hubble ultra deep field

 

 

 

8.3   CONFORMITY TO PARAMETERS A preliminary survey has been carried out in order to compare the timeslice model to the suggested parameters in an initial estimate of its efficiency (details of the survey can be found in Appendix A).  This survey is ongoing, but the first 176 results from respondents have been used for this study.  For the purposes of this summary, the results of the Spanish and English surveys have been combined and recorded in English.
In general the positive target concepts seem to be fulfilled.  Four out of five of the concept categories received very encouraging responses.  The percentages are as follows:

 

  1. Space expands with a scale factor … 55% (question 10), …78%   (question 14)
  2. Expansion is an initial condition … 67% (question 7)
  3. The cosmic microwave background is all around us … 81% (question 8)
  4. Gravity affects the curvature of space … 46% (question 4)
  5. Hierarchical concepts … 77% (question 15), … 75% (question 11)

These concepts should be plausible, and the high percentages would appear to indicate that they are.  The model has been particularly effective for hierarchical concepts and expansion, but not so effective for the concept that gravity curves space.
The four categories of negative target concepts examined in the survey gave the following results.

 

  1. Atoms, people, stars and anything up to clusters do not join this expansion … 77% (Question 6)
  2. Matter does not have a velocity of expansion … 75% (question 11)
  3. The universe is not expanding into anything else … 40% (question 12)
  4. The big bang was not an explosion … 43% (question 9), nor did it take place at a central place … 71% (question 5)

The results here were also very good, except for those of concept (3), and partially, concept (4). Respondents were not completely convinced that the universe is not expanding into something else, and as has already been explained, this result is a natural drawback of all models which try to demonstrate universal expansion, and so was expected.  The great majority of respondents said that expansion doesn’t happen at a central place after looking at the model, but they did not see this as an indication that the big bang was not an explosion.  It is possible that previous misconceptions may have led to these interestingly discrepant answers.


The source concept parameters tested gave the following results:

  1. Be composed of p-prims, or similar core concepts …  66% (question 17 [options 4 through 8])
  2. Be able to adapt to hierarchical concepts” – The model has been very successful in the positive transmission of hierarchical concepts, as stated above, (… 77%, and … 75%), which reflects equally on the source concept and on the target concepts. 
  3. Contain indications of the limitations of the model … 73% (question 16 [options 3 through 6]).   

These were very good results for the timeslice model, although it must not be forgotten that although 66% of respondents found it easy to understand 44% of respondents did not.  The full version was used for the survey, and the line version may prove to be more connective, especially as an introductory model. 
The connectivity considerations were:

  1. Should be intuitive … not measured directly, but indications from the first source parameter above … 66% (question 17 [options 4 through 8]
  2. Should be entertaining … 39% (question 13).

Most respondents therefore found the model easy to understand, but the last percentage – in reply to the question “do you like the figures?” may indicate that the model is not sufficiently entertaining, which would be a barrier to the model’s success.  However the extremely high percentages found in responses to the actual target concepts show that the model has certainly been very successful in transmitting the desired concepts, which may simply mean that the question “do you like the figures?” is badly phrased in the survey, and does not map correctly to entertainment. 
One extremely suggestive result is that 77% of respondents said that on a scale of 0 to 8 they knew 4 or less about cosmology, indicating that the survey was not skewed towards a too-expert respondent class despite a bias towards higher education (76% or more).  This highlights a 77% positive response to the question about voids [Do you think there may be deserted areas of the universe (without galaxies)?] – when no mention whatsoever was made about voids in the explanation.  The 81% reply to the question “Where is the space which surrounded us 10 billion years ago?” is also significant, as there was no mention in the explanation of the cosmic microwave background.  The timeslice model therefore allows students to draw hierarchical conclusions about the model, which is one of the main aims of such a visual model.  Another of the most successful concepts transmitted is that of the implicit light travel time.  The question “Does light have to travel all along the curves or is there a short-cut?” received a 78% positive response. The above data is most encouraging.

