Universe expansion

Upisoft

18th July 2006 - 12:57 AM

I've heard that scientists found that Universe expansion rate is accelerating. They told that in news, Discovery channel tell it all the time, etc.

When I first heard it, I didn't think much about it, but now I'm totally puzzled. How did they measured 'acceleration' without proper measurements in long enough time?

BTW, how they know how fast are moving away those distant galaxies now, if they can see them only billions of years in the past? How they can possibly know that they're not coming back to make Gnab Gib? ( Big Bang backwards

)

Good Elf

18th July 2006 - 06:15 AM

Hi Upisoft et al,

QUOTE (Upisoft Posted on Today at 10:57 AM+)

The increasing acceleration of the Universe is a problem that has not been solved. Of course we elves have a theory for this but to fill in some background for your question there is a special type of very bright supernova called a Type 1a. When this "sucker" explodes they produce a very bright flash that can be seen "everywhere" and they also represent a kind of "unit" called a Standard Candle because of the way in which the fusion process is ignited. The type 1a supernova has the property of being distributed everywhere... even way out to the 13.7 Billion Light Year range of the visible Universe.

Now the further things are away in the Universe the faster they are "spreading" according to the Hubble Shift Theory (Universal Expansion). For distant objects this is the only way we can tell how far an object is away. We do this using the red shift in the spectrum of all the stars we see since we can identify the pattern of all the absorption lines of the elements in the stars spectrums we can match them with "our star", the sun, and we can determine just how far they have been shifted away from the "mean". You can do this for all the spectral lines in a spectrum and if you counter correct all the lines the star as an "individual" exhibit the same "relativistic proper motion away" indicated by every one of those lines in an individual spectrum. We are therefore indeed looking as the speed the star is actually traveling away from us. For near objects (I mean "very near") this can be calibrated against the stars proper motion, actually measured against the background of the distant stars. But obviously for really distant stars this will not work since the proper motion is so small we can't know how far away they are. The Hubble shift gives us a way to say that the distance a star is away is proportional to the distance the star has traveled since the Big Bang. A model of velocity vs distance, allowing for the passage of time, has been constructed. The further back in time we look the initial velocity should be faster than the expansion is now since the total mass of the universe should be attempting to suck it back. The figures give a pretty good fit.... distance vs velocity. The "standard candles" allow us to calibrate the "model" quite effectively way out to 13.7 Billion Light Years and this has shown up an anomaly.

The further away the objects are the standard candles are showing a distribution that makes no sense. The expansion of the Universe seems to be recently accelerating. This means that the longer the time after the Big Bang we are now examining shows that this spreading is speeding up. If gravity was acting on things in the Universe and everything was spreading from that initial source then this expansion should be slowing down and as you have stated eventually it should stop then turn around and reverse and eventually be sucked back into a big crunch. Apparently this is never going to happen. The further back into time we look the reverse is seen (at least in the recent history of the time of the Universe). This extra "force" has been termed "dark energy".
Wikipedia: Dark energy
Dark Energy fills the Cosmos
Astronomy Picture of the Day - Dark Energy and dark matter

Now that you fully understand the problem

I am going to give you an "elves point of view" in brief. "We"... our entire Universe... is a geometric negatively curved "flatland" on the inside of an anti-de Sitter Space. Outside our Universe are many other Universes like our own. All like little marbles strewn through a "super-Universe" far beyond that black firmament we see out there. The shape of this space is "closed" and we are in a "reciprocal space" compared with "hypothetical external points" outside our Universe. The entire Universe is a "soliton", exactly what sort you would need to ask a lot more questions. We were "created" as a "particle" event more than 13.7 BY ago. The closed spacetime allows us to roam the hypersurface of this Universe without bound. The "edge" is beyond the ability of anyone presently inside the Universe from reaching and it is on the edge of a lightcone which is spinning in an embedded six dimensional space. There are other views but here is the WMAP idea of the overall geometry of what we can see out there....
A Cosmic Hall of Mirrors - PhysicsWeb What we can see in this "locality" is we live in a multiplely connected toroidally connected Poincaré dodecahedral space. It is "closed" and though the connection is complex it is in agreement. There may be many of these in our Universe in different Rindler Foliations so it may not be the entire story. You could build all this up as extra Ridler Foliation where in our part of the Universe the mass is being dragged over the edge of the foliation reducing the overall remaining mass and thus the gravitational attraction "left" within our foliation. A combination of various ideas will be the ultimate answer as usual.

Consider this "angry little higher dimensional soliton" like "Ball Lightning" and we are living in reciprocal space (higher dimensional Hilbert Space) on the hyperwall of this object, slowly it is losing energy and cooling. The outside of the "ball" is shrinking but in our reciprocal space the distance between points is paradoxically "increasing" due to entropy. That is just the nature of the dimensional geometry. The externally smaller we get the faster we "boil away". The distances between "stuff" inside this "soliton" are accelerating away from everything else and some aspects of our Universal "Constants" will eventually change over the aeons ahead. This too has been already seen. This is the "dark energy". It is also the origin of time in our Universe as well. The interesting thing is in our flatspace we are never far from this hypersurface and yet it is always an impossible distance to the edge of the universe in our minds. It is very likely the external surface is as small as a single sub-atomic particle and "we" are all been here for 13.5 BY trapped by that light cone. It also (in some respects explains why all the matter in this universe is of one sort and our sister Universe got all the antimatter.

Remember this is an "elf" speaking here and I may not be "entirely" correct.

definition of time, in quantum physics

Cheers

StevenA

18th July 2006 - 07:37 AM

To bad I could only partly follow the elves' perspective but the part I could follow, I liked. Thank you for the Cosmic Hall of Mirrors link also. That was a good read.

bang4thebuck

18th July 2006 - 09:01 AM

Hi Upisoft,

I'll try to keep it simple, concise and precise.

Edwin Hubble, in 1929, made a discovery that led to scientific answers for many questions relating to origins of our universe etc, discovering that the universe is expanding.

More on it:
http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/universe/universe.asp

For current theories to explain accelerated expansion of the universe as seen by astronomers, Dark Energy is needed.

Dark energy Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

There is one particular type of Supernova (1a), that is believed to be formed by a "white dwarf" (star) growing in massivesness by accumulating material from a neighbouring star until it reaches its Chandrasekhar limit or from interstellar dust, until it releases all in a thermonuclear explosion to form a Nova.
This type of Nova produces the same radiation frequency pattern and light intensity.

Supernova Wki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
Nova Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova

By observing/measuring the Redshift frequency pattern, (refers to a the move from visible into the red phenomenon of electromagnetic waves such as in light), a separation velocity can be calculated. Also, when scientists observe the light intensity on Earth an ~distance can be calculated.

Redshift wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

When the two above calculations are combined, it appears that the expansion of the universe is happening and accelerating.

Again "Dark Matter" is also needed here:
http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/str.../structures.asp

Good Elf has mentioned much else.

Thanks.

Upisoft

18th July 2006 - 12:19 PM

Good Elf,
Thanks for you long answer.

QUOTE (Good Elf+Jul 18 2006, 09:15 AM)

Now that you fully understand the problem

I will surprise you that I don't know much more than I already know. That means I still don't understand the problem. My problem with understanding is that every source of information, including you, states someting like this:

QUOTE

The further away the objects are the standard candles are showing a distribution that makes no sense. The expansion of the Universe seems to be recently accelerating.

So, I get only information that the boys and girls, watching the sky, have apparently observered something that didn't fit their ideas about the world. Then they decided that the Universe is expanding.
The little steps that I'm missing are: (1) just how they imagined it must be; (2) what exactly they observed (that it didn't fit their imagination is not good enough); (3) and why they concluded, using new data, that their old picture was right but it only misses acceleration.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The further away the objects are the standard candles are showing a distribution that makes no sense. The expansion of the Universe seems to be recently accelerating.

