Who Won the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics?

[DevilsAvocado]

"for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae"

Congratulations!

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/press.html"

http://svtplay.se/v/2549924/nobel_2011/"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Perlmutter"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe"

Cool!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Thanks for adding in the three close up shots. I couldn't make our their faces in the panoramic view.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

You are welcome, please note that the video replay isn’t online yet, I will change the URL when it is...

 

[Jack21222]

Adam Riess! I nailed it!

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3526540&postcount=3

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Congrats!

 

[Astronuc]

Perlmutter for this - http://supernova.lbl.gov/

Schmidt and Riess for this - http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/supernova/home.html
Schmidt's page is currently unavailable.
Riess's page - http://www.stsci.edu/~ariess/

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/sne_cosmology.html

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Thanks Astro

 

[DevilsAvocado]

In the fall of 1997, Adam Riess http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/images/200711/article10_image01.jpg" that the expansion of the Universe was accelerating.

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000557"

 

[Lacy33]

Congratulations! Are any of the winners here on PF. Like zapper z? Is he one of the winners?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Remedy for any 'nervous fatalist':

Brooklyn Is Not Expanding!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U1-OmAICpU

The proof:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLhl2MSQ1R0

 

[srikar97]

congratulations! :)

 

[lisab]

In the fall of 1997, Adam Riess http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/images/200711/article10_image01.jpg" that the expansion of the Universe was accelerating.

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000557"

Love that notebook. Looks like the kind of chicken scratch I put in lab books .

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... Looks like the kind of chicken scratch I put in lab books .

= it could be you next time!

()

[please excuse my 'distorted humor']

 

[Lacy33]

Lisab would win for Peace that includes all of them.

 

[czelaya]

I remember watching one of the first documentaries (I believe it was on The Science Channel) on the accelerated expansion that featured Saul. The documentary mentioned that Saul wasn't from the observational astronomical community and his group wasn't taken too seriously, initially, for his research on the supernova surveying techniques he was employing. If anyone could verify that it would be greatly appreciated (Wiki doesn't really have an extensive biography on Mr. Perlmutter).

Either way, it’s deserving.

I still have a hard time accepting this revised view of an accelerating expansion. The notion that cosmic expansion should be slowing down has been difficult to overturn in my head. LOL.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

http://svtplay.se/v/2555501/nobel_2011/tillkannagivande_av_fysikpriset_2011?cb,a1364145,1,f,-1/pb,a1364142,1,f,-1/pl,v,,2549924/sb,p117534,1,f,-1"

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsvtplay.se%2Fv%2F2555501%2Fnobel_2011%2Ftillkannagivande_av_fysikpriset_2011%3Fcb%2Ca1364145%2C1%2Cf%2C-1%2Fpb%2Ca1364142%2C1%2Cf%2C-1%2Fpl%2Cv%2C%2C2549924%2Fsb%2Cp117534%2C1%2Cf%2C-1&act=url"

FULLSKÄRM = Full Screen

 

[BadBrain]

Congrats to the winners!

Frankly, I think I should have won for figuring out how to light my steam engine fuel tablets!

Does the accelerating expansion of the universe simply mean that space-time is expanding at an accelerated rate, without the speed of light necessarily increasing? (I've always had the idea that the speed of light has been decreasing since the Big Bang (via loss of motivating energy in obedience to the law of entropy), and will continue to do so, as the independence of C from space-time seems to allow this conclusion.)

***

Anyways, by observation, the distance from the Earth to the Moon IS increasing, not due to the expansion of the universe, but due to the outward component of the velocity of the Moon's orbit as compared with escape velocity:

http://www.Newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99639.htm

"Yes, the Earth-Moon distance is increasing. We know this because the Apollo Astronauts placed reflective mirrors on the moon from which we can bounce of lasers from the Earth and measure the time it takes for the light to travel back and forth between the Earth and the Moon. Successive measurements show that the Earth-Moon distance is indeed increasing.