 

8.4    CONCLUSION

 

8.4.1   The timeslice model seems to be successful at transmitting both positive and negative target concept concepts, and these preliminary results show that it is reasonably easy to understand. 
The new model would therefore appear to be more effective than the classical alternatives, and visual models such as this will hopefully prove to be more successful for future teaching.  It may not be a simple matter to change the teaching habits of almost a century, however, even if the proposed new model proves to be as useful as this initial study suggests.
One point in favor of this new model is that it can be used to process hierarchical information and is therefore much more versatile than the existing classical models. For example, the timeslice model allows the student to assimilate the news that voids might expel void galaxies, and permits him or her to consider solutions to the tethered galaxy problem.  It can even provide an introductory glimpse of another reference frame by inviting the student to visualize what might happen if the model were crushed flat. 
Curvature of the universe can be portrayed by “bending” the flat base of the timeslice, and finally, if the student imagines himself to be looking down on the “universe now” timeslice from a birds-eye perspective, he would see something very like the following Millenium simulation of the universe at a large scale:

The millenium simulation
Figure 14:Wikipedia commons:
 (http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/millennium/)

8.4.2   This study as a whole strongly suggests that it has become necessary to replace current “classical” models of expansion with something more suitable.  The timeslice model is presented here as only one alternative. 
Future research should investigate the efficiency of this and other contemporary models in order to determine the most adequate.  That model should then be adapted or replaced as the paradigms themselves change. 
The ability of future astrophysicists to understand new concepts should not be dependent on the inefficiency of old-fashioned and out-of-date models, particularly since students will protect their existing perceptions when faced with conflicting information and ignore the new data their teachers are trying to introduce.  Cartelli’s 2003 results that university students preferentially recurred to old perceptions, rather than use the new physics paradigms they had been taught at university give an idea of the crucial importance of visual models as part of the teaching process. 


9.   SUMMARY

 

“Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity I do not understand it myself anymore.” Albert Einstein.

 

9.1   Expansion is a complex physical process which requires formal higher instruction in mathematics for students to be able to understand the strict origin of the concepts involved.  Since the mathematical constructs are advanced, and scientific knowledge is hierarchical, there must be some previous phases in their education when the concepts are taught through visual models. 
It is also clear that although mathematics may be essential to a deep understanding of why our universe moves as it does, it should not be made a prerequisite to seeing how it moves.  Everything we have discovered about the universe has been extracted from looking up at the sky we see above us.  It has been, in the main, a visual process.  It should not be an impossible task to draw our children intelligible and useful simplistic diagrams of what we have found there.  A straightforward street plan of a city can prove very useful, while not explaining exactly how deep the foundations of every building go. 
There should be no stigma attached to the transmission of knowledge, be it detailed or superficial.  All learning processes must begin at some point, and our next Einstein should not be delayed in his or her development by confusing and incorrect information.  Any child should be allowed access to a simple picture of the universe, just as they should be taught to add and subtract, although it is known that only a few will carry this knowledge on to a thorough grounding in general relativity.  Einstein himself did not possess the mathematical background to understand relativity when he was developing the theory.  His perceptions were based on simple models and the thought experiments he was famous for.  The simple concepts he derived motivated him to immerse himself for years in the formal structure – the mathematics – in order to be able to formulate the exact calculations.
All formal students of cosmology can testify to the disheartening but universal conviction that general relativity is essential to understanding expansion, and yet the idea of something doubling or tripling is size is in fact a p-prim – an intuitive concept a small child will capture immediately.  After all, we ourselves double in size various times during our lives!  If the FLRW metric is used as the paradigm, expansion can be explained simply as a scale factor.  Complex analogies are not necessary here.
Although Cosmology has progressed substantially in the century since Hubble’s law was formulated, the teaching aids it uses have not.  To date, there has been little or no assessment of the visual models used in teaching.  The use of incorrect visual models plays a highly significant role in the creation of misconceptions.  These misconceptions are difficult to correct and lead students to reject more complex concepts as incompatible, severely limiting progress. 
Visual models are essential as teaching aids, but should meet certain parameters in order to avoid creating concepts which are erroneous.  New visual models, such as the timeslice model presented here, which meet most of these parameters, will help to avoid creating misconceptions about expansion in the future, and to correct already existing ones.
Modern investigation, both observational and theoretical, has led to alterations in our way of regarding expansion.  Voids are now thought to accelerate expansion.  Filaments are thought to slow it down.  Expansion is thought to be true only on a global scale, with clusters of galaxies – and perhaps even superclusters or larger structures – immune to its effects.  Yet we are still all introduced to the subject with an analogy of people blowing up balloons, or ladies baking raisin cakes, when neither of these models can even contemplate such things.  It is a sad state of affairs which should not be allowed to continue.  Like the young Einstein, people without a background in higher mathematics may have valid contributions to make, and they should not be excluded or demoralized by the teaching methods used.
As changes occur in accepted paradigms the visual models which are used for imparting knowledge should be reviewed.  Parameters should be adapted, and the models used should be updated or eliminated from the classroom and future textbooks.
Further study is called for both in determining the success of existing models and in proposing better models in the future.  The true goal of an adequate visual model should be that the person laboring under a misconception finds that his original misconception has evaporated, that he can no longer remember why he believed it to be true. 