Goingng slightly off topic towards the fun:
Did Elves evolve or they were created?

Good Elf

18th July 2006 - 11:09 PM

Hi Upisoft, StevenA, bang4thebuck et al,

QUOTE (Upisoft Posted on Yesterday at 10:19 PM+)

A lot of arm waving in there I know and remember that there is "wheels within wheels" when you consider the motions of planets, galaxies and supernovas, all this motion is not Uniform. It is expected as distances become great that the local discrepancies due to proper motion will be dwarfed by "expansion". I never mentioned that red shifts due to Gravity can also affect this picture... the assumption is this is not a universal influence. Otherwise the Hubble expansion "rate" should depend on the distance objects are apart... this is the way the spreading seems to work. If the Big Bang was "actually" a "giant explosion" at the beginning of the Universe and all that empty space was just "waiting" to be filled then like an artillery shell, we and everything else should potentially exist on this expanding sphere of debris. The "middle" of the Universe should be almost "hollow" and there should be virtually nothing at a very large radius (13.7 Billion Light Years) from us (outside a plane of debris stretching off into the distance). I am not an Astrophysicist and they are the sort of people that can fully answer this question since a lot of analysis is needed to show the initial state and how this has evolved.

A "elf's" view of this process is this... the spreading on the large scale is proportional to the difference in distance between points in space. There is a two dimensional analog to this... a party balloon. If the Universe was a party balloon what we are seeing is "inflation" due to energy "expanding" that Universe everywhere. Two marks anywhere on the balloon's surface will move away from each other and all other other marks on the balloon. If the balloon was inflating evenly then the velocity the various points move apart from each other depends on how long the balloon has been inflated from plus the initial distance any points are apart. The Universe is really big... at least 13.7 Billion Light Years across. In this two dimensional model light is confined to travel on the surface of the balloon only. The time it takes to travel "around" this surface is "a very long time indeed"... more than 13.7 BY. The surface of the balloon is "everywhere" close by but inaccessible to us "bugs" crawling around on the inside of this balloon and we only see stuff where light travels. Of course we could be on the outside of the balloon... who really knows, I prefer the "inside" analogy. The further away we look in distance the further back in time we are looking. If the Universe was "simply connected" it would be possible to see back to the beginning .... to the Big Bang itself. This is the all pervasive Microwave Background Radiation which is the heat of the Big Bang, the distribution of which can tell us the geometry and connectivity of the Universe (see the WMAP article). There are a couple of "gotchas" to this assumption but "experts" I hope are doing their job and the story they tell is reasonably consistent. What we see with this "picture" is that the rate of spreading in our region is faster for the current amount of separation that the more distant regions seem to be expanding at a lower rate than they are now. It is not much but this means that as this stuff spreads something more than just universal gravitation is "pushing things" apart, the "dark force". The argument is we do not see this "push" in the most distant objects, at least to the same extent. Since we are looking back in time then this push could also be occurring now "out there", it is just that the light has not reached us to indicate this effect. Naturally the balloon analogy is too simplistic for universal inflation, but it is close provided you add an extra spatial dimension.

There are always some niggardly questions I would like to ask the experts about their calculations. I am not in a position to do that. For instance have they taken into account the differences between the ballistic effects and the gravitational frame dragging effects of the system after the Big Bang? I sure hope they are smart enough to look at those issues since it will make a big difference. This would affect the time scales being used out there at large ranges.

Quick answer to the above questions....
1) They imagined Hubble's Universal expansion as indicated here...
Wikipedia: Metric expansion of space
Wikipedia: Big Bang
This next one is very important...
Wikipedia: Hubble's law
Note that we see the law stated there as "Any two points which are moving away from the origin, each along straight lines and with speed proportional to distance from the origin, will be moving away from each other with a speed proportional to their distance apart."
v = H user posted image

D
Where v is the velocity, H-sub zero is the Hubble Parameter at measurement time and D is the proper distance. H-sub zero is possibly time dependent so... The important factor is this "q", the deceleration parameter and it depends on the Hubble time dependent parameter...
$user posted image$

2) If the Universe has a zero deceleration parameter (which is reasonable) then all would be well. From Wikipedia:"A value for q was measured from standard candle observations of Type Ia supernovae was determined in 1998 to be negative which implied, to the surprise of many astronomers, the universe is accelerating (see the articles on dark energy and the Lambda-CDM model)." This closely related to the "dark energy".

3) The overall picture does fit the general Hubble Red Shift Hypothesis especially in the regions where we can actually measure proper motions (the nearby regions). At that level it must be right. This model should be applicable to the rest of the picture in a piecemeal fashion... well ... its not and this is the outcome ... a scramble to find the reasons why it is not fitting as well right now.

It is wise that we elves not make too much fuss on these matters since there is a lot of "fiddling" around the edges to make all this work out. You, I and the gatepost are not privy to the various Seminars and Conferences where the details are hammered out. WMAP is one large piece for that Jigsaw.
Wikipedia: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe

Cheers

QUOTE

Going slightly off topic towards the fun:
Did Elves evolve or they were created?

PS: Neither... I hail from Santa Elves and his Workshop so we are "technical elves" and "self made".

So I am a bit of "Intelligent Design" by Santa Claus. The "Lord of the Rings" type elves get all the Movie Contracts since they look a lot better at parties and they have "evolved" from out of the Movie Industry. It is not "who, what or how" we all came into existence it is "why" that is the interesting question. OK this may be some kind of letdown to some but I would hate to wake you all up about how you humans "evolved", a sorry tale indeed.

he he he!

Upisoft

19th July 2006 - 01:18 AM

Good Elf,

Thanks for your answer. Now I know what I was asking about.
It's look like the astrophysicists are having too many parties with balloons and hypotheses instead doing some work and make a good theory.

QUOTE

I hail from Santa Elves and his Workshop so we are "technical elves" and "self made".

Next time you see Santa, tell him that this year I want an universe for present. He is in the "self made" business, so he can handle my request.

fivedoughnut

19th July 2006 - 05:47 AM

QUOTE (Upisoft+Jul 19 2006, 01:18 AM)

Next time you see Santa, tell him that this year I want an universe for present. He is in the "self made" business, so he can handle my request.

No need Upisoft, as I see things your body contains over 10^27 'universes'.

Leif Rongved

9th March 2007 - 01:39 AM

Whereas aether fluid has been rejected in many parts of the scientific community, a necessary aspect of it has not been investigated. Namely, if an aether fluid exists its fluid elements must recede from each other in accord with the Hubble law. Or one must assume that the distance, d(t) between any two fluid elements equals γ(t) d(0), where γ(t)=(1+t/т, t is time, т is the Hubble age, and
d(0) is the distance at the present time, t=0. This expansion of the aether, called R, is the only one that satisfies the modern Copernican view that the recessional motion of the galaxies and the aether appear the same on a large scale for observers in any galaxy of the universe.
One investigates consequences of this assumption when the aether is an ideal monatomic adiabatic fluid, i.e. the fluid pressure is the only interaction between fluid elements, and the interactions follow Newton’s three laws. For this fluid a transformation exists, in exact accord with Euler’s nonlinear equations, which transforms any fluid motion, called M, superimposed on the stationary aether fluid to an initially, t=0 identical fluid motion, called N, superimposed on R. The motion, N differs from M when t≠0 due to N’s nonlinear interactions with R, called expansion effects. The expansion effects turn out to be a pervasive part of Hubble’s law affecting all aspects of N motions. For example, all characteristic distances, volumes, and energies associated with the N motion must have respectively γ, γ ^3 and γ^-2 as multiplying factors. One shows that this fluid dynamic analysis provides irrefutable evidences in support of the thesis that all forms of matter, fields, and propagations in the universe are N motions superimposed on R.
The pervasive parts of the Hubble law are zero presently, t=0, and change with time, t at the exceedingly slow rates of about one part in 10.5 billion parts per year. Nevertheless, these seemingly minute changes suggest fundamental changes to physics and astronomy and resolves many outstanding questions and paradoxes that have puzzled and irritated scientists for many years.
The paper also addresses the question whether or not the Hubble expansion is accelerating. The way this is done is too long to give in this note. Here one simply notes the following. The analyses require different time scales. One is the Newtonian time scale, t, which is the independent time variable in Euler’s equations. An other is the atomic time scale, τ, determined by stable masers. On the former time scale the Hubble age of the universe is finite, and the Hubble expansion occurs at a constant rate. On the latter time scale the age of the universe is infinite, and the Hubble expansion is accelerating. Moreover, on the former time scale the light velocity in galactic neighborhoods equals ĉ/γ(t), where ĉ is the light velocity measured here at the present time. On the latter time scale the light velocity equals the constant ĉ in galactic neighborhoods.
The paper “The Pervasive Hubble Expansion of the Universe” is available upon request by E-Mail to rongv7@aol.com.
e[/URL]

mott.carl

9th March 2007 - 08:01 PM

GOOD ELF

mott.carl

9th March 2007 - 08:16 PM

GOOD ELF

we have that the universe is in expansion with the increase of acceleration,with
would need of spatial extra-dimensions to explain the dark energy,to these extra-dimensions compactified,with spacetime continuos,without need of speeds greater than the speed of light,that would bring perturbatives metrics,as tachions,as isolated entities.the universe multiplyly connected,with spacetime closeds,leads also for foliations in bitorus,that require "two times".the existence of mirror universe,for me are antiparticle worlds,and mirror-matters.
the spacetime in a universe with topologic changes would permit the time-dilatation,as spatial topologic alterations,that would the contraction of space,as
the differences of accelerations and desacelerations,that imply the indefinite negative metrics -that are the hyperbolic geometries,embedded in elliptics geometics( that does appear the asymmetry,and further the dimension with two-
times.

Harry Costas

9th March 2007 - 09:55 PM

Hello All

Dark Matter and the expanding universe were added to support the Big Bang Theory.

Even in their own logic the universe is not actually expanding.

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611

Edwin Hubble...
and the myth that he discovered an expanding universe
http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/edwinhubble.html

Sometimes when a pebble falls from the top of the mountain it develops alot of influence and sometimes creates a landslide. This is what happened with the Big Bang Theory.

Nick

11th March 2007 - 05:32 PM

QUOTE (Harry Costas+Mar 9 2007, 09:55 PM)

Where is the Dark matter? If it orginated in the Big Bang it ought to mix with matter. Most of the Earth and solar system ought to be made out of it. And this is not the case.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --

alokmohan

12th March 2007 - 10:49 AM

There are many things which may be dark matter.Brown dwarf for example.

Harry Costas

12th March 2007 - 11:42 AM

Hello All

Ok,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Remember that the Big Bang Is a theory ONLY and not a fact.

And the dark matter is the great void that exists between the galaxies.

Dark matter does not exist. Its only theorectical. Read more papers to understand why dark matter was used to prop up the Big Bang Theory.

CFHT Gives First Glimpse of Dark Matter Distribution
http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Lensing/#IC

Dark Matter
http://www.16pi2.com/dark_matter.htm?sourc...CFQU2JAod9EaaIw

Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets -- 2nd Edition (1999)
by Dr. Tom Van Flandern
http://metaresearch.org/publications/books/books.asp

http://home.physics.ucla.edu/calendar/post..._2006_05_04.pdf

Hubble Maps the Cosmic Web of "Clumpy" Dark Matter in 3-D
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2007/01

Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6082101139.html

Dark Energy: Astronomers Still 'Clueless' About Mystery Force Pushing Galaxies Apart

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astr...g_020115-1.html

QUOTE

It sounds like something out of a Star Trek episode: Dark energy, a mysterious force that no one understands, is causing the universe to fly apart faster and faster. Only a few years ago, if you'd suggested something like that to astronomers, they would have told you to spend less time in front of the TV and more time in the "real" world.

But dark energy is real or at least, a growing number of astronomers think it is. No one, however, can truly explain it.

"Frankly, we just dont understand it," says Craig Hogan, an astronomer at the University of Washington at Seattle. "We know what its effects are," Hogan says, but as to the details of dark energy, "Were completely clueless about that. And everybodys clueless about it."

kaneda

13th March 2007 - 07:48 PM

alokmohan. It is said that dark matter only reacts gravitationally (because we cannot actually detect it in any way).

A recent theory gave it a speed of 9,000 mph which means that any planet a bit bigger than Mars should be able to absorb it and the DM would not have sufficient velocity to escape it. Planets like Earth should hoover up DM as we move around the sun, towards Vega and around the galaxy. Yet no one seems to have found any of this stuff on Earth. DM only appears in computer simulations where it is needed so is ASSUMED to be there. Pretty much like a picture showing presents under an xmas tree as proof that Santa exists.

Actual dark matter as in stuff we cannot detect could include stuff like brown dwarfs though increasingly we can detect them since their temperatures are above the 2.7 K of space in general.

Guest_Paul

4th August 2009 - 03:38 AM

If nothing is ever at rest within the universe, particles , planets, galaxies, etc. Does our universe have a spin?

O_o

16th August 2009 - 12:11 PM

. Heat is registered by negative energy that is continuously drawn in, instead of energy that emits from the black hole. The more negative energy that is being drawn in, the mass decreases. Actually the black hole divests its mass energy, precisely the same rate of heat radiation emission.

Harry Costas

16th August 2009 - 12:29 PM

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

O O said

QUOTE

Heat is registered by negative energy that is continuously drawn in, instead of energy that emits from the black hole. The more negative energy that is being drawn in, the mass decreases. Actually the black hole divests its mass energy, precisely the same rate of heat radiation emission.

How do you know this?

=============

Does our universe have a spin?

Every progressive object in the universe has a spin regardless of it's size.

AlexG

16th August 2009 - 05:25 PM

QUOTE (O_o+Aug 16 2009, 07:11 AM)

Total crackpot.

Harry Costas

16th August 2009 - 11:00 PM

G'day AlexG

Do you know anything about science ,or you just want to be negative?

You are dressing up as a real crankpot, ah!!!! now I know who you are.

AlexG

17th August 2009 - 12:55 AM

QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 16 2009, 06:00 PM)

G'day AlexG

Do you know anything about science ,or you just want to be negative?

You are dressing up as a real crankpot, ah!!!! now I know who you are.

So many crackpots, so little time. It's just not worth it.

As I've said before, this forum attract cranks like sh*t attracts flies.

Harry Costas

17th August 2009 - 10:34 AM

G'day AlexG

Mate is there somthing wrong with you?

You sound as though you are fall of it.

AlexG

17th August 2009 - 04:53 PM

QUOTE

Mate is there somthing wrong with you?

What's wrong Harry, is watching idiots who have never studied physics in their life pretending they know jack-sh*t. And then reading the crap they post here.

Harry Costas

18th August 2009 - 05:24 AM

G'day AlexG

Then mate, if you have something better to offer, do so.

Most people who come on this site would not know Jack from Sheets double layer plasma.

So you being a smart cookie explain to the people who do not understand, rather then being whatever.

AlexG

18th August 2009 - 02:20 PM

QUOTE

Then mate, if you have something better to offer, do so.

Something better to offer? I don't make up crap for the sake of posting. As far a explaining anything to you, it's hopeless. You've been corrected by more knowledgeable people than me, and it's had no effect.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.