Weekly News via Email
   Set as homepage | Add to favorites | Customer Service | Subscribe Now | Place an Ad | Contact Us | Sitemap Sunday, 02.18.2018
News Archive
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
 1  2  3
 4  5  6  7  8  9  10
 11  12  13  14  15  16  17
 18  19  20  21  22  23  24
 25  26  27  28
Online Extras
Site Services
Around Bend
Outdoor Fun
Travel Info
Shop Local

Members Of

Poll: Today's Live Poll
Email to a friend | Print this | PDF version | Comments (0 posted) 
  Blogger |   del.icio.us |   digg |   newsvine

Feb 16,2007
Paper takes swipe at bedrock law of physics
by World-Science.net

A new paper by a self-described hob­by phys­i­cist chal­leng­es what may be the bed­rock law of na­ture. And while skep­tics are roll­ing their eyes, the study has ap­peared in a pro­fes­sion­al jour­nal with the ap­pa­rent con­sent of lead­ing physi­cists.

The principle under dispute, central to physics for at least two cen­tur­ies, is called the law of con­ser­va­tion of en­er­gy. It states that noth­ing can be cre­at­ed or de­s­t­royed: you can’t get some­thing from no­th­ing, or vice-ver­sa, though con­vert­ing sub­s­tan­ces be­tween di­verse forms is very pos­si­ble.

A time­line show­ing es­ti­ma­ted cos­mic ex­pan­sion since the Big Bang. Right af­ter that event, a su­per­heated, ac­cel­er­at­ing ex­pan­sion is be­lieved to have tak­en place. It lat­er slowed down. In more re­cent times, the speedup mys­ter­ious­ly re­sumed. The tilted gray disk at ap­prox­i­mate­ly the mid­dle of the fig­ure rep­re­sents the pre­s­ent. (Cour­te­sy Law­rence Berk­e­ley Na­tio­n­al La­b­o­ra­to­ry).
But the pa­per claims new stuff may be formed con­s­tant­ly, in one spe­cial set­ting: with­in black holes or si­m­i­lar ob­jects. The idea, the auth­or adds, is tes­t­a­ble and would re­solve sev­er­al mys­ter­ies, in­c­lud­ing why the uni­verse is ex­pand­ing ev­er faster.

“Not very plau­si­ble,” though not im­pos­si­ble, was how the­o­r­e­t­i­cal phys­i­cist Ga­ry Gib­bons of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cam­b­ridge, U.K., rated the pro­po­sal.

Cos­mol­o­gist An­drei Linde of Stan­ford Uni­ver­si­ty in Stan­ford, Ca­lif., de­clared the pa­per non­sense nine mi­n­utes af­ter be­ing e­mailed a copy. At “first glance,” he wrote back, it “does not make any sense.” 

But asked to spec­i­fy its er­rors, he de­clined. The over­rid­ing prob­lem, he wrote, was not mistakes, but an over­all am­a­teur­ish­ness. “Sorry for be­ing so ne­ga­tive,” but the stu­dy is “not ev­en wrong,” he wrote—quo­t­ing a sting­ing phrase sci­en­t­ists some­times use to dis­miss ab­surd find­ings.

Yet a note pub­lished with the pa­per, in the jour­nal New As­tron­o­my this month, in­di­cat­ed it had suc­cess­ful­ly passed the scru­ti­ny of at least one emi­nent­ly qua­li­fied scho­lar: co-editor Jo­seph Silk, head of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Ox­ford, U.K., as­tro­phys­ics de­part­ment. That “does make one won­der more” about the work, vo­lun­teered Saul Perl­mut­ter of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­i­for­nia, Berke­ley, one of the ac­k­now­ledged disco­ver­ers of the ac­cel­er­at­ed cos­mic ex­pan­sion. He de­clined to com­ment more on the pa­per, though, say­ing it was­n’t ex­act­ly in his field. Silk al­so de­clined.

As stand­ard prac­tice dic­tates, New As­tron­o­my ac­cept­ed the pa­per on­ly af­ter an ed­i­tor—Silk—re­viewed it in con­sul­ta­tion with an anon­y­mous out­side ex­pert, the au­thor said. 

Most sci­en­tists say a stu­dy’s ac­cept­ance for pub­li­ca­tion in a “peer-reviewed” re­search jour­nal, as New As­tron­o­my is, is a mark that it con­sti­tutes se­ri­ous sci­ence. This, of course, does­n’t at all prove a study cor­rect. More­o­ver, not all peer-reviewed jour­nals comma­nd equal re­spect among sci­en­tists, and New As­tron­o­my isn’t con­si­dered the cream of the crop. Thom­son Sci­en­ti­f­ic, a Phi­la­del­phia-based or­gan­i­za­tion, rat­ed it as the 16th most in­flu­en­tial of 43 as­tron­o­my and as­tro­phys­ics jour­nals world­wide pub­lish­ing new re­search last year. 

