Inflation, Acceleration & Galaxies

[CraigS]

Hi Guys;

(I'm new to this forum so I thought I'd better say a friendly 'Hello').

Ok, so Inflationary/acceleration theory (now supported by WMAP data, Hubble's research etc) tells us that the universe originally 'inflated' and is now accelerating. So I've been completely baffled about how Galaxies can collide, if this is so.

I asked this question recently of a research astronomer at the Syd Observatory and got the standard 'Gravity' and different scales/dimensions answer (ie: gravity overcomes the driving 'force' behind cosmic acceleration and anyway, this operates at a different scale ie: 100's to 1,000's of light years separation).

So, wouldn't the original kick in the early stages of the big bang (Inflation) and the subsequent acceleration (due to 'dark energy'), have given all matter and spacetime an 'outwards' inflationary trajectory -ie: separating everything from everything else, both initially and into the future and hence preclude any co-incidence of trajectories at all inter-galactic scales?

I can't quite see how a theory such as this can work in some parts of the inter-galactic scale but not in other parts. Your comments would be much appreciated, as I am perplexed.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

You no doubt have surrendered the opportunity for consideration of the possibility that any universe, other than one set out via the big bang theory, is available for consideration and/or is indeed worthy of consideration...such approach eliminates alternatives..

Big bang theory in order to survive as a viable hypotheses needs the "theory of inflation" to explain reasonable concerns with the credibility of the "big bang theory" however the "inflation theory" determines that all and everything we can observe or consider to be, of, and making up our universe, grew from the size of a grape fruit (just a little bit after the initial big bang.. to a size of some 156 / 160 billion light years diameter in the time of 30 seconds (or less ..depending on the sums you select as reasonable..) As laughable as such a prospect may present to any reasonable person that seems to be the way the big bang theory is happy with the dealing with the detail...

When one glosses over the probability that such could be fact or possible then this view of the evolution of the universe casts concern for some folks simply because this means that accepting the notion that the entire universe was therefore created in under one minute...mmm science gives creation only one minute and the Pope give creation 6/7 days..when you think of it that way ...mmm... 6/7 days seems more acceptable even though it is entirely unacceptable. ...
yes we must accept that all we see observe etc was created in less than one minute thats the science of it...Such a realization of what the big bang theory asks us to accept demands a more reasonable alternative one could think... yet there is no alternative to the big bang view on universe birth and evolution so far it seems... .. If one can entertain a possibility that the big bang theory is only one of many options yet unresolved or defined and that current thought is not the limit of knowledge and then alternatives may be embraced... and that such alternative may be different to the current belief in a big bang approach ... so take away the big bang and consider an alternative universe where the question you raise in your post would never need to be asked because the model held no difficulties is explaining away inconsistencies...

We interperete our data on the basis that the big bang theory is fact and in doing so we eliminate any opportunity of alternatives and perhaps supporting an unsupportable view of the universe.

alex

[CraigS]

Gee Alex;

Thanks for your frank reply. I'm actually doing my best to try on the Big Bang, and all it encompasses, to see if it fits in my universe. I'm not sure it does just yet.
I was watching the History Channel's "The Universe" Season One DVD the other day, (I do read more reputable stuff than this, despite this disclosure of my dodgy DVD viewing habits), and Alan Guth, God of Inflation Theory said "anyone who doesn't believe in the Big Bang Theory is basically considered to be a crackpot" (or words to that effect).

I don't mind being a labelled a "crackpot" once I understand enough about a particular way of thinking. I'm not there yet, so I continue the challenge !

I kind of favour Fred Hoyle's steady-state Universe (Einstein's also), although I like seeing how the Pope's crowd deals with new updates on things.

Wonderful how mainstream 'Science' thesedays is driven by the need for funding which will further support the consensus. One should also, perhaps, pause and strive to deliberate on things & get a whiff of what's going on - to be fair, methinks

Cheers & Rgds.

[xelasnave]

Your reply is wise.

Alan Guth believes his hypothesis is correct and calls it a theory however I subscribe to the notion that hypothesis requires something more than mere belief before the grand title of "theory" can be applied.

To call another a crackpot or any other name which reflects such contempt for any other view does not elevate him or the big bang camp but rather drags it all down to a level I would prefer to live above. He sounds more political than reasonable....

However Mr Guth is jealous and protective of his most original thought ...as are those who believe the big bang...and all are happy that his hypothesis saved the big bang from death.

I think that there may well be another answer other than inflation that would still save the big bang but will anyone look for it... ? No because enquiry stopped at the level of being able to hold off the deadly questions inflation seeks to eliminate...what were those questions anyhow????


The collision of galaxies is a matter that interests me... and those spirals with another galaxy like a banana stuck in the middle...wow what is going on there...shrug:

I think a big bang answer to your question may point out that it is space that expands and that in this context the matter within is somewhat irrelevant and free to do what it wants and respond to more local influences.

But when one attempts to visualize an expanding space the prospect of collisions seem improbable.

I have often pointed out the strange situation that exists which reveals spiral galaxies line up like buttons on a string... rather than folk being intrigued by such curious observations I find I get replies ...
'its what you would expect in a big bang'... and so thinking on such a wonderful find is eliminated and to determine what is really going on becomes irrelevant.... for mine I feel that this system of galaxy line up is most curious and points to something going on which we need to know about... if understood may show something about our universe that indicates its reason for existence...but such thinking dies because its big bang consistent and we need no more.

Check out the line up thing and ask "why"

alex

[bojan]

My two cents:

Without mathematical tools firmly under control and fully understood, discussions like this one are pointless.. unless the adequate beer supply is at hand

[xelasnave]

I can only ask ..how good is ones argument if one has to resort to facts .

A hypothesis is a view or an idea and nothing more. Clearly maths can be offered in support claiming the math is indeed the only evidence required. However math should apply to analysis of the data rather than building a premise and so I ask what data gained from "sample" observation does "inflation" call upon?

Inflation has the math to prove to us that the seemingly impossible is reasonable and in the case of inflation math indeed can prove that all we can observe and or presume to be out there "grew" from zip to all there is in a split second..I feel science will need God to get that one off the ground... and maybe that is the conclusion the big bang leads folk to... to a consideration of a creator when the science leaves us wondering....and as such it would seem that math is indeed a very powerful tool if it can sway a reasonable person to accept its premise with nothing more...say like experiment or observation.

Beer is great.... but few discussions on these matters are pointless as discussion promotes interest and input.

alex

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Hi Guys;

(I'm new to this forum so I thought I'd better say a friendly 'Hello').

Ok, so Inflationary/acceleration theory (now supported by WMAP data, Hubble's research etc) tells us that the universe originally 'inflated' and is now accelerating. So I've been completely baffled about how Galaxies can collide, if this is so.

I asked this question recently of a research astronomer at the Syd Observatory and got the standard 'Gravity' and different scales/dimensions answer (ie: gravity overcomes the driving 'force' behind cosmic acceleration and anyway, this operates at a different scale ie: 100's to 1,000's of light years separation).

So, wouldn't the original kick in the early stages of the big bang (Inflation) and the subsequent acceleration (due to 'dark energy'), have given all matter and spacetime an 'outwards' inflationary trajectory -ie: separating everything from everything else, both initially and into the future and hence preclude any co-incidence of trajectories at all inter-galactic scales?

I can't quite see how a theory such as this can work in some parts of the inter-galactic scale but not in other parts. Your comments would be much appreciated, as I am perplexed.

Cheers

There are two issues here the expansion of space-time and the movement of objects in space-time. A common mistake is to think there is no difference between the two.

A galaxy unaffected by gravity is moving away from us but is located at the same postion in space-time.
A galaxy affected by gravity can move in space-time, in other words it's location in space-time changes.
In this case gravity is not overcoming space-time expansion at all, rather it is performing work in moving objects in space-time.

There are no inconsistancies.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by bojan

My two cents:

Without mathematical tools firmly under control and fully understood, discussions like this one are pointless.. unless the adequate beer supply is at hand

Even when things are fully understood, a good supply of beer helps to lubricate the hypothesising process

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

There are two issues here the expansion of space-time and the movement of objects in space-time. A common mistake is to think there is no difference between the two.

A galaxy unaffected by gravity is moving away from us but is located at the same postion in space-time.
A galaxy affected by gravity can move in space-time, in other words it's location in space-time changes.
In this case gravity is not overcoming space-time expansion at all, rather it is performing work in moving objects in space-time.

There are no inconsistancies.

Regards

Steven

Precisely. It's easy to distinguish between the two regimes. One is an expansion of spacetime itself and this is independent of any movement of objects within spacetime.

Notice how I said "within" spacetime and not "with" spacetime. Two different scenarios with entirely different causal mechanisms. One due to the Big Bang, the other to gravity between objects.

[CraigS]

Hmm;

OK. I get that the two have independent causes but don't both directly change the shape of spacetime and thereby the positions of things in it ?
Ie: doesn't inflation stretch it in all directions and gravity warps it & creates wells etc bringing things closer ?

Until now, I have assumed that the oldest galaxies, 13.75 billion light years away, got there courtesy of inflation. If so, inflation has caused an apparent trajectory. (When reversed I think this trajectory actually gives rise to the original singularity, (the Egg)).

Anyway, apparently, matter & gravity combined after 9 billion years of inflation to form stars. So inflation which seemingly causes diverging trajectories (on the big scale) has been going a lot longer than gravity has !

If this is so, I don't get that gravity could have had enough time to create convergence of galaxies already set on very fast divergent trajectories. I guess it comes down to how far things were apart when gravity started to have a comparable influence on Inflation.

Nowadays, I understand that the latest WMAP 7 year data set reveals a Hubble constant (the rate at which the universe is expanding) of 70.4 +/- 1.4 kms per sec per megaparsec. That's about 54 km/sec between Earth and Andromeda. I read that Andromeda is moving at about 100 to 140 km/sec towards the Milky Way.

At the very least, I guess one could say that Inflation and Gravity seem to have comparable magnitudes in their influence on galaxies !

Interesting. And "Thank You" for all your comments. They are actually helping me to think through this. (Perhaps I'll become a better contributer to future forum discussions, as a result).

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Hmm;

OK. I get that the two have independent causes but don't both directly change the shape of spacetime and thereby the positions of things in it ?
Ie: doesn't inflation stretch it in all directions and gravity warps it & creates wells etc bringing things closer ?

I think thats generally the idea.. however I think "space time" is little more than a a fancy reference to a mere "grid" constructed out of math (or that wonderful branch of math we all love...geometry) so as to allow a human visualization of the Universe...some sort of ruler I guess...so expansion really means the grid size is getting "larger" and now within that "grid" matter although not moving in its own right (or getting larger) is moving away from other matter because the "in between' space has grown....It is matter that effects the grid "size" and somehow from the bending of this grid we get our gravity...General Relativity explains this is a mere property of space and there is no force at work to give us "gravity".. neither attraction or repulsion apparently ..it just "is"... hidden in math that general premise is overlooked ...and so far the force of gravity explanation has not passed Newton's answer to such a question..his answer..gravity is the force of God.... smart fellow not to buy into an answer past that.
Dr A also was smart enough to leave out a force and did not really take that aspect past Newton's "god reply"....however lets say we introduce a force for gravity and a force for inflation ....or.... as the position be at the moment...the force of attraction in one corner and in the other against or operating under the force of attraction or along side of it that of dark energy and let them fight it out ... theres another question..is it dark energy that is pushing expansion??? Was Dr A's greatest blunder his greatest insight ... The more you think about it all the more complex it becomes so be careful when folks say they have it all nailed down ...

Until now, I have assumed that the oldest galaxies, 13.75 billion light years away, got there courtesy of inflation. If so, inflation has caused an apparent trajectory. (When reversed I think this trajectory actually gives rise to the original singularity, (the Egg)).

From my reading it seems the Universe is much larger than 13.75 billion light years and the galaxies you refer to as being 13.5 billion years away really would be at a far greater distance now in real terms... I have read ..and the material seemed reasonable..that the universe is some 160 billion light year across so the 13 billion year old light says little as to where those galaxies are now ... but that is the inflation thing for you ..the light took 13 billion years to get here but the thing is really 80 billion light years from us today... and application of math can give us specifics for those who like things quantified but I think the premise of inflation allows such a view.

Maybe it is the matter that is shrinking so we assume it is space that is expanding

Anyway, apparently, matter & gravity combined after 9 billion years of inflation to form stars. So inflation which seemingly causes diverging trajectories (on the big scale) has been going a lot longer than gravity has !

Hang on if the light took 13 billion years to get here and the galaxies formed after 9 billion years does that not seem inconsistent with something... the extrodinary deep field hubble captures certainly tell us that galaxies must have formed early but who is to say what is a short or long time here ...if we are looking at light that is 13.5 billion years old showing galaxies surely they must have been there 13.5 billion years ago....


If this is so, I don't get that gravity could have had enough time to create convergence of galaxies already set on very fast divergent trajectories. I guess it comes down to how far things were apart when gravity started to have a comparable influence on Inflation.

Galaxy speed in this context is related to expansion or inflation the galaxies themselves are not moving in relation to space ..space is just getting bigger...I think that is the way of it.

Nowadays, I understand that the latest WMAP 7 year data set reveals a Hubble constant (the rate at which the universe is expanding) of 70.4 +/- 1.4 kms per sec per megaparsec. That's about 54 km/sec between Earth and Andromeda. I read that Andromeda is moving at about 100 to 140 km/sec towards the Milky Way.

MAybe space expansion moves at Hubbles constant and the movement towards each other is the gravity relationship....

At the very least, I guess one could say that Inflation and Gravity seem to have comparable magnitudes in their influence on galaxies !

Interesting. And "Thank You" for all your comments. They are actually helping me to think through this. (Perhaps I'll become a better contributer to future forum discussions, as a result).


Thinking is good.
The most wonderful thing about this forum is the clever folk who contribute and although their apparent better understanding can make one feel unworthy of input all are helpful... I frustrate many by having the ordacity to attempt to comment but I feel it is often by expressing how you see it others can then point out where you are wrong...and there is never anything wrong with being wrong if in the discussion of merits one can learn more...in other words contribute and question just use beer and math in moderation.


Cheers

alex

[xelasnave]

The above is my effort to refer to you specific statements but it appears a a quote from you sorry but you will see my comments within.
alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Hmm; OK. I get that the two have independent causes but don't both directly change the shape of spacetime and thereby the positions of things in it ? Ie: doesn't inflation stretch it in all directions and gravity warps it & creates wells etc bringing things closer ?

Inflation changes the size of space, not it's shape. When spacetime inflates, the galaxies stay in their places relative to one another w.r.t. the inflation. Use the old balloon analogy.

Gravity can, and does change the shape of spacetime, but only locally, when it is in respect to the objects within it.

Originally Posted by CraigS

Until now, I have assumed that the oldest galaxies, 13.75 billion light years away, got there courtesy of inflation. If so, inflation has caused an apparent trajectory. (When reversed I think this trajectory actually gives rise to the original singularity, (the Egg)).

They did. There is no trajectory, as a trajectory requires a point of origin and a point of destination. Since all of spacetime has expanded in all directions, there is no point of origin, nor a destination point because the expansion has occurred everywhere all at once.

Also, that distance you quoted is misleading. It is actually not the real distance to the objects but the light travel time, since expansion occurred, from those objects to us. The light we see has traveled for 13.75 billion years to get here, but in that time, the actual object has traveled much further away from us than that. In actual fact, the physical distance between us and that object...the co-moving distance, would be about 42-45 billion light years and the actual diameter of the visible universe as we see it is about 90 or so billion light years.

Originally Posted by CraigS

Anyway, apparently, matter & gravity combined after 9 billion years of inflation to form stars. So inflation which seemingly causes diverging trajectories (on the big scale) has been going a lot longer than gravity has !

The first stars, they believe, began some 200-250 million years after the Big Bang. These were the Population III monsters that helped to ionise the H and He which pervaded the Universe at the time. They formed before the first galaxies, which themselves began to coalesce somewhere around 650 million to a billion years after the BB.

Gravity has been around for longer than inflation, actually. Gravity has always been here. Inflation was just a brief episode in the expansion of the Universe, when it was between 10^-37 and 10^-35 years old, but the expansion has continued after that point, nevertheless.

Originally Posted by CraigS

If this is so, I don't get that gravity could have had enough time to create convergence of galaxies already set on very fast divergent trajectories. I guess it comes down to how far things were apart when gravity started to have a comparable influence on Inflation.