This is counter to the idea that the gravitational forces between the Earth and the Moon should bring the two bodies together and is taken to mean that there are other forces at work here. One of the suggestions is that the Moon was a product of a collision between the proto-Earth and another celestial object which produced the current Earth and the Moon. This hypothesis then suggests that in the early history of the Earth and the Moon, the two bodies were very much closer to each other and the collision forces that created the two bodies is what is forcing them farther apart from each other. "

 

[cmb]

If I understand the methodology used for this, am I right in saying it is based on an inference that the Universe between us and the observed objects is uniform and isotropic?

If we were to one day travel significant distances away from Earth so as to look back from a distant perspective, and we suddenly find that we happen to have been in a 'local void', then that would distort the results and may mean this conclusion is not right.

I believe this was first postulated by Zehavi in the 90's and I expect that there have been investigations to try to decide this one way or the other since. Has this work therefore discounted this 'local void' issue, and if so, how?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Does the accelerating expansion of the universe simply mean that space-time is expanding at an accelerated rate, without the speed of light necessarily increasing?

Yup

Anyways, by observation, the distance from the Earth to the Moon IS increasing, not due to the expansion of the universe

That is correct, but I think the effect is due to tidal forces; the distance between the Earth and Moon is increasing, and the Earth's spin slowing down = the Earth's day lengthens by about 15 microseconds every year.

I welcome this fact.

 

[BadBrain]

That is correct, but I think the effect is due to tidal forces; the distance between the Earth and Moon is increasing, and the Earth's spin slowing down = the Earth's day lengthens by about 15 microseconds every year.

I welcome this fact.

I would take your reply in two parts: Earth's rate of rotation about its axis is obviously decreasing due to lunar tidal forces (i.e., due to the Moon's gravitational force), but the increasing distance between Earth and the Moon cannot be explained by this attraction, as whatever is pulling the Moon away from the Earth must be OVERCOMING the mutual gravitational attraction between these spheres. If you're suggesting the gravitational slingshot effect, that effect is, so far as I know, dependent upon the velocity and trajectory of the object when it first enters the gravitational realm of the massive body giving this effect, and, since Earth's Moon was apparently formed as the result of a collision with another planet, the initial impulse governing the orbital velocity and trajectory of Earth's Moon must have been imparted by the impacting body in the manner of one of those "Newton's Cradle" things. See:

http://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0geu8XTnotO9CQAfmjrFAx.?ei=UTF-8&p=Newton's%20cradle&rd=r1&fr2=tab-web&fr=yfp-t-715

I'm not denying the possibility that this may be the slowest gravitational slingshot effect within human knowledge, but it seems that a better explanation is simply to be found in the idea that the initial energy impulse imparted to the collision ejecta that became the Moon imparted to the Moon an orbital velocity and trajectory sufficient to allow the component of the Moon's velocity directed 180 degrees AGAINST Earth's gravitational attraction upon the Moon magnitude slightly above escape velocity.

 

[Jack21222]

I would take your reply in two parts: Earth's rate of rotation about its axis is obviously decreasing due to lunar tidal forces (i.e., due to the Moon's gravitational force), but the increasing distance between Earth and the Moon cannot be explained by this attraction, as whatever is pulling the Moon away from the Earth must be OVERCOMING the mutual gravitational attraction between these spheres. If you're suggesting the gravitational slingshot effect, that effect is, so far as I know, dependent upon the velocity and trajectory of the object when it first enters the gravitational realm of the massive body giving this effect, and, since Earth's Moon was apparently formed as the result of a collision with another planet, the initial impulse governing the orbital velocity and trajectory of Earth's Moon must have been imparted by the impacting body in the manner of one of those "Newton's Cradle" things. See:

http://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0geu8XTnotO9CQAfmjrFAx.?ei=UTF-8&p=Newton's%20cradle&rd=r1&fr2=tab-web&fr=yfp-t-715

I'm not denying the possibility that this may be the slowest gravitational slingshot effect within human knowledge, but it seems that a better explanation is simply to be found in the idea that the initial energy impulse imparted to the collision ejecta that became the Moon imparted to the Moon an orbital velocity and trajectory sufficient to allow the component of the Moon's velocity directed 180 degrees AGAINST Earth's gravitational attraction upon the Moon magnitude slightly above escape velocity.