 

10.  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 

“You know, I couldn’t do it.  I couldn’t reduce it to the freshman level.  That means we don’t really understand it.”  Richard P Feynman.

 

10.1   I would like to thank Doctor Vicent Martínez, and Doctor Diego Sáez, joint consultants in the cosmology module of the Master in Astronomy and Astrophysics at the International University of Valencia, for taking the time to answer in detail my original doubts on this matter.  Their answer and recommended reading made me realize that I had severe misconceptions about expansion, which in turn prompted this study.   
Thanks also go to Doctor Amelia Ortiz of the Observatori Astronòmic of Valencia University and to Doctor Pascual Diago of the International University of Valencia for agreeing to be my tutors, for their patience, and for their invaluable input and corrections.   I am particularly grateful for the suggestion that the study would benefit by the inclusion of a survey on the timeslice model.
I would especially like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Pascual Diago, in his capacity as course coordinator, for all the lively and interesting videoconferences, cheerful encouragement, his ability to reduce things to the freshman level, and his eternal optimism that we would finally be capable of understanding it all.  I hope we have proved him right.   


 

I would like to thank everybody who participated in the survey to check the utility of a new model such as this one.

Below you can find the initial results in detail, which are those that figure in the thesis. The most recent results can be found here

 

APPENDIX A: A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE TIMESLICE MODEL

 

The survey gave the three figures of the timeslice model, together with the following explanations:

 

Introduction: Our universe was born with two naturally opposite tendencies: gravity, which brings things together, and expansion, which separates them.  The question is: What is attracted by gravity and what is repulsed by expansion?
Figure 1: In Figure 1 below the universe is very young.  We can see that some galaxies have formed and that these are in turn grouping together to form clusters of galaxies, represented by little patches of dots.  Expansion is also going on, but its effect is still small, and it is difficult to see so far back in time.
Figure 2: In Figure 2 the clusters of galaxies can be seen to have formed small bags, lightly warping their local space.  However, now it is expansion which can be seen most.  The space between the clusters has inflated notably because of expansion.  It turns out that the strong gravity acting in each cluster of galaxies won’t permit expansion inside that zone.  Where there are clusters gravity blocks expansion.  Only the space between clusters remains free to expand.
Figure 3:In Figure 3 you can see the universe just as it is nowadays, today.  Everything, including light, has to go all the way along each curve to travel from one cluster to another.  Unfortunately nobody has found any short-cuts yet! If you wanted to go from one cluster to another it would take you four times longer now than it would have in the first figure.  Distances have quadrupled. 
Conclusion: So the answer to the initial question about what expands and what contracts is that gravity doesn’t let clusters of galaxies, or anything inside them, participate in universal expansion.  It is only the space between clusters which expands.

Respondents were then asked to answer twenty questions, where they were able to see the figures on each page except the last, but not the explanatory text.
The following list gives the questions together with the rationale behind each question in order to explain exactly what results were to be hoped for in the survey:

 

SURVEY QUESTIONS(giving the concept each question examines after the question In italics and in brackets)

1.  Are you male or female?  (for use in crossover statistics)
2.  How old are you? (for use in crossover statistics)
3.  What level of education do you have?  (for use in crossover statistics)
4.  Looking at these figures, do you think gravity curves space around the clusters?  (Gravity curves space: Should be plausible, either directly or hierarchically)
5.  Do these figures suggest that expansion happens only from a central place? (The Big Bang happened at a central place: This should be implausible)
6.  In these figures, what is expanding?  (There is no local expansion: Should be plausible) 
7.  According to this model, has there always been a tendency to expand?  (Expansion is an initial condition: Should be plausible).
8.  According to this model, where is the space which surrounded us 10 billion years ago?  (Cosmic microwave background: Should be plausible, either directly or hierarchically)
9.  Does this particular model suggest that the universe began with an explosion? (The Big Bang was an explosion: Should be implausible)
10.  Was the universe 4 times smaller 10 billion years ago?  (Space expands with a scale factor: Should be plausible) 
11.  Do clusters travel through space, or does space inflate between clusters? (Matter doesn’t have a velocity, Expansion is metric: Should be plausible) 
12.  Looking at these figures, do they suggest to you that the universe expands into something bigger?  (The Universe expands into something else: Should be implausible) 
13.   Do you like the figures in the model?  (Is the model entertaining?)
14.  Does light have to travel all along the curves or is there a short-cut?  (Metric Expansion, light lookback time: Should be plausible).
15.  Looking at figure 3, do you think there might be deserted areas of the universe (without galaxies)?  (Hierarchical concepts – voids: Should be plausible)
16.  Do you think this model represents the real universe well? (where 0 is it doesn’t represent it at all well and 8 is that it represents it extremely well)  (Connectivity with limitations.   Note: the answers should be somewhere in the middle range; it should be seen as a good representation but with clear limitations)
17.  Do you think this model is easy to understand (where 0 is that it is not at all easy to understand and 8 is that it is extremely easy to understand).    (Intuitive: The higher the result, the better the model will transmit)  
18.  Do these figures remind you of anything? What do you think they look like?  (please specify).   (Intuitive, possibly p-prims –not included in these results –for use in a more detailed report)  
19 How interested would you say you are in cosmology? (where 0 is not at all interested and 8 is extremely interested).  (for use in crossover statistics)
20.  How much would you say you know about cosmology? (where 0 is nothing at all and 8 is that you are an expert).  (for use in crossover statistics)

RESULTS:   There is only space in this appendix to include one short survey report.  To date there have been 137 respondents to the Spanish version of the survey, and 39 to the English version, giving a total of 176 respondents overall.   The two results have been collated in the following report, so as to reflect all results received up to the time of writing.   Question 18, which was an open question, has been omitted.

 

These were the initial survey results, further reports will be added when significant.

http://appv3.sgizmo.com/public/images/report-masthead.png

Summary Report - Jun 26, 2011 English and Spanish Combined.

Survey: The Timeslice Model Survey

 

Male

Female

Total

Are you male or female?

68.2%
118

31.8%
55

100%
173

 

Under 11

11 to 15

16 to 20

21 to 30

31 to 40

41 to 50

51 to 60

61 to 70

71 to 80

Over 80

Total

How old are you?

0.0%
0

0.0%
0

10.3%
18

35.6%
62

20.7%
36

18.4%
32

9.2%
16

5.2%
9

0.0%
0

0.6%
1

100%
174

 

 

Primary

Secondary / Junior High

A Level / Senior High

Higher Education

Master's

Doctorate

Total

What level of education do you have?

1.1%
2

1.7%
3

20.7%
36

53.4%
93

14.9%
26

8.0%
14

100%
174

 

Yes

No

I don't know

Total

Looking at these figures, do you think gravity curves space around the clusters?

45.7%
80

36.6%
64

17.7%
31

100%
175

 

 

Yes

No

I don't know

Total

Do these figures suggest that expansion happens only from a central place?

17.0%
30

71.0%
125

12.0%
21

100%
176

 

The clusters

The space between clusters

I don't know

Total

In these figures, what is expanding?

13.1%
23

77.1%
135

9.7%
17

100%
175

 

 

Yes

No

I don't know

Total

According to this model, has there always been a tendency to expand?

67.1%
116

15.0%
26

17.9%
31

100%
173

 

We left it far behind us because we travelled through space

It is still all around us, only more spread out

I don't know

Total

According to this model, where is the space which surrounded us 10 billion years ago?

2.3%
4

81.0%
141

16.7%
29

100%
174

 

Yes

No

I don't know

Total

Does this particular model suggest that the universe began with an explosion?

34.6%
60

43.4%
75

22.0%
38

100%
173

 

Yes

No

I don't know

Total

Was the universe 4 times smaller 10 billion years ago?

54.6%
95

23.0%
40

22.4%
39

100%
174

 

Clusters travel through space

Space inflates between clusters

I don't know

Total

Do clusters travel through space, or does space inflate between clusters?

12.9%
22

75.4%
129

11.7%
20

100%
171


 

 

Yes

No

I don't know

Total

Looking at these figures, do they suggest to you that the universe expands into something bigger?

40.0%
70

40.0%
70

20.0%
35

100%
175

 

Yes

No

I don't know

Total

Do you like the figures in the model?

39.3%
68

49.1%
85

11.6%
20

100%
173

 

All along the curves

There is a short-cut

I don't know

Total

Does light have to travel all along the curves or is there a short-cut?

78.2%
136

9.8%
17

12.1%
21

100%
174

 

Yes

No

I don't know

Total

Looking at figure 3, do you think there might be deserted areas of the universe (without galaxies)?

77.1%
135

10.9%
19

12.0%
21

100%
175

 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Total

Do you think this model represents the real universe well? (where 0 is it doesn't represent it at all well and 8 is that it represents it extremely well)

4.1%
7

4.7%
8

7.0%
12

7.6%
13

26.3%
45

13.5%
23

25.1%
43

8.8%
15

2.9%
5

100%
171

 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Total

Do you think this model is easy to understand? (where 0 is that it is not at all easy to understand and 8 is that it is extremely easy to understand)

7.6%
13

8.8%
15

8.2%
14

9.9%
17

11.7%
20

15.2%
26

22.2%
38

11.7%
20

4.7%
8

100%
171


 

 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Total

How interested would you say you are in cosmology? (where 0 is not at all interested and 8 is extremely interested)

2.9%
5

4.0%
7

8.0%
14

6.3%
11

8.0%
14

9.2%
16

19.0%
33

19.5%
34

23.0%
40

100%
174

 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Total

How much would you say you know about cosmology? (where 0 is nothing at all and 8 is that you are an expert)

12.7%
22

15.0%
26

12.1%
21

13.3%
23

23.7%
41

11.6%
20

7.5%
13

2.9%
5

1.2%
2

100%
173

 

 

 

These results are very encouraging, and strongly suggest that such a model as the timeslice model would be a great improvement on the existing ones in use. Of course, further study is necessary on this subject.

 

 

In case anyone is interested in the full survey results, here are the final results of the both surveys, before the surveys were finally archived in March 2015. There was a total of 88 respondents to the English survey and 156 to the Spanish survey, giving a total of 244 in total. I have included all questions except "What do the figures remind you of?", which was open, and gave no useful data. The two surveys are given independently here:

 


New Summary Report - March 2015 ENGLISH LANGUAGE VERSION


1. Are you male or female?


Male 73.5%
Female 26.5%


2. How old are you?


Under 11 0.0% 0
11 to 15 4.8% 4
16 to 20 9.5% 8
21 to 30 10.7% 9
31 to 40 16.7% 14
41 to 50 19.1% 16
51 to 60 19.1% 16
61 to 70 17.9% 15
71 to 80 1.2% 1
Over 80 1.2% 1
Total 84



3. What level of education do you have

Primary 1.2%
Secondary / Junior High 9.6%
A Level / Senior High 12.1%
Higher Education 49.4%
Master's 18.1%
Doctorate 9.6%
Yes 50.0% 43
No 36.1% 31
I don't know 14.0% 12
Total 86


4. Looking at these figures, do you think gravity curves space around the clusters?


Yes 50%
No 36.1%
I don't know 14%

Total 86


5. Do these figures suggest that expansion happens only from a central place?


Yes 14%
No 70.9%
I don't know 15.1%

Total 86


6. In these figures, what is expanding?


The clusters 11.6%
The space between clusters 76.7%
I don't know 11.6%

Total 85


7. According to this model, has there always been a tendency to expand?


Yes 67.1%
No 9.4%
I don't know 23.5%


8. According to this model, where is the space which surrounded us 10 billion years ago?


We left it far behind us because we travelled
through space 1.2%
It is still all around us, only more spread out 77.7%
I don't know 21.2%

Total 85


9. Does this particular model suggest that the universe began with an explosion?


Yes 23.5%
No 48.2%
I don't know 28.2%


10. Was the universe 4 times smaller 10 billion years ago?


Yes 35.3%
No 27.1%
I don't know 37.7%


11. Do clusters travel through space, or does space inflate between clusters?


Clusters travel through space 10.5%
Space inflates between clusters 72.1%
I don't know 17.4%

Total 86


12. Looking at these figures, do they suggest to you that the universe expands into something bigger?


Yes 51.2%
No 29.1%
I don't know 19.8%

Total 85


13. Do you like the figures in the model?


Yes 36.5%
No 51.8%
I don't know 11.8%

Total 86


14. Does light have to travel all along the curves or is there a short-cut?


All along the curves 74.4%
There is a short-cut 8.1%
I don't know 17.4%

Total 86


15. Looking at figure 3, do you think there might be deserted areas of the universe (without galaxies)?


Yes 69.8%
No 8.1%
I don't know 22.1%


16. Do you think this model represents the real universe well? (where 0 is it doesn't represent it at all well and 8
is that it represents it extremely well)



0 11.8% 10
1 4.7% 4
2 9.4% 8
3 10.6% 9
4 24.7% 21
5 7.1% 6
6 16.5% 14
7 10.6% 9
8 4.7% 4
Total 85


17. Do you think this model is easy to understand? (where 0 is that it is not at all easy to understand and 8 is that
it is extremely easy to understand)


0 9.5%
1 8.3%
2 6%
3 17.9%
4 11.9%
5 8.3%
6 17.9%
7 10.7%
8 9.5%


19. How interested would you say you are in cosmology? (where 0 is not at all interested and 8 is extremely
interested)


0 5.8%
1 7%
2 12.8%
3 5.8%
4 4.7%
5 7%
6 19.8%
7 9.3%
8 27.9%

Total 86


20. How much would you say you know about cosmology? (where 0 is nothing at all and 8 is that you are an
expert)


0 18.6%
1 16.3%
2 8.1%
3 16.3%
4 16.3%
5 11.6%
6 7%
7 4.7%
8 1.2%

 

 

 

 


New Summary Report - March 2015 SPANISH LANGUAGE SURVEY

1. ¿Eres hombre o mujer?


Hombre 64.9%
Mujer 35.1%


2. ¿Cuantos años tienes?


Menos que 11 0.0% 0
11 a 15 0.7% 1
16 a 20 12.8% 19
21 a 30 38.9% 58
31 a 40 21.5% 32
41 a 50 19.5% 29
51 a 60 4.7% 7
61 a 70 1.3% 2
71 a 80 0.0% 0
Más que 80 0.7% 1
Total 149




3. ¿Qúe nivel de estudios tienes?


Primario 2%
Segundario 3.4%
Bachillerato / COU / Selectividad 24.2%
Estudios Superiores 51%
Master 12.1%
Doctorado 7.4%


4. Mirando a estas figuras, ¿Crees que la gravedad curva el espacio alrededor de los cúmulos?



Sí 46%
No 37.2%
No lo sé 16.9%


5. ¿Estas figuras te sugieren que la expansión ocurre solo desde un sitio central especial?



Sí 21.5%
No 68.5%
No lo sé 10.1%


6. En estas figuras, ¿Qúe es lo que se expande?


Los cúmulos 14.2%
El espacio entre cúmulos 80.4%
No lo sé 5.4%


7. Según este modelo, ¿Siempre ha habido una tendencia a expandirse?


Sí 71.4%
No 15.7%
No lo sé 12.9%


8. Según este modelo, ¿Donde está el espacio que nos rodeaba hace 10 mil millones de años?


Lo dejamos muy atrás porque viajamos por el
espacio 2.7%
Todavía nos rodea, solo que más esparcido 83.8%
No lo sé 13.5%


9. ¿Este modelo en particular te sugiere que el universo empezó con una explosión?


Sí 39.7%
No 39%
No lo sé 21.2%


10. ¿Hace 10 mil millones de años el universo era 4 veces más pequeño?



Sí 57.4%
No 25.7%
No lo sé 16.9%


11. En este modelo, ¿Los cúmulos viajan a través del espacio, o el espacio se infla entre cúmulos?


Los cúmulos viajan a través del espacio 12.5%
El espacio se infla entre cúmulos 77.8%
No lo sé 9.7%


12. Cuando miras a estas figuras, ¿te sugieren que el universo se expande dentro de algo más grande?


Sí 39.9%
No 41.9%
No lo sé 18.2%


13. ¿Te gustan las figuras del modelo?



Sí 41.8%
No 46.6%
No lo sé 11.6%


14. ¿La luz tiene que viajar a lo largo de las curvas o hay un atajo?

 


A lo largo de las curvas 81%
Hay un atajo 11.6%
No lo sé 7.5%


15. Mirando a la figura 3, ¿te parece que puede haber zonas desiertas (sin galaxias) en el universo?


Sí 79.7%
No 12.8%
No lo sé 7.4%


16. ¿Crees que este modelo representa bien al universo real? (donde 0 es que no lo representa nada bien y 8
es que lo representa extremadamente bien)



0 0.7%
1 2.8%
2 5.5%
3 7.6%
4 27.6%
5 17.9%
6 27.6%
7 8.3%
8 2.1%


17. ¿Crees que este modelo es fácil de entender? (donde 0 es que no es nada fácil de entender y 8 es que es
extremadamente fácil de entender)


0 4.1% 6
1 6.9% 10
2 11.0% 16
3 8.9% 13
4 13.0% 19
5 17.1% 25
6 23.3% 34
7 12.3% 18
8 3.4% 5
Total 146


19. ¿Cuanto te interesa la cosmología? (donde 0 es que no te interesa en absoluto y 8 es que te interesa
mucho)



0 4.1%
1 4.1%
2 8.8%
3 8.2%
4 10.2%
5 10.9%
6 19.1%
7 19.1%
8 15.7%


20. ¿Cuanto sabes de la cosmología? (donde 0 es que no sabes nada y 8 es que eres un experto)


0 13.7%
1 17.1%
2 15.1%
3 13.7%
4 21.2%
5 11%
6 6.2%
7 1.4%
8 0.7%

Total 142

 

 

I was particularly pleased to see that most of the base questions about the model have strengthened with the internet general replies, which seems encouraging.

 

I would like to thank everyone who took part in the survey,whether in Spanish or English, and Surveygizmo for hosting it for me and leaving it running for such a long time. I am very grateful for their help.