Its ed­i­to­ri­al board in­cludes, along­side Silk, re­search­ers with the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cam­b­ridge, Har­vard Uni­ver­sity and the Harvard-Smithsonian Cen­ter for As­tro­phys­ics.

For the au­thor, Greg­or Bay­er of Ce­dar Hill, Tex­as, the pub­li­ca­tion was a break­through. “It has been a very hard strug­gle for me to get an­ything pub­lished,” he wrote in an e­mail, though he had an­oth­er pa­per in print ear­li­er this year. “For­tu­nately, some good peo­ple are be­gin­ning to take me se­ri­ously.”

Bay­er at­trib­ut­ed his trou­bles to the fact that he doesn’t work for any sci­en­ti­fic in­sti­tu­tion, so oth­er re­search­ers are re­luc­tant to back his the­o­ries. “I have a Ph.D. in phys­ics from the Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go,” from 1972, he wrote; “but I left the field ma­ny years ago. As a ca­reer, phys­ics is hell: as a hob­by, it is heav­en. Ideas come eas­i­ly to me now.”

Bay­er’s pa­per on energy con­ser­va­tion con­si­ders black holes, stu­pen­dous­ly dense ce­les­tial bo­dies that pack so much weight in­to so lit­tle space that their grav­i­ty over­pow­ers ev­erything near­by, in­clud­ing light rays. Con­di­tions in black holes are thought to mim­ic in some ways those pre­vail­ing at the or­i­gin of the uni­verse. Then, sci­en­tists be­lieve, all mat­ter was packed in­to a point; this then ex­plod­ed in a “Big Bang,” spawn­ing the cos­mos.

If a black hole had an op­po­site, it would be what phys­i­cists call vac­u­um. In plain terms, that means noth­ing­ness, though this word is mis­lead­ing be­cause some min­i­mal lev­el of ac­tiv­i­ty has been found to un­fold even in the emp­tiest space.

Vac­u­um is ubiq­ui­tous. Even in sol­id ob­jects, there is plen­ty of room for vac­u­um, be­tween and in­side the atoms. In a black hole, vac­u­um could al­so con­ceiv­a­bly find lodg­ings. But there, the cramp­ing might be­come sev­ere even for a guest of such mod­est dema­nds—forc­ing the vac­u­um, in Bay­er’s view, to lead a pre­car­i­ous ex­ist­ence.

With­in black holes or si­m­i­lar ob­jects, he ar­gues, ex­treme con­di­tions may in­ject “in­sta­bil­i­ty” in­to the vac­u­um, con­vert­ing parts of it in­to non-vac­u­um, or mat­ter. “Mat­ter cre­a­tion can be said to arise from some new par­ti­cle in­ter­ac­tion which vi­o­lates en­er­gy con­ser­va­tion,” he wrote in an email.

Gib­bons is un­con­vinced. Bay­er fails to clar­i­fy “the dy­nam­ics be­hind” the pro­cess, he wrote, adding that stand­ard par­ti­cle phys­ics al­ready of­fers a well-sup­port­ed ac­count of how mass arises, called the Higgs mech­an­ism. 

Bay­er ar­gued that some vague­ness in his ac­count is in­e­vi­ta­ble, be­cause re­search­ers are still “try­ing to fig­ure out what the vac­u­um real­ly is.”

But he claims mat­ter cre­a­tion could ex­plain the ac­cel­er­at­ing ex­pan­sion of the uni­verse, which Perl­mut­ter and oth­ers iden­ti­fied in the late 1990s. Why the speedup oc­curs is one of the most vex­ing scientif­ic mys­ter­ies of the past dec­ade. As­tro­no­mers pro­vi­sion­al­ly at­trib­ute it to a yet-to-be-i­den­ti­fied “dark en­er­gy,” whose na­ture re­mains un­known.

Bay­er’s ex­pla­na­tion of this links mat­ter cre­a­tion to anoth­er con­cept, pres­sure, a meas­ure of how much a giv­en blob of mat­ter is “squeezed” by what’s around it. It’s why your head hurts if you dive deep­ly. Neg­a­tive pres­sure is al­so con­ceiv­able—your head be­ing pulled apart—though we nev­er ex­pe­ri­ence this on Earth.

A sim­pli­fied view is that pos­i­tive pres­sure is an air hose blow­ing out­ward; neg­a­tive pres­sure, a vac­u­um clean­er suck­ing in­ward.

Ein­stein de­ter­mined that an ob­jec­t’s grav­i­ty de­pends not just on its mass, as was known be­fore, but its pres­sure. If an ob­ject has enough neg­a­tive pres­sure, its grav­i­ty can al­so be­come neg­a­tive, and hence re­pul­sive rath­er than at­trac­tive.

Bay­er ar­gued that mat­ter cre­a­tion is as­so­ci­at­ed with re­pul­sive grav­i­ty be­cause it’s al­so linked to neg­a­tive pres­sure. “The flow of en­er­gy in­to the Uni­verse can be de­scribed as be­ing caused by an ex­ter­nal pres­sure from the vac­u­um,” he wrote in an email. “Viewed from in­side the Uni­verse, the pos­i­tive ex­ter­nal pres­sure looks like a neg­a­tive in­ter­nal pres­sure.”

Bring­ing back the air-hose anal­o­gy, im­ag­ine an in­vis­i­ble hose blow­ing air out­ward and in­to the mouth of a sec­ond tube. That sec­ond pipe would ap­pear as though it were suck­ing in air—neg­a­tive pres­sure.

Neg­a­tive pres­sure with­in le­gions of black holes would cre­ate a grav­i­ta­tion­al re­pul­sion that per­me­ates the cos­mos and pushes it out­ward re­lent­less­ly, Bay­er claims. “While mat­ter is be­ing cre­at­ed, there is a grav­i­ta­tion­al re­pul­sion as­so­ci­at­ed with the en­er­gy flow. When the flow stops, on­ly the or­di­nary grav­i­ta­tion­al at­trac­tion of the cre­at­ed mass re­mains.” All new­ly minted mass would re­side perma­nently in its home black hole.

Mat­ter cre­a­tion would equate to en­er­gy cre­a­tion be­cause, as Ein­stein found with the famed equa­tion E=mc
, mat­ter and en­er­gy are two forms of the same thing.

Whatever you call it, Bay­er said the creation pro­cess could ex­p­lain not on­ly the dark en­er­gy puz­zle but an ar­ray of oth­ers: the iden­ti­ty of the “dark mat­ter” that makes up five-sixths of the ma­te­ri­al in the cos­mos, but is un­seen; why cer­tain cos­mic rays hit Earth with oth­erwise in­ex­pli­ca­bly high en­er­gies; and what caused an “in­fla­tion” be­lieved to have made the uni­verse grow stu­pen­dous­ly big with­in a frac­tion of a sec­ond af­ter the Big Bang.

Cos­mol­o­gists be­lieve ac­cel­er­at­ed swell­ing of the cos­mos oc­curred dur­ing two sep­a­rate pe­ri­ods: dur­ing the in­fla­tion ep­och, and more re­cent­ly. Bay­er says that’s be­cause both episodes wit­nessed mat­ter cre­a­tion. The speedup stopped in be­tween, he ar­gues, be­cause in­i­tial for­ma­tion of the uni­verse was over, but black holes weren’t formed yet.

Yet Linde, a found­er of the in­fla­tion the­o­ry, dis­agrees. 

Bay­er said his the­o­ry of en­er­gy non-conservation could be tested us­ing par­ti­cle ac­cel­er­a­tors, which bash sub­a­tom­ic par­ti­cles to­ge­ther to help see what they’re made of. Nor­mal­ly, conserva­tion of en­er­gy is used to cal­cu­late prop­er­ties of the par­ti­cles fly­ing out of the bang-up. But the law is as­sumed, rath­er than prov­en, in these ex­per­i­ments, Bay­er ar­gued. “A se­ri­ous test of en­er­gy conserva­tion in high-en­er­gy col­li­sions will re­quire care­ful anal­y­sis of ma­ny com­plex multi-par­ti­cle events,” he wrote in his paper. This would be hard, he ad­ded, but it can be done.
2037 times read

Related news
Could self-moving objects explain away 'dark matter'? by Bend_Weekly_News_Sources posted on Apr 06,2007

'Superstrings' could raise cosmic clatter by World-science.net posted on Jan 12,2007

Other universes may be detectable, published study claims by Bend_Weekly_News_Sources posted on Jan 04,2008

'Dark matter' doubters not silenced yet by Bend_Weekly_News_Sources posted on Aug 03,2007

'King' of star explosions seen by Bend_Weekly_News_Sources posted on May 11,2007

Did you enjoy this article? Rating: 5.00Rating: 5.00Rating: 5.00Rating: 5.00Rating: 5.00 (total 14 votes)

Market Information
Breaking News
Most Popular
Most Commented
Featured Columnist
Horoscope Guide
Aquarius Aquarius Libra Libra
Aries Aries Pisces Pisces
Cancer Cancer Sagittarius Sagittarius
Capricorn Capricorn Scorpio Scorpio
Gemini Gemini Taurus Taurus
Leo Leo Virgo Virgo
Local Attractions
Bend Visitors & Convention Bureau
Bend Visitors & Convention Bureau

Mt. Bachelor Resort
Mt. Bachelor Resort

Les Schwab Ampitheater
Les Schwab Ampitheater

Deschutes County Fairgrounds
Deschutes County

Tower Theatre
Tower Theatre

The High Desert Museum


Deschutes County

  Web    BendWeekly.com
© 2006 Bend Weekly News
A .Com Endeavors, Inc. Company.
All Rights Reserved. Terms under
which this service is provided to you.
Please read our Privacy Policy. Contact us.
Bend Weekly News & Event Guide Online
   Save the Net
External sites open in new window,
not endorsed by BendWeekly.com
Subscribe in NewsGator Online
Add to Google Add to MSN Add to My AOL
What are RSS headlines?