This is not the correct forum to deny well-established science and push crackpot ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Thanks Jack

 

[BadBrain]

This is not the correct forum to deny well-established science and push crackpot ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration

My analysis is an amplification of the quote in my post #17, which was, in turn, originally posted by:

Dr. Roberto Ma. Gregorius
Associate Professor
Department of Adolescence Education and
Director, Chemical Education Leadership Program
School of Education and Human Services
Canisius College

per http://www.Newton.dep.anl.gov/scicorps/gregorius_r.htm

on the page I linked to in my post #17 to this thread.

Either he was wrong, or I misunderstood him.

Thanks for the correction. It was not my intention to push crackpot theories.

 

[issacnewton]

Just checked all the science nobel winners this year. Out of 7 winners, 5 are jewish. I think its tribute to their culture of hard work...

 

[Jack21222]

Just checked all the science nobel winners this year. Out of 7 winners, 5 are jewish. I think its tribute to their culture of hard work...

For the men, anyway. I used to have a close friend who is Modern Orthodox Jewish. She was studying biology with the intent to go to grad school for a PhD. Her family (especially aunts and uncles, her parents were more tolerant) gave her a TON of grief for not being married with kids yet (at age 21), and strongly disapproved of her academic aspirations.

But they sure take credit for any men who succeed, even non-practicing Jews. It's a big source of pride. I just wish they'd embrace gender equality a bit more.

 

[cmb]

Just to ask again - to raise it over the 'Moon' distraction - did this research deal with the Zehavi/local void proposition?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Just to ask again - to raise it over the 'Moon' distraction - did this research deal with the Zehavi/local void proposition?

I have no idea what you are talking about??

According to the standard model of big bang cosmology, Lambda-CDM, the universe looks the same in all directions (isotropy) and from every location (homogeneity). This is not 'theoretical speculations', but confirmed by every observation this far, where WMAP and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey is maybe best known:


"[URL
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe[/URL]


"[URL
The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey[/URL]


EDIT:
This video is based on real data (not an artist’s conception), I think you’ll get the picture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

Don’t miss the HD version in full screen, it’s my favorite movie!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U&hd=1

 

[cmb]

According to the standard model of big bang cosmology, Lambda-CDM, the universe looks the same in all directions (isotropy) and from every location (homogeneity). This is not 'theoretical speculations', but confirmed by every observation this far, where WMAP and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey is maybe best known:

How do these show homogeneity from all locations?

If our local cluster of Galaxies is sitting in a region of the universe with a time-space 'void', what we conclude based on a presumption that the light getting to us is passing through uniform space may be false.

If we were to presume there is a particular inhomogeneity and lower mass density around us, then it could account for what we see, instead of needing the 'dark matter' invention.

Granted, this theory requires something which does not fit comfortably with 'intuitive science' - it relies on the idea that there is something particularly unique about our location in the Universe that we are at the centre of an anomaly. It would be an historic irony if this were found to actually be the case, after all for centuries we presumed we were at the centre of a celestial structure and we disproved that [locally]. It would be curious if, actually, it turned out that we were at the centre of a unique celestial void that could only be seen once we travel beyond the next group of galaxies and look back.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... It would be curious if, actually, it turned out that we were at the centre of a unique celestial void that could only be seen once we travel beyond the next group of galaxies and look back.

I’m afraid you’re dead wrong. There is no center in 4D space-time, it never was, and it never will be. It’s as impossible as to prove the 2D center on the surface of a sphere. You have to refute Einstein to get pass this fact, and this is not allowed in this forum at "personal-speculations-level".

As for looking back, that is exactly what WMAP has done, and this is the "baby-picture" of our universe they’ve got. Every "embryo" for all galaxies in our observable universe is there – including our own Milky Way.

(watch the video)

 

[cmb]

I’m afraid you’re dead wrong. There is no center in 4D space-time, it never was, and it never will be.

I don't think I have made the proposition clear. (Bear in mind it isn't my proposition, it is a published theory, so there is no 'personal speculations' here.)

Of course there would be a centre to space-time, if there was a mass anomaly in the universe. We convince ourselves we see homogeneity because we see isotropicity. Homogeneity is a presumption. It's a good presumption and the evidence weighs up for it, but I am not aware that it either is, or could be, proved unless we have an additional view of our local space from a long way away.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I don't think I have made the proposition clear. (Bear in mind it isn't my proposition, it is a published theory, so there is no 'personal speculations' here.)

Look my friend; I seriously think it’s time to end this discussion on 13 year old "news", now refuted:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3725

Precision cosmology defeats void models for acceleration

Adam Moss, James P. Zibin, Douglas Scott
(Submitted on 21 Jul 2010 (v1), last revised 24 Mar 2011 (this version, v2))
Journal reference: Phys.Rev.D83:103515,2011
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.103515

The suggestion that we occupy a privileged position near the centre of a large, nonlinear, and nearly spherical void has recently attracted much attention as an alternative to dark energy. Putting aside the philosophical problems with this scenario, we perform the most complete and up-to-date comparison with cosmological data. We use supernovae and the full cosmic microwave background spectrum as the basis of our analysis. We also include constraints from radial baryonic acoustic oscillations, the local Hubble rate, age, big bang nucleosynthesis, the Compton y-distortion, and for the first time include the local amplitude of matter fluctuations, \sigma_8. These all paint a consistent picture in which voids are in severe tension with the data. In particular, void models predict a very low local Hubble rate, suffer from an "old age problem", and predict much less local structure than is observed.

 

[cmb]

Exactly. So back to my question, as yet not addressed - does anyone know whether the methodology of the physics in this prize dealt with the possibility of local non-homogeneity.

For example;
a) did they quote this work you have summoned up,
b) did they quote some other works,
c) did they peform their own calculations to discount it,
d) did they just assume local homogeneity.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Exactly. So back to my question, as yet not addressed - does anyone know whether the methodology of the physics in this prize dealt with the possibility of local non-homogeneity.

For example;
a) did they quote this work you have summoned up,
b) did they quote some other works,
c) did they peform their own calculations to discount it,
d) did they just assume local homogeneity.

Okay, enough is enough. You are violating https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380" and this is the last time I ask you to stop this nonsense. If not, trust me, I will click this button:

[PLAIN]https://www.physicsforums.com/Prime/buttons/report.gif

 

[BadBrain]

I have no idea what you are talking about??

According to the standard model of big bang cosmology, Lambda-CDM, the universe looks the same in all directions (isotropy) and from every location (homogeneity). This is not 'theoretical speculations', but confirmed by every observation this far, where WMAP and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey is maybe best known:"[URL
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe[/URL]

(Setting myself up for another pounding on this thread, as I well know, but I care much more for the truth than I do for my own reputation!)

What about the observation by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe

of the CMB Cold Spot (See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot

as predicted by Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton, which observation was reinforced by Professor Alexander Kashlinsky's observation of Dark Flow entirely congruent with Professor Mersini-Houghton's predictions and WMAP's observations?

Uniformity of the distribution of mass/energy within our universe?

Don't think so!

Doesn't falsify the new Nobel Prize winners' theories either, as they're dealing in generalities regarding distribution of spacio-temporal dimensions within our universe, which don't necessarily apply to local variations within our universe involving particles/forces (including dark matter/dark energy) other than gravitons/gravitation.

 

[BadBrain]

Just checked all the science nobel winners this year. Out of 7 winners, 5 are jewish. I think its tribute to their culture of hard work...

My own ancestry is entirely German Christian, and my ethnic group has produced a few scientists of our own.

And I've also lived on the Lower East Side of Manhattan long enough for my childhood German to have turned into Yiddish years ago.

But I don't care about any of that: the only thing I care about is the question of how far I, myself, have advanced human knowledge in the last five minutes!

The point isn't what the Jews have done or what the Germans have done in physics lately, but what YOU have done and what I have done for physics lately!

When we condescend to live upon the laurels of our ancestors or our co-ethnics, instead of forging ahead with our own scientific endeavours, we let the whole of humanity down in the futile hope of salvaging our self-respect by means of identification with the work of others, which work is not our own.

Let's all demonstrate our ability to congratulate others for their accomplishments, while taking pride only in our own contributions to human knowledge!

Anyways, here's a nice song by the great Chava Alberstein: