Aussie astronomer wins $1m prize!

janoskiss (Steve H) · #1 22-06-2006, 05:18 PM

Congratulations to Aussie astronomer Brian Schmidt of the ANU and his colleagues Saul Perlmutter and Adam Reiss for being awarded the $1 million Shaw Prize for Astronomy for figuring out the rate at which the universe is expanding.

In today's news: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...6/s1669517.htm
Brian Schmidt's home page: http://msowww.anu.edu.au/~brian/

gary · #2 22-06-2006, 06:23 PM

Hi Steve,

An outstanding achievement.

The Shaw prize was set up by the famous Run Run Shaw of Hong Kong.
See http://www.shawprize.org/

Best Regards

Gary Kopff
Mt. Kuring-Gai NSW

[1ponders] (Paul) · #3 22-06-2006, 08:32 PM

How brilliant is that. Fantastic achievement.

Thanks for finding that Steve.

janoskiss (Steve H) · #4 23-06-2006, 12:58 AM

Following Gary's link above, the precise wording of what the prize was awarded for is:

For discovering that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating, implying in the simplest interpretation that the energy density of space is non-vanishing even in the absence of any matter and radiation.

which makes a bit more sense and is a lot more profound than the shortened version reported in the news.

astroron (Ron) · #5 23-06-2006, 03:02 PM

If You are booked into AstroFest Brian Schmidt is the guest speaker.

CoombellKid · #6 23-06-2006, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astroron

If You are booked into AstroFest Brian Schmidt is the guest speaker.

And I do believe his presentation is on the very same subject. Something
I have been looking forward too

Excellent achievement!!

regards,CS

Rob

h0ughy (David) · #7 24-06-2006, 09:16 AM

an excellent achievement well deserving from a lot of hard work!

Shawn · #8 25-06-2006, 12:15 PM

its all well and good , if you believe current theories, and I mean "Theories" on relativity, how can you possibly measure time or distance from the perspective of a observer that has a limited frame of reference. We have a long time to go before such profound announcements can be made, without a certain degree of uncertanty. But Still, Someone has to do the hard Yards..

Good reading...

janoskiss (Steve H) · #9 25-06-2006, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirDystic

its all well and good , if you believe current theories, and I mean "Theories" on relativity, how can you possibly measure time or distance from the perspective of a observer that has a limited frame of reference.

Ever get out of a speeding ticket claiming the radar cop had a limited frame of reference?

Shawn · #10 25-06-2006, 12:37 PM

No...I like it tho...and I know that he does have a limited frame of reference
because hes here.

Everything is relative. the word relative means. compared to something else. amongst other english disparities. Who proved what with space time dialation....NOBODY...It cannot be proven or endorsed until its been done..

We are blind really...again "Theories"

PS, Ill try that line on the next federally that bags me for doing a a couple of hundred on the Kwaka, Im sure it will go down like a cup of warm vomit

Just my thoughts
S

janoskiss (Steve H) · #11 25-06-2006, 12:54 PM

Any statement you make about the world or anything in it will be "just" a theory at best - a working theory that agrees with observation if you're lucky. I don't know why people always keep picking on the word "theory"...?

Just because we don't understand how something is done does not mean it cannot be done. I feel that first I need to understand someone's work before I can criticise, let alone dismiss it. I don't think we can take anything away from people like Brian Schmidt just because we cannot fully (or hardly at all) understand their work. But it is much easier to dismiss than to make the effort (probably a lot of effort!) to understand.

janoskiss (Steve H) · #12 25-06-2006, 12:57 PM

btw. I don't know what you mean by wanting "proof". There is plenty of observational evidence and experimental "proof". Mathematical proofs only exist for abstract mathematical statements. In the real world experiment/observation is the only proof you can have.

Shawn · #13 25-06-2006, 02:56 PM

Thats exactly my point, "Theory" is a loose term that implies, for the want of a better word, "maybe" if we are correct about observational assumptions. Now whilst I dont want to put the bloke wrong, he is maybe right. But as I said, It is not neccessarily correct because the results of his research are still only based on assumptions. aka observational theory. Me I have my own ideas Im pretty sure they run across the grain "so to speak" mainly because I dont have any letters behind my name and very little in the way of scholastic attributes. But......I do have a wicked imagination...

.

For example.
Do we know that light travels at 186k m per sec, universally,,,,NO...
we dont....And we are never likely to prove that it does...All assunptions that are based on where we are and when..

Hence, my point..

take care
shawn..

janoskiss (Steve H) · #14 25-06-2006, 07:29 PM

Shawn, fundamental physics is based on theory that no experiment or observation has ever proven wrong. In other words, these theories agree with all our observations. They also have awesome predictive power - every time backed up by experiment. You cannot ask for any more than that. One has to work with what one is given.

Shawn · #15 26-06-2006, 01:09 AM

jano
I would really like to discuss this further, as I said I have my own ideas on this, and no they cant be proven wrong either , by experiment, observation nor any other means. cant be proven right either, work tommorrow

. so be away for a while. pick up once I return If you like.

Hope your weekend was fruitful

higginsdj · #16 26-06-2006, 03:13 PM

Well I for one am a believer. For a recent Uni course project I imaged ABELL 1631 in BVRI then measured the colour indicies B-V and R-I of all the galaxies in the image (34 of them) and plotted them against known distance for low z. Although I knew the theory is was a real eye opener to actually see that the more distant the galaxy the more red it got (for z = 0.01 to 0.1).

Cheers

xelasnave · #17 26-06-2006, 03:57 PM

So at what "speed"? are we "expanding away from" the most distant part of the observable Universe? or is that not the way it can be looked upon?
alex

Adrian-H · #18 26-06-2006, 04:54 PM

i sometimes wonder if its just us in our galaxy being sucked into the centre, and it just happens to seem as if the universe is moving outwards but we are actually just moving away from, into the abyss?

xelasnave · #19 26-06-2006, 08:03 PM

I think red shift suggests speeds of "expansion" of up to 12000 klms per second so we are falling fast if thats the case
alex

Shawn · #20 27-06-2006, 02:38 AM

Two thirty in the morning, cant sleep. but heres a question. The universe "as we see it" and for the want of a better word, is expanding I agree with that. but, is it expanding away from a central point or is it expanding generally, ie everything moving away from everything else. Whats the concencus on this,?
Shawn.