I don't understand any of this

[a completely inoffensive name]

Uhm... Last I checked that was just a rival theory.

Leading theory is that dark matter will eventually start bringing things back to the centre, no?

The 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics was given "for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distance supernovae." As it stands right now, whatever dark matter is, it is not sufficient to shrink the universe, as we are talking an acceleration in the growth, not just that it is growing.

So, if universe was infinitely small, and it keeps expanding, does this mean there's an end to it? What's there? I'm imagining Douglas Adams as border guard...

There is a distinction made between its size and whether or not it is bounded or unbounded. Basically Earth is finite but unbounded, there is no edge of earth, you just keep walking around. I believe the most popular view right now is that the universe is both infinite and unbounded.

Fun stuff we are discovering. People seem to not grasp what is amazing about this.

Before this the furthest back we could "look" is 380,000 years after the big bang, because our "oldest" observations was the Cosmic Microwave Background. Now, with these gravitational waves we have evidence as to what happened during the inflationary period, the inflationary period was anywhere from 10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds after the big bang.

So now we have a better picture of what happened about 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the big bang.

[Kadagar_AV]

The 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics was given "for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distance supernovae." As it stands right now, whatever dark matter is, it is not sufficient to shrink the universe, as we are talking an acceleration in the growth, not just that it is growing.

No.

You are right about the prize, but wrong about its implications to what I said.

Easily put: Expansion SHOULD be more rapid from a dark matter point of view.

Don't ask me to explain why, it blows my mind going anywhere near these questions.

[Ironside]

No.

You are right about the prize, but wrong about its implications to what I said.

Easily put: Expansion SHOULD be more rapid from a dark matter point of view.

Don't ask me to explain why, it blows my mind going anywhere near these questions.

Nah. Gravity always pull things together. Dark matter is a crutch to explain why galaxes can keep together. Dark energy is the crutch to explain why the red shift is accelerating (that means that the universe is expanding faster and faster). That's why it's so vague and will probably be another aether.

Atm the estimations shows that about 5% is visual matter, 27% dark matter and 68% is dark energy. That's a lot of "we have no idea".

[Sigurd]

Nah. Gravity always pull things together...

A faulty assumption that is also the basis of the Hawking-Penrose theorem. OP is about finding evidence for the inflation period which is THE explanation of the uniform red shift and the explanation of the flatness/horizon problems with the general BB theory. Inflation needs gravitational force which is not attractive in nature (repulsive). Until one has developed such a theorem (Quantum theory of gravity), it's all hypothetical.

[Ironside]

A faulty assumption that is also the basis of the Hawking-Penrose theorem. OP is about finding evidence for the inflation period which is THE explanation of the uniform red shift and the explanation of the flatness/horizon problems with the general BB theory. Inflation needs gravitational force which is not attractive in nature (repulsive). Until one has developed such a theorem (Quantum theory of gravity), it's all hypothetical.

Fair enough. Outside quantum levels, gravity always act as an attractive force. There's a reason why quantum physics and normal physics haven't been combined yet.

[Kadagar_AV]

Nah. Gravity always pull things together. Dark matter is a crutch to explain why galaxes can keep together. Dark energy is the crutch to explain why the red shift is accelerating (that means that the universe is expanding faster and faster). That's why it's so vague and will probably be another aether.

Atm the estimations shows that about 5% is visual matter, 27% dark matter and 68% is dark energy. That's a lot of "we have no idea".

Oh well, as I have read it dark matter is the reason things can move out and then retract.

But let's face it, your guess is as good as mine. And if a fish farts in an aquarium, that is also something we both have to consider as a legit input to the discussion.

[HoreTore]

Oh well, as I have read it dark matter is the reason things can move out and then retract.

No. There are observations that things move out and retract. We can't explain why this is happening, and so we fill in the blanks of our knowledge with "dark matter did it".

[rvg]

No. There are observations that things move out and retract. We can't explain why this is happening, and so we fill in the blanks of our knowledge with "dark matter did it".

So The Dark Matter said: "Let there be light!" and there was light. And The Dark Matter saw that that was good.

[Myth]

So The Dark Matter said: "Let there be light!" and there was light. And The Dark Matter saw that that was good.

You cannot see dark matter if there is no light.

[Sarmatian]

"dark matter did it".

Bollox, the butler did it.

[Ironside]

Oh well, as I have read it dark matter is the reason things can move out and then retract.

But let's face it, your guess is as good as mine. And if a fish farts in an aquarium, that is also something we both have to consider as a legit input to the discussion.

Not really. See they name the unknown based on what it's supposed to do. Dark matter is whatever that's the answer on why the galaxies doesn't win the star throw awards in the olympics. It would affect the retraction, but not the expansion directly.
Dark energy influences the expansion directly, but it's something entirely different. It's whatever causing increasing red shift aka accelerating expansion of the universe.
I think you've mixed them together. It's quite easy to do. The one coming up with dark energy were really not thinking about the risk of name mixup, only theme names.

Basically, it goes something like this. The formula used work fine on small scale and large scale, but are completly wrong on gigantic scale. So either the formula is incomplete or you fudge the numbers and acknowledge that you did that and tell everyone that you describe something real that haven't been discovered yet. Sometimes, the rest agrees with you on that. Sometimes, it's even correct.

Campare to "what caused the Big Bang?" There's certainly no seriously taken formulas to calculate that.

[Myth]

it might turn out that the whole idea of a big bang is making us biased and thus leading us into a dead end. We lack the tools and knowledge to look deep down enough, far back enough and so on.

[Papewaio]

it might turn out that the whole idea of a big bang is making us biased and thus leading us into a dead end. We lack the tools and knowledge to look deep down enough, far back enough and so on.

Other theories have been looked at ie static universe or infinite one.

Big Bang theory explains to a high degree the universe we are in and is the current best fit model. Once a better model comes along the physicists will be all over that just like Lenoardo Dicaprio does with his ones.

[Papewaio]

The 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics was given "for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distance supernovae." As it stands right now, whatever dark matter is, it is not sufficient to shrink the universe, as we are talking an acceleration in the growth, not just that it is growing.



There is a distinction made between its size and whether or not it is bounded or unbounded. Basically Earth is finite but unbounded, there is no edge of earth, you just keep walking around. I believe the most popular view right now is that the universe is both infinite and unbounded.

Fun stuff we are discovering. People seem to not grasp what is amazing about this.

Before this the furthest back we could "look" is 380,000 years after the big bang, because our "oldest" observations was the Cosmic Microwave Background. Now, with these gravitational waves we have evidence as to what happened during the inflationary period, the inflationary period was anywhere from 10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds after the big bang.

So now we have a better picture of what happened about 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the big bang.

I think the ratio of neutrons to protons gives a fairly good observation much earlier then 380k years after the Big Bang.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think the ratio of neutrons to protons gives a fairly good observation much earlier then 380k years after the Big Bang.

Ooooooh, had not heard about this. You just gave me something new to learn about.

Just to clarify to people, I like to read a lot about astrophysics, but I don't study it.

[Papewaio]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_B...thesis#/search

[InsaneApache]

You guys haven't been paying attention.

Before the Big Bang there was the Q continuum. Any fule knos that.

Oh and 42.