Horizon Next Week: Somethings Wrong With The Universe...
Discussion
...and its called 'Dark Flow'.
Clusters of Galaxies are being sucked away into a region of space by something so incredibly massive that it could realistically be another Universe draining ours (apparently).
And now they have proof - albeit disputed.
Should make for a good watch.
Linky: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rgg31
Clusters of Galaxies are being sucked away into a region of space by something so incredibly massive that it could realistically be another Universe draining ours (apparently).
And now they have proof - albeit disputed.
Should make for a good watch.
Linky: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rgg31
Edited by im on Thursday 4th March 10:51
The theory for the selection of the initial state of the universe from the landscape multiverse predicts superhorizon inhomogeneities induced by nonlocal entanglement of our Hubble volume with modes and domains beyond the horizon. Here we show these naturally give rise to a bulk flow with correlation length of order horizon size. The modification to the gravitational potential has a characteristic scale $L_{1} \simeq 10^{3} H^{-1}$, and it originates from the preinflationary remnants of the landscape. The 'tilt' in the potential induces power to the lowest CMB multipoles, with the dominant contribution being the dipole and next, the quadrupole. The induced multipoles $l \le 2$ are aligned with an axis normal to their alignment plane being oriented along the preferred frame determined by the dipole. The preferred direction is displayed by the velocity field of the bulk flow relative to the expansion frame of the universe. The parameters are tightly constrained thus the derived modifications lead to robust predictions for testing our theory. The 'dark' flow was recently discovered by Kashlinsky et al. to be about $700 km/s$ which seems in good agreement with our predictions for the induced dipole of order $3 \mu K$. Placed in this context, the discovery of the bulk flow by Kashlinsky et al. becomes even more interesting as it may provide a probe of the preinflationary physics and a window onto the landscape multiverse.
This is a summary of the programme in case you miss it.
This is a summary of the programme in case you miss it.
jbudgie said:
The theory for the selection of the initial state of the universe from the landscape multiverse predicts superhorizon inhomogeneities induced by nonlocal entanglement of our Hubble volume with modes and domains beyond the horizon. Here we show these naturally give rise to a bulk flow with correlation length of order horizon size. The modification to the gravitational potential has a characteristic scale $L_{1} \simeq 10^{3} H^{-1}$, and it originates from the preinflationary remnants of the landscape. The 'tilt' in the potential induces power to the lowest CMB multipoles, with the dominant contribution being the dipole and next, the quadrupole. The induced multipoles $l \le 2$ are aligned with an axis normal to their alignment plane being oriented along the preferred frame determined by the dipole. The preferred direction is displayed by the velocity field of the bulk flow relative to the expansion frame of the universe. The parameters are tightly constrained thus the derived modifications lead to robust predictions for testing our theory. The 'dark' flow was recently discovered by Kashlinsky et al. to be about $700 km/s$ which seems in good agreement with our predictions for the induced dipole of order $3 \mu K$. Placed in this context, the discovery of the bulk flow by Kashlinsky et al. becomes even more interesting as it may provide a probe of the preinflationary physics and a window onto the landscape multiverse.
This is a summary of the programme in case you miss it.
If I'm not mistaken thats largely been debunked now.This is a summary of the programme in case you miss it.
Chimune said:
Its Horizon. It might be entertaining, but i doubt there will be much actual science in it...
Well they have to tread a fine line between the type of gobbledygook jbudgie spouts (above) and making a program that people will actually watch.Lets face it, you can't do hardcore physics on TV cos only Mr Hawking would tune in. I think these programs just give you a heads up that the subject actually exists (Dark Flow?...I've never heard of it before and I doubt many others have but its pretty astonding if true) and if you're that intersted you can then go off and cram your head with mathematics of it all in your own time.
im said:
Lets face it, you can't do hardcore physics on TV cos only Mr Hawking would tune in.
Um, thats crap. No-one is talking cold/brown Open University circa 1972, but you can still cover pretty heavy subjets with a true science approach. I'd put money on more people tuning in, than 'coming of age' gets.It just needs people in the media to stop thinking that they have to cater for the lowest common denominator. This country is full of intelegent people ( despite the all evidence available on PH
). Why must science programs be entertainment? So that daily mail readers dont feel 'excluded'? BS. Its because its cheaper and easyer to make an entertainment program that looks a bit like some science. Thats a lazy BBC. NOT because there isnt an audience.
