Who Won the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics?

[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:

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... 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!

Before expressing categorical views, please update yourself on latest results:

http://www.universetoday.com/55200/seven-year-wmap-results-no-theyre-not-anomalies/"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4758"

 

[Doc Al]

Thread closed for moderation.