It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As we don't live within the center of the universe, it make's no sense that every direction should show the same age. If we existed near an 'edge' then we should see only as far as that edge exists. Yet this is not the case, every direction we see out the same distance.
I was also wondering, why, if the big bang theory is true, don't all galaxies move away at the same rate of speed from one central point of a singularity? We see galaxies moving in all sorts of chaotic directions and not from an orderly central point.
[EDIT TO ADD]
I've also noticed that galaxies move at different speeds from one another. So, not only do they take their own paths in every which directions, they also do so at different speed, inconsistent with an orderly explosive or expansive force from any singularity that may have existed at some central point in the beginning.
According to current physics the reason why it is so hard to see galaxies that far out is due to how dim the light is. If light comes to the point of being difficult to detect from that distance, then even in an infinite universe the same should hold true for light further out as it get's absorbed by the radiation surrounding our local observable space.
l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
In addition to the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, photons from the CMBR can also be subtly affected by the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. The basis for this effect is gravitational redshift, one of the most basic predictions from GR and first demonstrated experimentally by Pound and Rebka in 1960. The basic idea is that, as photons enter a gravitational potential well, they pick up extra energy and when they exit they lose energy. Hence, scientists refer to photons "falling into" and "climbing out of" gravitational wells.
As CMBR photons pass through the foreground large scale structure, they pass through many such gravitational wells. If the depth of the well is static (or rather if the depth of the well is increasing at the same rate as the expansion of the universe), then the net energy change is zero. All of the energy they gained falling in is lost climbing out. However, if the universe contains dark energy (or has an open geometry), then the universe expands faster than the gravitational wells around massive objects can grow. As a result, the CMBR photons do not lose all of the energy they gained falling into the potentials. This makes the CMBR look very slightly hotter in the direction of these potentials, which also contain the highest concentrations of galaxies.
Following the release of the WMAP data, studies done by Scranton (2003), Afshordi (2004), Boughn (2004), and Nolta (2004) measured this effect using galaxies selected in a number of different ways. The signal-to-noise in any one of the measurements was not very large. However, taken together (and combined with the WMAP observation that the geometry of the universe was best fit by a flat universe), they provide significant evidence that this effect is real and is best explained by the standard Lambda CMD model of BBT.
Just thought it was interesting considering if matter exists in a finite state within the bounds of an infinite space and follows the laws of physics as they exist then there would always be the same finite amount of matter in existence and that it doesn't decay into nothing and would still interact with matter distributed throughout the infinite expanse.
So even if our local space decays into those three basic atomic structures, the laws of physics should allow those basic atomic structures to come back together and form new planets, stars and galaxies.
Originally posted by Novise
I can see how these observations would seriously discredit the big bang theory (and those theorist have their reasons for these anomalies), I'd go along with common sense and take observation over their theories. Based on the big bang theory the universe should look like a balloon - all but hollow on the inside with a thin line of existence on the outside, but instead it's all spread out like dust in a dust storm. But I don't see how these observations prove space to be infinite.
I don't see how space can be infinite within a universe, it doesn't work out. If you draw a line and put a point on it, then I make that line infinite it loses all of it's point of reference. Even though you can draw it on a piece of paper, in reality you would never be able to travel to that point. Your starting point would be infinetly far away from it, no matter "where" you started. At least, that's how I view it, who knows.
Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Maslo
Explanation: Way to go on the thermodynamics kybosh without 1st proving that the universe is either isolated, closed or open!
Personal Disclosure: If the Universe has quantum energy bubbling out of nothing RE: ZPE then that would make the universal system neither thermodynamically isolated or closed regardless of its physical topography!
This basic picture tells us that, if we look at very distant regions of the universe (i.e., galaxies with very high redshifts), we should see mainly small, irregular galaxies. For the most part, this is what we find (with some notable exceptions, as we will cover later).
The bulk of observed quasars have redshifts near z ~ 2, which suggests that there was a particular epoch during the history of the universe when the conditions were right for a large fraction of galaxies. For steady-state models of the universe, this is hard to explain. On the other hand, BBT explains this quite neatly by noting that, in their early stages of formation, galaxies have a great deal of dust and free gas and galaxy collisions were also more common, which could serve as a mechanism for triggering quasar activity.
Arp's claims are supported by some other astronomers, most notably Gregory and Margaret Burbidge. Most astronomers, however, reject his claims, pointing out that his observations are explainable by chance superpositions of objects on the sky. Calculating the exact probability of a given set of superpositions can be quite difficult and Arp's supporters and detractors generally disagree on whether Arp's calculations along these lines are valid.
Recently, a study by Scranton et al (2005) may have shed some light on this controversy. Using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the positions of 200,000 quasars were correlated with the positions of 13 million galaxies. In Arp's model, galaxies and quasars are physically associated with each other and, hence, one would expect that correlating the two populations would look a great deal like correlating the galaxies with themselves. On the other hand, BBT tells us that the quasars are much more distant than the galaxies in this sample, so the cross-correlation due to actual gravitational clustering should be nearly zero. Instead, we should see an induced cross-correlation due to the gravitational lensing of the quasars by the foreground galaxies. This signal is much smaller than the one expected from Arp's model and it changes sign depending on the quasar population. When the SDSS researchers made the measurement, the results matched the expectation from BBT to a high statistical significance.
Every point is expanding from every other point, the speed of expansion depends on their distance.
The reason I think physicists prefer inflation is for example because of this:
Dark matter explanation is for many reasons more popular, but first option is being researched, too. I remember reading an article about it somewhere.
If you are implying eternal or very very old universe, I disagree. There is a thing called entropy (disorder) that makes it pretty impossible. Thermodynamics is a bitch.
In this case, if you would go in one direction for long enough, you will eventualy come back to where you started (like on a surface of a baloon or on Earth, for example).
If the universe is eternal, why has not all the matter fallen into black holes? Why has universe avoided heat death? Why is sky black?
Except the space in between atoms? The forces involved are so great to make the space in the universe expand faster than the speed of light, but not the space in between atoms? Is the space in between atoms different than the space in between galaxies? Or is the space inside a galaxy different than the space outside of it? Where does the expansion of space start and end?
Whereas we can toy around with redshift results in the lab and show it to be variable in nature and not an accurate measure of distance. So with that in mind we have an observed effect with an experimental evidence of effect, something lacking immensely with inflation.
I've read about them both as well, but they both seem equally hard to digest because they are mere mathematical constructs to make current theories work and not observed effects of the universe.
Besides, usually when someone brings up entropy or thermodynamics they're discussing the second law, but that only applies to closed systems and that is assuming the universe is a closed system. We first have to prove the case before we base all of physics off of an assumption, as in big bangs, infinitely dense singularities, black holes, neutron stars, inflation, dark matter/energy etc. If we go by observation alone, then these thing's simply do not exist.
So how many galaxies are there in the universe and how many are exact duplicates? If this were the case then the observed amount of matter is much less than what is actually observed because light would be bending back around essentially creating duplicates of everything. So now we need to invent more dark matter/energy to explain the big bang.
I would also like to point out that I don't subscribe to the belief in a before or in non-existence. There doesn't appear to be enough accurate observable evidence without contradiction and paradox to indicate a 'before the universe' type scenario. We also have no evidence of a non-existence or that anything can come from a non-existence. It's just an imagined concept to denote nothingness. I say prove non-existence as an actuality before claiming something can come from it.
I also don't subscribe to the belief in time, you can't measure a rate of change and call it something else. All it is is a measurement of rate of change. There is no past, there is no future, we can't go into either one.
Yes, the space between atoms expands, too. But only by so small amount, that we cannot observe it. Even our local group of galaxies is dominated by gravity, not expansion
You can toy all you want, but if redshift is really caused by expansion, you will not show anything in a lab. That is what indeed happened.