As I have already explained, there are no trajectories in relation to expanding spacetime. Gravity did have an influence on inflation, as it slowed the rate of inflation down over time, but after about 2 billion years, the expansion of the universe appears to have slowly accelerated due to the presence of "dark energy".

Originally Posted by CraigS

Nowadays, I understand that the latest WMAP 7 year data set reveals a Hubble constant (the rate at which the universe is expanding) of 70.4 +/- 1.4 kms per sec per megaparsec. That's about 54 km/sec between Earth and Andromeda. I read that Andromeda is moving at about 100 to 140 km/sec towards the Milky Way.

You could say that. But the scale distance of measurement is a megaparsec, so the actual expansion rate is as quoted. Since M31 and our galaxy are gravitationally bound, their mutual attraction is greater than the affects of expansion and they stay together as a bound system.

Originally Posted by CraigS

At the very least, I guess one could say that Inflation and Gravity seem to have comparable magnitudes in their influence on galaxies !

Interesting. And "Thank You" for all your comments. They are actually helping me to think through this. (Perhaps I'll become a better contributer to future forum discussions, as a result).

Cheers

No, if inflation and gravity had effects of comparable magnitude, nothing would happen...the universe would have never undergone inflation and we wouldn't be here to discuss this. Gravity has a much stronger influence over the bodies of the galaxies themselves and their closer neighbours than the expansion has. But if the universe keeps on accelerating its expansion, that won't be the case. Eventually, the acceleration to expansion will become so great that even a hydrogen atom will end up the size of the present day universe, especially if no force halts the acceleration, or slows it down to a crawl.

[sjastro]

Excellent explanation Carl.

Is this the Masters Degree studies shining through.

Steven.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Excellent explanation Carl.

Is this the Masters Degree studies shining through.

Steven.

No, I've known about this before I started my degree

But having a masters (or nearly so) adds a bit of "weight" I suppose

[CraigS]

Ok;

For the sake of keeping this discussion focussed, I will admit some errors (due to dodgy sources of data - I've rechecked my sources following renormalised's, Sjastro's and Alex's responses - thanks for keeping me on track, guys).

However, if there was originally a point, a singularity of infinite density, mass, etc, etc, which I think is the main message of the BB, then I think by definition, this is the point of origin (and hence there is a trajectory from thereon).

Not trusting myself on this I just checked one of my favourite books (although, probably just as dodgy as my DVD sources - Brian Greene's 'Fabric of the Cosmos'). He states that one alternative possibility of the BB "is that if the universe is spatially infinite, there was already an infinite spatial expanse at the moment of the big bang. At this moment the energy density soared, large temperatures (etc) ... but these extreme conditions existed everywhere, not just at one point ... instead the BB eruption took place everywhere on the infinite spatial expanse. After the bang, space swelled but its overall size didn't increase since something already infinite can't get any bigger. What did increase are the separations between objects like galaxies (once they formed)."

So, from this perspective (which seems to be an alternative spin on the traditional BB), the term 'trajectory' would have no meaning since there is no single point of origin - my problem seems to disappear (as per renormalised's comments).

It seems that my original question, perhaps, was born from my naivity of understanding of the rubbery state of the BB Theory (already known by Alex). It seems that its not as clear-cut as I thought - ie: that it didn't necessarily all start from a single point.

Which is OK. I can live with a "we're not really sure" answer. Actually, that's quite cool - and an honest answer.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Ok;

However, if there was originally a point, a singularity of infinite density, mass, etc, etc, which I think is the main message of the BB, then I think by definition, this is the point of origin (and hence there is a trajectory from thereon).

No. Yes, there was a point of infinite density and zero size in the traditional theory....a singularity if you will. However, there is still no trajectory because that point of infinite density and zero size occurred everywhere. All of space and time expanded out of that condition, so in effect everywhere was experiencing that condition. There was nothing outside of that "everywhere" which could be defined as a destination point and no vector to define a trajectory, so that renders your idea of a trajectory moot.

Originally Posted by CraigS

Not trusting myself on this I just checked one of my favourite books (although, probably just as dodgy as my DVD sources - Brian Greene's 'Fabric of the Cosmos'). He states that one alternative possibility of the BB "is that if the universe is spatially infinite, there was already an infinite spatial expanse at the moment of the big bang. At this moment the energy density soared, large temperatures (etc) ... but these extreme conditions existed everywhere, not just at one point ... instead the BB eruption took place everywhere on the infinite spatial expanse. After the bang, space swelled but its overall size didn't increase since something already infinite can't get any bigger. What did increase are the separations between objects like galaxies (once they formed)."

So, from this perspective (which seems to be an alternative spin on the traditional BB), the term 'trajectory' would have no meaning since there is no single point of origin - my problem seems to disappear (as per renormalised's comments).

That scenario would only work if the universe was defined as an M-brane and the BB was caused by the collision between two adjacent branes. Though, even in this case, the two branes would have to collide perfectly perpendicular to one another, otherwise you would have a ripple effect in the resultant energy distribution in the universe as the BB occurred in different parts of the branes at different times. That would show up in the CMB much more clearly and unambiguously in the temp fluctuations than what they find. For instance, it would appear to be colder in the direction away from the observer in the direction of travel of the BB ripple, but warmer when looking towards the point of contact between the two branes. In effect, you would have a temp gradient across the universe. This is not supported by the present or past observations that have been made.

Brian is also having two bites a the cherry here. He is saying, in his hypothesis, that space swelled but didn't increase in size because it was already infinite. That's contradictory. Yes, the space between the galaxies increased. However, if you have an infinite sized container with galaxies spread throughout it, the only way to increase the distance between the galaxies is to move them through space, not with space, as space can't get any bigger. In this case, it's not space which is expanding, it's the galaxies themselves which are moving apart. Now, if you look at that, there's only two ways of explaining this. The universe is not infinite but is expanding into an infinite space of something, or, the universe is infinite, but it's contents came from a finite sized source. In that case, there was a pre-existing space into which the contents are moving out into. If it's contents are finite in dimension, then the BB can't have occurred everywhere in spacetime, which by definition, is infinite in this case. The BB would be occurring at a point in spacetime and would not be an expansion of spacetime itself. That would induce a vector to the movement of the galaxies, but in order to produce the CMB results we see, that movement would have to be incredibly smooth in all directions. Which would be far more difficult to achieve in an actual "explosive" event of just matter into a pre-existing space than of an explosively rapid expansion of spacetime and matter itself.

Originally Posted by CraigS

It seems that my original question, perhaps, was born from my naivity of understanding of the rubbery state of the BB Theory (already known by Alex). It seems that its not as clear-cut as I thought - ie: that it didn't necessarily all start from a single point.

Which is OK. I can live with a "we're not really sure" answer. Actually, that's quite cool - and an honest answer.

Cheers

All theories are rubbery, to some extent. They're only ever an approximation of what is observable and in most cases you can never really know everything there is to observe. Something will always turn up to upset the apple cart

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

However, if there was originally a point, a singularity of infinite density, mass, etc, etc, which I think is the main message of the BB, then I think by definition, this is the point of origin (and hence there is a trajectory from thereon).

There is still no point of origin.
The implication of a point of origin requires the BB to have occurred within existing space. Space-time was created along with the BB. If not the Cosmological principle is violated.

The other issue is that we know nothing about the Universe before the Planck time (10^-43 second after the BB). Quantum mechanics dominates that even space-time is proposed to be quantized. We cannot define "a point" in this time interval.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Hmmm (again !);

Carl: I kind of liked the M-Brane collision theory. So much solid physics behind M-theory .. I'm kind of hoping the LHC uncovers stuff to support it all. Where are those results anyway ? (That thing's been going, albeit at half speed, for several months now ...)

Carl & Steven: Ok ... now I get it .. I think I've fallen victim to believing that the BB originated from a single point of infinite density etc floating in space .. but as you point out, space didn't exist at the beginning (perhaps). Kinda hard to imagine this after all, I was brought up to believe that space was the absence of everything. Having said this, I get a sense that the mathematics may make it easier to understand this concept.

Thanks again for all your input, guys ... very interesting !

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

You won't hear about a lot of the results until they come out in the journals. Which means 99% of people won't know anything at all. The only time anything will become public knowledge is if something spectacular happens...like they've opened up a doorway to an(other) universe(s), or they've found a way to crack the light barrier for travel. That would make instant headlines, but much of the work will go relatively unreported.