS and conservababeJen)crap go on for so long then just summarily pulled the thread out from under us.

Fairytales

Maybe someone should ask Vade for the last post on that thread.......after all, it was his.

G'nite

[man of Yosemite]

I'm not threatened by science. I'm saying faith is something real which science hasn't been able to measure. It may be as real as the power that is pushing the universe apart at increasing speed. If the scriptures are spoken by God, they will bear the test of time and be proven true. As Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." You cannot see God walk into a room, but people can feel the presence of God in a room. Science hasn't looked into it yet, but the power is there, measurable or not.

[Aric2000]

Someone explained it to me this way.

Put 2 dots on an uninflated balloon, then inflate the balloon, the points have moved, but the points themselves have not moved, they stayed on the same spot on the balloon, the balloon inflated and therefore the points moved WITH IT. Or something along those lines.

I think that was the general gist, I may have it wrong, but I think physicist or you can take it from there and specify.

[Gary Boldwater]

Thanks for taking the time for a detailed answer.

Are "virtual particles" real? Or are they an invention to explain a physical event?


Here's a quote from "An Introduction to the Science of Cosmology" published by the Institute of Physics, authors Raine and Thomas:

"Thus the areas of the microwave sky more than 2 degrees apart could not have achieved the same temperature by exchanging radiation. The only answer the standard model can provide is that the uniform temperature was an initial condition of the big bang. This is a rather lame answer, and it would be much more satisfactory if we could find some physical model to circumvent the horizon problem and allow thermal equilibrium to be achieved. We shall show that the inflationary hypothesis provides such a mechanism and it also provides a natural solution of the flatness problem which we consider in the next section."

My questions are "satisfactory to who" and "why not the simplest answer"? Isn't it rather lame not to explain why the lame answer is lame? Maybe you could help me here.

On to the flatness problem:

From the same book and chapter: If omega sub p varies 1 +/- 10^-60 then the universe (or the big bang theory) either recollapses or never forms. What natural constant, other than pi, is known to such precision? But yet this model requires an initial condition of such precision. This very same model relies on the existent of dark matter (conjectured to several percent), uses forces not fully understood (such as gravity and repulsive forces) and so on. It's all speculation. One cannot build an airplane, a bridge or even conduct a repeatable experiment based upon details such as these.

Cosmology is a great fun exercise of the mind, but to claim "proof" based on such speculation is a bit of a stretch.

[longshadow]

Put 2 dots on an uninflated balloon, then inflate the balloon, the points have moved, but the points themselves have not moved, they stayed on the same spot on the balloon, the balloon inflated and therefore the points moved WITH IT. Or something along those lines.

Yes; that's a 2-D illustration of expansion of the Universe.

Technically, Inflation is a sort of short-lived "Hyper-expansion," but AFAIK, the principles are the same, though the mechanism is different.

[Aric2000]

Good, then we agree, god cannot be proven nor disproven, therefore science cannot use god as a causation.

Science cannot prove the existence nor the nonexistence of god, therefore god is outside the realm of science.

BUT, that does not mean that you cannot have faith that god exists.

[Aric2000]

I remember where I read that, it was a Stephen Hawkings book, the universe in a nutshell, he uses some excellent laymens terms and tries to explain it that way, and he did say that it was a 2 dimensional explanation.

[AndrewC]

First, I'm not sure what "force" you are referring to, and second,

Any that we know about.

I placed the light years in quotations, because, if I recall correctly, it could be that large although I also am familiar with the grapefruit size of the universe. The change would still apply.

Reference for the big size

Inflation

In order for inflation to solve the horizon problem, this causal region must be blown up to at least the size of the observable universe today

[longshadow]

and he did say that it was a 2 dimensional explanation.

The ballon is considered a 2-D analogy because the location of any point on its surface can be uniquely defined by only 2 co-ordinates (e.g., Latitude and longitude on the surface of the earth).

[longshadow]

****In order for inflation to solve the horizon problem, this causal region must be blown up to at least the size of the observable universe today****

I'm pretty sure they mean that the region AT THE TIME OF INFLATION must TODAY be at least the size of the observable Universe, which is exactly what 13 billion years of normal non-inflationary expansion does to to the Universe.

I still don't see what the point is that you are raising; can you cut to the chase -- time is running out for tonight's session.

[longshadow]

just found the answer to your question on your linked site, about three lines below the quote you used:

"Here the extra factor a(ti) / a(t0) accounts for the expansion between the end of inflation Ti ~ 10¹⁵ GeV and today, T0 ~ 10^-4 eV."

IOW, most of the "scale change" that they are talking about takes place AFTER the inflation stops, that is to say, it occurs through the normal non-inflationary expansion of the universe, as I opined in my previous reply.

[Aric2000]

So the universe is still expanding, right? only now it is either at or below the speed of light? Correct?