They are very good explanations for observed effects of the universe. But if you have any new and better theory, Im all ears...
Einstein predicted black holes long ago. Then we observed an object in galactic center that weights 4 million suns, and does not emit any light. Is it a black hole? Very probable.
If it is true, no need to invent any stuff, because light would surely not have time to create these duplicates. We are talking about 100 of billions of light years.
Non-existence or not, universe as we know it do seem to have a beginning. That time itself was created in the big bang is not proven, so you are free to believe what you want...
I think time is something more than rate of change, because it is influenced by mass. But there is no ether way to measure it that Im aware of, so you are right in a sense.
And given enough energy, you can go to the future! But not to past again...
So, what mechanism is at play that causes an imperceptible amount of expansion inside an atom/galaxy but an exponential rate of expansion across intergalactic space?
Can we show space actually expanding or is it only assumed by redshift despite contradictory results showing it can be variable in nature?
Einstein was against black holes IIRC. Nor do I think we have actually found any. There are competing theories that explain/predict the same results of apparent black hole observations with out the invention of these oddities.
IDK, seems a little fishy to me. The total size of the universe is IIRC 28 billion light years, even still the observed galaxies should still contain duplicated images of galaxies, also how would inflation affect the amount of visible duplication?
It only seems to have a beginning due to extrapolating redshift observations backwards in time with the claim that the further we extrapolate back the hotter and denser the universe was. I haven't seen any indications of a hotter and denser universe, just a mathematical musing that it was.
This basic picture tells us that, if we look at very distant regions of the universe (i.e., galaxies with very high redshifts), we should see mainly small, irregular galaxies. For the most part, this is what we find (with some notable exceptions, as we will cover later). Starting in 1996, the Hubble Space Telescope took a series of very deep images: the Hubble Deep Field, the Hubble Deep Field South, and the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. As one would expect, the morphology of the few nearby galaxies in these images is quite a bit different from the very high redshift galaxies.
Another important indicator of galaxy evolution comes from quasars, specifically their redshift distribution. Quasars are generally believed to be powered by supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies accreting matter; as dust and gas falls into the black hole, it heats up tremendously and emits a huge quantity of energy across a broad spectrum. For most true quasars, the amount of energy released during this process is a few orders of magnitude larger than all of the light emitted by the rest of the galaxy. In order for this sort of behavior to occur for some length of time, galaxies need to have a large quantity of dust and free gas near their cores. The bulk of observed quasars have redshifts near z ~ 2, which suggests that there was a particular epoch during the history of the universe when the conditions were right for a large fraction of galaxies. For steady-state models of the universe, this is hard to explain.
Rate of change in matter is influenced by matter. So, no I don't subscribe to relativity.
[EDIT TO FURTHER EXPLAIN POINT]
When we have two clocks on earth measuring the same rate of change, they also receive the same amount of gravitational energy. Send one up in space and it now receives less from earth and gains a tiny amount from the sun. Send that clock in high speed rotation around the planet and now it's not only being tugged by earth at night and the sun at day, but it's being tugged at a different rate of change than the stationary clock on earth. This is how we determined the "validity" of time dilation. AFAIK we have never sent two clocks in synchronous opposite orbit nor two clock at varying speeds in the same direction out away from the planet to further test this claim. For all intents and purposes it appears that mass affects matter in a variable quantity or rate of change, and not that it affect time itself which is nothing more than a measure of rate of change in matter.
Very simple mechanism. The expansion depends on distance.
Einstein was against black holes actual existence, but he and his succesors did predict them. Theory of general relativity, maybe the most tested theory in history, predicts them.
Inflation affects it because it can increase time needed for light to go all the way around the universe and come back to where it started, because it increases actual size of the universe.
You havent seen them, but they do exist.
Well, rate of change IS time and it is influenced by matter, so I think we are talking about the exact same thing, just using different words.