Expanding Universe

Ask questions, find resources, browse the virtual shelves.
User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 15321
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Expanding Universe

Post by Chris Peterson » Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:00 pm

The Code wrote:Quote : Studies have shown that clusters of galaxies gathering together in an explicable way. These clusters are conglomerations of about a thousand galaxies and they all follow a mysterious galactic movement. A totally unseen force discovered in 2008 . NASA has checked a catalog of different galaxy clusters and they found that all these clusters, regardless where they were in the sky, are all converging to one side of the universe. The force that is pulling these galaxies must be outside the observable universe, researchers conclude.
Yes, that's what I said.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the concept of a Multiverse.
That conclusion does not follow from the observation. You do understand that the fact that the Universe as a whole is larger than the observable Universe is unrelated to the concept of multiple universes?
There has been a struggle to explain the unexplainable.
This is the kind of crappy writing we see too often in attempts to explain new science. The observation is most certainly not unexplainable. A number of excellent and plausible explanations have been proposed- all of which are subject to further testing, and a number of which are presently being tested. In fact, most of these explanations do not require any radical new cosmological ideas at all, and as a rule, the wise position is to assume that- most likely- no radical new theory will be required.
Quote : The theory might suggest that we are living in one of these universes. Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, said: “At this point we don’t have enough information to see what it is, or to constrain it. We can only say with certainty that somewhere very far away the world ? is very different than what we see locally. Whether it’s ‘another universe’ or a different fabric of space-time we don’t know.“
Exactly. We don't know. But we do know that we don't require "another universe" to explain the observation, and it is intellectually unsound to assume that the possibility of such a thing means that it is probable. Not knowing something is not the same as saying that all possibilities have equal merit, or equal likelihood of being true. I think you'll find very few cosmologists who believe that observed patterns of movement in the Universe are being caused by something outside the Universe. Possible, yes; probable, no.
Oh I understand Chris, I understand they had a little problem with How galaxies spin, Inside and out side spinning at the same rate, So they dropped a huge amount of Dark Matter in the equation and now its ok.
No, you don't seem to understand at all. Dark matter is a physical observation, not something dropped into any equations.
I also understand, while using the Standard Model, I cant explain why the universe seems to be expanding at an accelerated rate. So again, A little Dark Energy worked wonders.
Actually, the standard model does explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe- if you assume a mechanism like dark energy. That's how science works: we have an observation that appears reliable (the expansion rate of the Universe has been increasing in the last few billion years), so somebody proposes a theory to explain it, and that theory undergoes testing. That is where we are right now with dark energy- people are devising tests to this theory (which so far have added support, and failed to disprove its existence), and are devising other theory to better explain it. It remains a work in progress. Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with this approach? It has certainly served us well in the last few hundred years, as a method for understanding nature.
Our Cluster of galaxies is included in this equation. Is there a little paradox in all this ? If we cant see what ever is the cause for this, because light has not had time to reach us, then how do we account for the 2 million MPH speed, thousands of clusters, over a distance of 2.5 billion light years are traveling towards it ?
There is no paradox. There is nothing in current theory that says we can't see something moving now in response to something which is no longer part of the observable universe.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

The Code
2+2=5
Posts: 913
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:39 pm
AKA: Swainy
Location: The Earth, The Milky Way, Great Britain

Re: Expanding Universe

Post by The Code » Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:43 pm

Thanks Chris, The above was in response to information left out of one of your answers.
Our Cluster of galaxies is included in this equation. Is there a little paradox in all this ? If we cant see what ever is the cause for this, because light has not had time to reach us, then how do we account for the 2 million MPH speed, thousands of clusters, over a distance of 2.5 billion light years are traveling towards it ?
Chris Peterson wrote:There is no paradox. There is nothing in current theory that says we can't see something moving now in response to something which is no longer part of the observable universe.
So what your saying is: That "its" Gravitational Effect on our Galaxy Is faster than "C" ?

How can something be Visible or Gravitationally Bound. And then Be Invisible another time while still be Gravitationally Bound ?

tc
Always trying to find the answers

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 15321
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Expanding Universe

Post by Chris Peterson » Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:51 pm

The Code wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:There is no paradox. There is nothing in current theory that says we can't see something moving now in response to something which is no longer part of the observable universe.
So what your saying is: That "its" Gravitational Effect on our Galaxy Is faster than "C" ?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that a region can be set into motion by gravitational attraction to material that is close enough to be causally connected, and that at a later time that material can expand outside of that causal region (observable universe). There is no need to invoke physical influences that operate faster than c.
How can something be Visible or Gravitationally Bound. And then Be Invisible another time while still be Gravitationally Bound ?
Where is the problem? Much of the material that is now outside our observable universe was not always so. As the Universe expands, we lose observable regions to the unobservable every second. We lose them to EM radiation, and we lose them to gravitational effects. But we don't lose whatever effects they introduced while they were still in the observable Universe.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

ErnieM
Science Officer
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:58 pm

Re: Expanding Universe

Post by ErnieM » Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:07 pm

The Big Bang was not an explosion. It produced no fireball, and was not an energetic event that ejected anything. The Big Bang was the formation of the Universe by expansion. Certainly, no existing theory suggests that material could somehow be ejected from the Universe. The Universe is everything... it has no outside.
Chris wrote

If the big bang did not involve explosion nor fireball, why is the LHC collider built based on exploding/smashing particles through high speed collision? There references to explosion in the current articles on the Higss Boson project at Cern.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 15321
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Expanding Universe

Post by Chris Peterson » Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:39 pm

ErnieM wrote:If the big bang did not involve explosion nor fireball, why is the LHC collider built based on exploding/smashing particles through high speed collision? There references to explosion in the current articles on the Higss Boson project at Cern.
Colliding particles is one method of creating an energetic system. Because the amount of energy in the Universe is (presumably) a constant, the energy density must have been much higher in the first moments of the Universe. To experimentally test theories that describe the early Universe, it is necessary to create particles with similar high energies. That's what particle colliders do.

I don't know the context of "explosion" as used in the articles you refer to. If they refer to the Big Bang as an explosion, that's somewhat sloppy (but common) usage. It might be reasonable to call the result of a particle collision an explosion. The LHC is not recreating the Big Bang, it is attempting to create the temperatures (energy level) present shortly after the Big Bang. That is, it is attempting to partially recreate the environment of the very early Universe.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

ErnieM
Science Officer
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:58 pm

Re: Expanding Universe

Post by ErnieM » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:01 am

Chris wrote:
Colliding particles is one method of creating an energetic system. Because the amount of energy in the Universe is (presumably) a constant, the energy density must have been much higher in the first moments of the Universe. To experimentally test theories that describe the early Universe, it is necessary to create particles with similar high energies. That's what particle colliders do.

I don't know the context of "explosion" as used in the articles you refer to. If they refer to the Big Bang as an explosion, that's somewhat sloppy (but common) usage. It might be reasonable to call the result of a particle collision an explosion. The LHC is not recreating the Big Bang, it is attempting to create the temperatures (energy level) present shortly after the Big Bang. That is, it is attempting to partially recreate the environment of the very early Universe.
What other methods are known to creating an energetic system supposedly with the same temperatures (energy level) present shortly after the Big Bang? Why are they not being built and tried?

That LHC is not creating the Big Bang is no argument. Crows have been observed dropping nuts in flight thus smashing the nutshells revealing what is inside. Is LHC not doing the same? To break the bonds (or nutshells) binding the supposedly smaller components (neutrinos and/or Higgs boson) of the smashed particles and in the process energy is released simply as a byproduct, not the main objective.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 15321
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Expanding Universe

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:15 pm

ErnieM wrote:What other methods are known to creating an energetic system supposedly with the same temperatures (energy level) present shortly after the Big Bang? Why are they not being built and tried?
There aren't any. The first high temperature systems involved using electric current or EM fields to produce plasmas. Certain nuclear processes release high temperature particles. But these kinds of methods result in particles with orders of magnitude less energy than can be achieved using collisions, and the LHC is the most powerful collider.
Crows have been observed dropping nuts in flight thus smashing the nutshells revealing what is inside. Is LHC not doing the same? To break the bonds (or nutshells) binding the supposedly smaller components (neutrinos and/or Higgs boson) of the smashed particles and in the process energy is released simply as a byproduct, not the main objective.
To release the particle, you have to increase its energy- heat it up. That's what you do with a collider. I wouldn't say energy is released at all- either as an objective or a byproduct. Particles are released- usually, energetic particles.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
Psnarf
Science Officer
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Expanding Universe

Post by Psnarf » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:39 pm

New info regarding dark flow:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.0631