We used to have Tomorrows World, QED, the original Horizon, Open University, etc. They were full of facts, ideas and demonstartions. Not stock footage of clouds zooming across the sky, drops of water in slow-mo and an in-built fear of viewers getting bored after 3 mins.
Chimune said:
It just needs people in the media to stop thinking that they have to cater for the lowest common denominator. This country is full of intelegent people ( despite the all evidence available on PH ).
Why must science programs be entertainment? So that daily mail readers dont feel 'excluded'? BS. Its because its cheaper and easyer to make an entertainment program that looks a bit like some science. Thats a lazy BBC. NOT because there isnt an audience.
Actually, I think the problem is that these days a lot of the programmes are produced by career journalists who have no understanding of the science themselves. They decide that it would be interesting to do a piece on XYZ and then want to reduce it to pretty pictures that even they can understand. ). Why must science programs be entertainment? So that daily mail readers dont feel 'excluded'? BS. Its because its cheaper and easyer to make an entertainment program that looks a bit like some science. Thats a lazy BBC. NOT because there isnt an audience.
There's also a big pressure to 'keep up' with current media styles - so you've got to include CG, clever camera shots, heavily stylised bits and so on. By the time you've dressed up your documentary to be as exciting as Doctor Who there's not much room to talk about serious science. No single talky bit lasts long enough to string two sentences together, so there's no chance of explaining something at length.
You could just sit the scientists in their boring offices and have them talk about the subject, but by comparison to everything else on TV it would be boring and loose audience instantly. The whole industry lives in fear of people switching over, so even on the BBC where there are no advert breaks they fall into the habit of regularly telling you "In the next part, we'll tell you about...".
These days, programmes are happy to introduce people to a subject. After all, if you are actually interested, you could just log on and follow up the ideas on the internet.
It'll take a very clever science writer/producer to move the format on and demonstrate that you can build audience with it. That person has to be a skilled presenter, have a good understanding of science and engineering, and these days be an expert politician to convince the broadcasters that they can do something special. James Burke and Johnny Ball did it in their time - hopefully we'll see some more like that before too long.
im said:
Chimune said:
Its Horizon. It might be entertaining, but i doubt there will be much actual science in it...
Well they have to tread a fine line between the type of gobbledygook jbudgie spouts (above) and making a program that people will actually watch.Lets face it, you can't do hardcore physics on TV cos only Mr Hawking would tune in. I think these programs just give you a heads up that the subject actually exists (Dark Flow?...I've never heard of it before and I doubt many others have but its pretty astonding if true) and if you're that intersted you can then go off and cram your head with mathematics of it all in your own time.
Chimune said:
im said:
Lets face it, you can't do hardcore physics on TV cos only Mr Hawking would tune in.
Um, thats crap. No-one is talking cold/brown Open University circa 1972, but you can still cover pretty heavy subjets with a true science approach. I'd put money on more people tuning in, than 'coming of age' gets.People wont tune into this blurb:
The modification to the gravitational potential has a characteristic scale $L_{1} \simeq 10^{3} H^{-1}$, and it originates from the preinflationary remnants of the landscape. The 'tilt' in the potential induces power to the lowest CMB multipoles, with the dominant contribution being the dipole and next, the quadrupole. The induced multipoles $l \le 2$ are aligned with an axis normal to their alignment plane being oriented along the preferred frame determined by the dipole. The preferred direction is displayed by the velocity field of the bulk flow relative to the expansion frame of the universe. The parameters are tightly constrained thus the derived modifications lead to robust predictions for testing our theory. The 'dark' flow was recently discovered by Kashlinsky et al. to be about $700 km/s$ which seems in good agreement with our predictions for the induced dipole of order $3 \mu K$.
You can go on-line if your in the small niche of people who are interested in hearing the above or even understand it. The rest of us want it in a format that isn't to simplistic but is also an interesting presentation a-la James Burke.
Chimune said:
This country is full of intelegent people
I don't think Horizon caters to the lowest common denominator at all. I think they cater to people like me.
People without a scientific background but a real interest in science.
Basically they give you a fair amount of information to get you started and you can read up more about it if it tickles your fancy.
'Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.' - Albert Einstein.
If these shows spark the imagination then that good enough for me. Just getting people thinking about science and the universe is great.
People without a scientific background but a real interest in science.
Basically they give you a fair amount of information to get you started and you can read up more about it if it tickles your fancy.
'Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.' - Albert Einstein.
If these shows spark the imagination then that good enough for me. Just getting people thinking about science and the universe is great.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff