If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

I love that question, and i don't understand it either.

Can't wait to see answers to this one...

Let me clarify the best I can.

You cannot - to the point of our own perception anyways - get something from nothing. It is not possible to move one object into a place that does not exist. To imagine something being infintesimal, to imagine something lasting literally forever is impossible. Again, to the point of our own perception of that which is time and dimension. If we were able to manufacture a craft - using the term craft loosely - that could travel to the end of the universe - if such a thing exists at all - what would see?

Is our own universe - we perceive as being the only universe - destroying something in order to expand into it. Is the universe even expanding at all. What we perceive as truth may in turn be nothing but far from it. After all, everything we know and believe is based on a theory, a sorta, maybe, coulda happened but we really don't know. If one theory was proved wrong, every thing else based on that theory in turn would be wrong also. But how would you even prove the theory wrong, with another assumption. Let's all face it, we know nothing, everything is based on a guess that sounds like it could be right.

Our own perception of things is very limited. We are three dimensional bodies living in a four dimensional world. What we perceive as time is the fourth dimension, we can only experience the whole of things one frame at a time as our own experiencing can only be preceived on a three dimensional level. Which is why to imagine something being infinite is not possible, it is not within the same dimension that our minds are capable of understanding.

So thats where my question lies, if the universe is expanding what is it expanding into?

Insufficient data/unable to comprehend.

>>>> After all, everything we know and believe is based on a theory, a sorta, maybe, coulda happened but we really don't know.

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

Start with a universe infinite in extent. Let the distance between any 2 chunks of it increase. That's all there is to it. An infinite thing doesn't need to expand into something to expand.

I always thought the universe is only apparently infinite because it is expanding at the speed of light. According to the big bang theory it started as a ball of energy. What was outside the ball of energy?

It is generally accepted that the "ball of energy" was not a ball but rather energy (the same as matter) infinite in extent and infinitely dense (no spaces). Then the distance between any 2 chunks of it began increasing (that is, spaces formed to create chunks) and the distance continues to increase to this moment. The big bang was an explosion of space within infinitely dense matter/energy that was and continues to be infinite in extent.

Try this:

The universe is infinite in both duration and dimension. All matter is finite being a subset of an infinite universe. The universe is not expanding since there is no "outside" to expand into. There was no Big Bang to "kick" everything off. Matter is continously being re-arranged through physical laws that we are still learning. There is a constant exchange between "space" and matter that is not yet understood.

Of course, few people accept this senario, but then people once thought the Earth to be flat. But this theory is much more eloquent than the Big Bang or any religious concept. Unfortunately, it's not as much fun, nor does it create as many jobs as the Big Bang theory and religion do.

No, I believe spacetime is expanding, or whatever it does that we experience as expanding. Could even be a side-effect of time, or entropy, forcing change. Also there is this theorem of Whitehead that states that a sphere can only be infinitely connected if it's contractible. I think that's correct, and I also believe the universe to be infinitely connected, so that would sort of add up.

In the currently accepted theory (which I am dubious of accepting), the universe does not expand into anything. Space itself increases, taking matter with it as it does.

Things need to exist within a context. When something comes into being, like a universe, what context is it arising in? If a statistically improbable fluctuation in the vacuum energy caused our universe to pop out (a theory I've heard) how could there be a fluctuation in the vacuum if there was no space to begin with?!?!?

The universe is the context in which things come into being.

Some theories which suggest that the Big Bang was a random fluctuation also suggest that there have been a (perhaps) infinite number of big bangs and expansions previous to our own.
It seems likely (according to current theories) that the Big Bang will not reverse iself into a big crunch; rather the universe will continue to expand and become less dense until space becomes almost empty; once all the black holes and even massive particles have eventually evaporated, the universe will become a blank stage waiting for the next random fluctuation to produce a new expansion. Smaller fluctuations will occur all the time; perhaps some will be big enough to create shortlived expansions, many of which will (apparently) collapse into black holes. A very few will become long lived cosmoi like the one we live in.

As I said, this is just one theory among many contenders.

Some theories which suggest that the Big Bang was a random fluctuation also suggest that there have been a (perhaps) infinite number of big bangs and expansions previous to our own.
It seems likely (according to current theories) that the Big Bang will not reverse iself into a big crunch;

As noted in another thread, that is not possible: a cycle of big bangs/big crunches would lead to an ever increasing entropy. This is not borne out by observation, as they say. Meaning it's not true.

I've read that too but don't understand it. Theory says that a big bang is the beginning of space and time. Then there is no "before" the big bang. Even a "cycle" is meaningless. Seems like the physicists behind the entropy theory want their cake and to eat it too.

As to the theory:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae181.cfm

I think the essential problem is one of context. Everything has a context, except the Universe. Neither in time, or space. It very much looks like a one-off thing. Very hard to accept, I agree.

Some, like Lee Smolin see a cycle in the way of Universes giving birth to black holes giving birth to new Universes. That's turning the problem neatly into one of those Escher paintings without beginning or end, but they do not explain very much, and give you the idea you've been tricked somehow.

But maybe it's simpler than that, like Tipler says: one culmination into something unspeakably superiour at the end of time, and the whole shebang just uncoils all its true dimensions, rewinds time, picks up all information and transcends into never-neverland.

But a big crunch/big bang cycle has a real problem, agreed upon I think by many who disagree on just about anything else: you cannot recycle entropy. I don't see it happen either.

Maybe one of the math bigshots like lethe could gives us a good rundown on entropy, although that's probably a bit too advanced for use simple folk to really grasp anyway...

As I pointed out before, entropy is an observed quality of our universe as it exists now; it cannot reliably be applied to the universe before the big bang.

Indeed,
In a `previous` <i>parental</i> universe the entropy may have run `backwards`.
(I discount the big-crunch scenario, but a <b>big-rip</b> is still a hot favourite)

(helpful link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

As I pointed out before, entropy is an observed quality of our universe as it exists now; it cannot reliably be applied to the universe before the big bang.

Maybe, but if you have no mechanism by which it recycles, no explanation of how it resets itself, aren't you handwaving the whole problem away, and simply favouring a neat model?

http://lbl.confex.com/lbl/2001/program/abstract_1584.htm

If it started with a statistical fluctuation, you should at least end up in a situation that would allow for a new 'chance' to restart the whole thing. Failure to do so, makes the model invalid, however neat it looks.

In simple terms, a looping movie does not make sense if you skip logically necessary frames at any point. 'Circular eggfrying' needs a believable way of 'unclutching' the eggs at a certain point.

Does that mean the Universe has been deleted too?

@mercurio

>>Maybe, but if you have no mechanism by which it recycles, no explanation of how it resets itself,

A possible mechanism is that the universe expands and cools, so that individual `particles` are no longer in contact with any other subatomic particle,(by virtue that the speed that space expands is <i>greater</i> than the speed of light).
Space itself then becomes so empty that other compactified dimensions may expand, (<i>in a sort of anti big bang way</i>) and that the `chain-mail` like superstrings become larger , creating `holes` in space-time, which would be the condition for the creations of false vacuums to becomes more feasible.

And from false vacuums new big bangs may occur. And big bangs that may process some of the properties of the parent universe.

Er, or , not...

Wow, that's a valorous attempt...

Let's take it from the top: if you read these two articles,

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0562.html?

and "The Cyclic Universe" by Paul Steinhardt (also on that link)

you'll see that the whole problem hinges on the observed rate of expansion of the Universe, which according to the 'cyclists' is speeding up, making a cyclic scenario possible, and includes dark energy etc.

What struck me in both articles was the contradiction of Guth saying the Universe is highly isotropic, and that Steinhardt was mentioning the fact that 'we can now see the Universe as it was in the beginning' or words of that ilk.

Interestingly, the pictures from Hubble Deep Field (13.5 billion lightyears out) show the same galaxies as we can see just a few lightyears out. If we wish to see really young systems, we have those near at hand, too.

Something does not add up here, apart from the difference in focus by the two scientists: those pics from Hubble are 13.5 billion years old, yet look no different from what's going on here, right now.

I think all mathematical and philosophical abstractions should be shelved for the duration, since there are clearly several things very, very wrong with our understanding of what 'expansion' really means, or is.

Too many things don't add up. Why would it suddenly speed up again? A hundred times faster than lightspeed, no less? Again, no real explanation.

Personally, I dislike the continuous introduction of ever weirder constructs to explain away the problems inherited from the last weird construct. Negative pressure, dark energy, dark matter. What's next, one thinks. "Positive negativity"?

We sometimes think medieval scienctist were muddied in their thinking, by all sorts of semi-religious and mysticist nonsense, but I think they could easily accuse us of the exact same thing.

Worse, we'd have no excuse for it.

I liked that last post by Mercurio. I think it was right bang on. I could'nt have said it better myself.

I was also impressed by the statement by Christie66 in the second post from the top. "LET'S FACE IT. WE (SCIENCE) DONT REALY KNOW ANYTHING FOR SURE. ALL WE HAVE IS GUESSES THAT LOOK LIKE THEY COULD BE TRUE"

Regards APOLO.
P.S. Has anyone read the new book by Mark McCutcheon "The Final theory" It is a facinating new theory about everything.
I would like to discuss it with someone who read it.

I was also impressed by the statement by Christie66 in the second post from the top. "LET'S FACE IT. WE (SCIENCE) DONT REALY KNOW ANYTHING FOR SURE. ALL WE HAVE IS GUESSES THAT LOOK LIKE THEY COULD BE TRUE"

Huumm... what is remarkable is that actually that is the starting point of my own philosophy.... It seems those ideas are wondering around many people's heads. I will post latter about truth and falsehood. I need to copy it from my computer (I don't have internet, I have to use it at school)....

As for now.... welcome! :)

@mercurio
Hum,

<b>1)</b>we know the universe is expanding and accelerating – explanation- we don’t need an explanation, we can see that it is. (<i>Some people may call the culprit zorgon power, while I call it dark energy – it doesn’t matter</i>)
<b>2)</b>we know ,that there is a lot more of the universe that we can’t see, – explanation, none. (<i>Though some ppl call it dark matter- it doesn’t matter - we `see`, the orbit speeds are affected</i>)
<b>3)</b>Is the universe cyclic – we don’t know, except it happened once.


Though, nothing is guaranteed.

BTW, there is no contradiction between Guth saying the Universe is highly isotropic, and Steinhardt showing the 'Universe as it was in the beginning' , as the time period differs by 700 million years (at least).

The hubble deep survey revealed that early galaxy shapes were a lot different to the spiral and elliptical galaxies we see today. The strange shaped galaxies indicate the universe was more chaotic. As we would expect.

The hubble deep survey revealed that early galaxy shapes were a lot different to the spiral and elliptical galaxies we see today. The strange shaped galaxies indicate the universe was more chaotic. As we would expect.
Huuuumm.... that makes me ponder....

How does order arise from chaos!? Why there are natural patterns in nature? Does that have anything to do with symetric relationships between two or more objects (which includes polarity)? :confused:

It is obvious that as time goes by, everything tend to become ordered. In the same way that galaxies form and aquire certain shapes, if we pour something into water, the charged water molecules will combine with the charged substance and difuse. But why do we have so much order in nature?

Also, it seems that all things lead to a neutralization. For instance, all atoms tend to "want" to fill their shells with electrons, so as to not have a charge- they become neutral. That's why they combine, that's why they have a certain order. I guess balance is the answer!? :cool:

Hum,

Some thing like a strange attractor loci .

(but what put it there?)

@mercurio
Hum,

<b>1)</b>we know the universe is expanding and accelerating – explanation- we don’t need an explanation, we can see that it is. (<i>Some people may call the culprit zorgon power, while I call it dark energy – it doesn’t matter</i>)
<b>2)</b>we know ,that there is a lot more of the universe that we can’t see, – explanation, none. (<i>Though some ppl call it dark matter- it doesn’t matter - we `see`, the orbit speeds are affected</i>)
<b>3)</b>Is the universe cyclic – we don’t know, except it happened once.


Though, nothing is guaranteed.

BTW, there is no contradiction between Guth saying the Universe is highly isotropic, and Steinhardt showing the 'Universe as it was in the beginning' , as the time period differs by 700 million years (at least).

The hubble deep survey revealed that early galaxy shapes were a lot different to the spiral and elliptical galaxies we see today. The strange shaped galaxies indicate the universe was more chaotic. As we would expect.

Your first three points are such excellent examples of cyclic reasoning, that I'll ignore them for now. I suggest you reread them yourself and maybe rephrase them. Aren't you confusing 'cause and effect' here a bit? You cannot use the assumptions from one theory as solid foundation in the next...
[added for clarity:] Remember that the expansion itself was an explanation for another phenomenon that everybody seems to have forgotten all about, and is left out of the discussion, strangely.

What difference of 700 million years are you talking about? I'm talking Hubble Deep Field with 13.5 billion year old systems, looking already several billions of years old, while they should be wearing diapers.

Your last remark indicates you probably never really took a look at the picture. What 'strange shaped' galaxies? Could you point them out for me?

Any system shown in those pics I can find you a twin example for, next door, so to speak.

Hum,

Some thing like a strange attractor loci .

(but what put it there?)
Maybe it is something that is naturally inclusive in the universe. Gravity works with it. Electromagnetism work with it. That's what those things have in common.

In the other hand, we have antigravity, dark energy and repulsion within electromagnetism. We know that what makes two protons repell each other is the fact that they have equal charges. Maybe the same principle works with dark energy?

Also, as dark matter and dark energy are abundant, it is just natural that there might be a connection between those- that is, dark matter cause dark energy.

Maybe the universe wasn't created by an explosion, but by an underlining energy which repell all things and has always been there. Here, we go back to the subject of the thread. ;)

So the key to understand what is going on is understanding the connection between all things. And if dark energy is accelarating the expansion of universe, it is only natural to detuct that this energy was there when the universe begun and even before the universe begun, and we are expanding into that energy, which is only accelarating the process!!!! :eek:

We know that what makes two protons repell each other is the fact that they have equal charges.



Actually, we don't really understand that part. The strong force takes over anyway, if you bring them close enough.

To you the similar question: for what phenomenon was 'expansion' the (at first rejected) explanation? How do we 'observe' it?

Ok, let me elaborate on the hypothesis I've just created:

The Egg Model

1) Dark matter causes dark energy

2) There is an outer layer of the universe that is invisible to the naked eye (and to our instruments, for that "matter" :D ).

3) The highest concentration of dark matter is outside the visible universe.

4) The big bang was a simple expansion created by this dark energy.

5) In the beginning, all the universe was in a singularity, within a gigantic outer shell of dark matter.

6) The universe is expanding into that dark matter.

7) The dark matter is somehow getting stuck within galaxies, which transform them from eliptical galaxies to spiral galaxies.

8) Someday, the visible universe will reach the outer boundary and will stop expanding.



The only problem that I see is very simple:
What would prevent the universe from expanding before the universe started expanding? Because the dark energy was there before the singularity started expanding. This is a possible explanation:

1) We are inside a black hole.

2) The boundary (that is, the event horizon) of this balck hole is the boundary of dark matter.

3) As the black hole sucked more matter (from an outer universe?) into it, the amount of dark matter became higher than the amount of regular matter.

4) That in turn caused the amount of dark energy to be higher than the gravity.

5) With more dark energy than gravity, the visible universe started expanding.

6) The "regular" black hole became the new black hole (the one that doesn't have a singularity, but have strings all over it- I read about that in a scientific magazine).

7) From outside, the black hole looks like as usual. But from inside, the visible universe is expanding into the invisible one.



Let me attempt to create simple formulae for that:

The ratio by which the visible universe starts expanding is this:

rate of expansion= amount of dark matter X strenght of dark energy
--------------------------------------------------
amount of visible matter X strenght of gravity

if the amount of visible variable is greater than the amount of dark variable, the universe is contracting
if the amount of dark variable is greater than the amount of visible variable, the universe is expanding


For convinience, let's call "amount of dark matter X strenght of dark energy" the "dark variable" and "amount of visible matter X strenght of gravity" the "visible variable"...

rate of expansion= dark variable
-----------
visible variable


Therefore:

if the amount of visible variable is greater than the amount of dark variable, than the universe is contracting, because the rate of expansion will be negative.
if the amount of dark variable is greater than the amount of visible variable, than the universe is expanding, because the rate of expansion is positive.




Huuumm... it is quite logical! :eek:

Actually, we don't really understand that part. The strong force takes over anyway, if you bring them close enough.

To you the similar question: for what phenomenon was 'expansion' the (at first rejected) explanation? How do we 'observe' it?
Ahhh.... I don't know... Explosion? :confused:
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking...

Ahhh.... I don't know... Explosion? :confused:
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking...

Blobrana said before:

we know the universe is expanding and accelerating – explanation- we don’t need an explanation, we can see that it is.

I only ask "how do we see the universe expanding"? What phenomenon was it trying to explain, for which the expansion theory was INVENTED by Edwin Hubble in the first place?

[My main point is, that people got off on a tangent, self-feeding loop of 'inexorable' logic, that forgot how it got there in the first place, and is now not only completely cut off from the original problem, but gone into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop into a loop somehow. :)

Hum,

Your first three points are such excellent examples of cyclic reasoning

Hum, I was a bit unclear about the 3 points. They are just statements.
They don’t follow on from one to another. Galaxies rotate in a way that indicate that the mass is located on the outside (and mass that we haven’t managed to `visually` see yet - a case similar to the prediscovery of uranus.)
2.Things further away move `faster` away from us. (space expands etc)
<b>i suppose it’s a case where you either accept `red shift`, or not.</b>

What phenomenon was it trying to explain?
That the milky way was not the whole universe. That it was a galaxy. One of many. The `wispy smudges` (galaxies) that had been seen were thought to be nebula that belonged to our galaxy. But with the discovery tat the andromeda nebula was infact a `separate` galaxy, that ppl realised that the universe was a lot bigger than previously thought.


< added helpful link>
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/redshf.html
< /added helpful link>


Remember that the expansion itself was an explanation for another phenomenon that everybody seems to have forgotten all about
Are you confusing expansion with inflation?

I'm talking Hubble Deep Field with 13.5 billion year old systems, looking already several billions of years old

The spectra show that they were mostly blue, indicating new star growth. They were estimated to be 400 - 700 million years old. (see Hubble site) And about 12 billion light-years away (due to the red shift range of z 7 - 12), <b>and yes</b>there were a few seemingly fully formed spiral and elliptical galaxies, though they are mostly closer to us , and seem to start forming about a billion years after the CBR/ big bang.




Your last remark indicates you probably never really took a look at the picture. What 'strange shaped' galaxies? Could you point them out for me?

Hum, i remember downloading the medium sized picture (15 Mb) the larger version was something like 220Mb...
But heres a 0.5Mb version.
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2004/07/images/a/formats/print.jpg

(Ignore the larger foreground galaxies and stars - it’s the tiny pixel sized smudges that are the important ones)

redshift

(to answer mercurio's question)

Are you implying that there is no expansion?
That is possible. However, how would you explain redshift, than?
What about dark matter and dark energy?

Hum,
Re: The Egg Model

>><b>1) Dark matter causes dark energy</b>
Possible.

>><b>2) There is an outer layer of the universe that is invisible to the naked eye (and to our instruments, for that "matter”).</b>
Is that the visible universe? The whole universe is probably a lot bigger (I’ve seen figures of 10⁵⁰, and that was at a period less than 1 second after BB).
And, yes there may be a `boundary`, though, what that really means is beyond my physics...

>><b>3) The highest concentration of dark matter is outside the visible universe.</b>
We only know that highest concentration of dark matter is contained in the halos of galaxies (galactic clusters are embedded within dark matter)

>>4) The big bang was a simple expansion created by this dark energy.
Hum, dark energy came first? IMHO, the main culprit for inflation is the Higgs boson.

>><b>5) In the beginning, the entire universe was in a singularity, within a gigantic outer shell of dark matter.</b>
Perhaps. (On top of a giant turtle). I’ll stick to the simpler version, for now. Though, we don’t know enough either way to say. A denser boundary to the universe (aka percolation theory) is predicted, though the probability is that we already are located near to a boundary rather than near the centre.

>><b>6) The universe is expanding into that dark matter.</b>
Space is expanding, if dark mater were surrounding the universe then there would be a gravitational attraction on all the galaxies.

>><b>7) The dark matter is somehow getting stuck within galaxies, which transform them from elliptical galaxies to spiral galaxies.</b>
The other way around, i think, spirals interact/collide together to form ecliptic, likewise, the galaxies are stuck within dark matter.

>><b>8) Someday, the visible universe will reach the outer boundary and will stop expanding.</b>
Hum, possibly, (like the air in a balloon stops expanding because of the rubber?), we need to know more about false vacuum and the big bang process to answer that.

In a message posted yesterday, I mentioned a new book "The Final Theory" by Mark McCutcheon, and invited replies from anyone who has read it. I am going to start a new thead titled The final Theory. And I invite anyone who is dissatisfied with the currently popular theories on the universe to read the book.The book is a science best sellar on Amazon.com But your lokal bookstore can order it in if they dont have it. I got mine in 3 days. I especially invite people like mercurio, marv and truthseeker to check it out. There is a website <thefinaltheory.com> that gives you a hint what the book is about an how to order direct from the publisher at a reduced price. One really have to read the whole book (415 pages to pas a judgement on the new theory, but I'l give you a hint to wet your apetite. McCutheon claims there is no such thing as gravity. When we drop a stone from 4 feet and it hits the ground in about a second, it is not the earth pulling it down by gravitational force. It is the earth expanding to meet the stone. Atoms and everything made of atoms (we, the earth, the moon etc) are continoally expanding at a rate of one billions

the diameter of the given object pr second.
Regards APOLO. See you at the new thread.

Earth expanding?
Huuuumm... I did imagined a "size" dimension before...... :eek:


I wil get to you later, blobrana... ;)

>><b>2) There is an outer layer of the universe that is invisible to the naked eye (and to our instruments, for that "matter”).</b>
Is that the visible universe? The whole universe is probably a lot bigger (I’ve seen figures of 10⁵⁰, and that was at a period less than 1 second after BB).
Yeah, that's what I meant by boundary of visible universe. There's more "out there".... :D

We only know that highest concentration of dark matter is contained in the halos of galaxies (galactic clusters are embedded within dark matter)
That is where we know where they are. But isn't there a huge amount of dark matter that we have no idea where actually is? Isn't the universe composed of mostly dark matter and dark energy?

Hum, dark energy came first? IMHO, the main culprit for inflation is the Higgs boson.
Maybe there is a connection- or they are the same thing. What is the Higgs boson again? Is that that particle that Einstein thiought of being inside balck holes, or something like that? :confused:

Perhaps. (On top of a giant turtle). I’ll stick to the simpler version, for now. Though, we don’t know enough either way to say. A denser boundary to the universe (aka percolation theory) is predicted, though the probability is that we already are located near to a boundary rather than near the centre.
Sure. But it seems that we can only look towards the centre ;)

Space is expanding, if dark mater were surrounding the universe then there would be a gravitational attraction on all the galaxies.
Maybe dark energy is not a repelling from teh centre but an attraction from outside! Who knows?

The other way around, i think, spirals interact/collide together to form ecliptic, likewise, the galaxies are stuck within dark matter.
I thoutgh dark matter was inside.....
Oh, well... maybe there is another reason for the constant velocity throughout the galaxy....

Hum, possibly, (like the air in a balloon stops expanding because of the rubber?), we need to know more about false vacuum and the big bang process to answer that.
Yes. But maybe the false vacuum is the dark energy. So the universe is expanding into false vacuum/dark energy. Maybe that's the real infamous "aether"....!?

Are you implying that there is no expansion?
That is possible. However, how would you explain redshift, than?


Whoops,
Sry, I’m not picking on you, but astronomers also calculated the expansion rate by supernova explosions within distant galaxies.
This is a simple technique that uses the principle that objects appear fainter, the further they are; and independent to the red shift technique.

Whoops,
Sry, I’m not picking on you,
Not at all! If I'm wrong or I seem wrong, just tell me! ;)


but astronomers also calculated the expansion rate by supernova explosions within distant galaxies.
What does that prove?

Are you implying that there is no expansion?
That is possible. However, how would you explain redshift, than?
What about dark matter and dark energy?

Indeed, the expansion was the explanation for the observed redshifts in nebula (not all, btw - the Andromeda has a shift towards the violet!).

Now if you read the mediocre textbooks, they all claim that this redshift is caused by the Doppler effect, indicating they are moving away from us.

This is not so, for several technical reasons. A: starlight going through a near-vacuum is not a 'material' physical process , and B: lightspeed (c) is involved, so Einstein needs to be taken into account, and the fact there is no priviliged point of observation. So it's not 'just' a Doppler effect. It cannot be.

So what they did was inserting a Lorentzian transformation into the Doppler formula, replacing a few variables here and there to make it work. They created a formula especially for the occasion. (!)

This *essentially* means you are already convinced they are moving away from each other, and just want to turn the desired output into ballpark figures. So expansion was propagated, making some think the explanation was worse than the problem.

Are there other explanations for such a redshift? Oh yes, quite a few even: all types of scattering, like Rayleigh, Compton etc depending on the size of the obstacle, really. This affects the higher frequencies more than it does the lower ones. It would also explain some strange phenomena in the observed lines themselves, since these are not from electric dipoles: they are forbidden under those selection rules. So they have to be either caused by magnetic dipoles or quadrupoles, indicating again a different source than starlight. Some have countered that the low densities of these nebula COULD account for some of these 'forbidden' spectral lines, but a simpler explanation would be to assume they are produced by interference.

http://www.autodynamics.org/compton_effect.html

Light scattering all over the place actually interferes with all light trying to reach us. The further away the source, the more it will be stripped of its higher frequencies, leaving ultimately only infrared and microwave stuff coming through. [hint, hint]

This is incidentally why the sky is black at night. [hint to one Marilyn]

Oh it's white allright, but we cannot see it. And it goes on quite a bit beyond those 13.5 billion lightyears out we can 'see'.

And no, I don't think the universe is expanding, but a lot older and bigger than we think.

And if the Universe is not expanding..... oops.

Hum,
RE: astronomers also calculated the expansion rate by supernova explosions within distant galaxies.
What does that prove?

I perhaps didn’t put the point across clearly...
It means that you do not have to rely on just red shifts to show that the universe is expanding. The technique relies on the intrinsic brightness of supernovas or variable stars to show the distances; which incidentally, also correlate to the results from the red-shifted (or blue shifted) data.

Indeed, the expansion was the explanation for the observed redshifts in nebula (not all, btw - the Andromeda has a shift towards the violet!).
You mean blueshift amongst the local group. And also the constellation of Virgo has a blue shif, apparently.......

This is not so, for several technical reasons. A: starlight going through a near-vacuum is not a 'material' physical process , and B: lightspeed (c) is involved, so Einstein needs to be taken into account, and the fact there is no priviliged point of observation. So it's not 'just' a Doppler effect. It cannot be.
Well, ok. What about the light than? Can you elaborate?

You mean blueshift amongst the local group. And also the constellation of Virgo has a blue shif, apparently.......


Well, ok. What about the light than? Can you elaborate?

Violetshift, blueshift.... whatever. Not red. Ze other vay. [both terms are used rather indiscriminately, I think]

Virgo was redshifted, I'm pretty pos-def. It's one of the school examples together with Hydra and a few others, even. Same pics in all the books...

I'm not sure I understand your second question properly: do yo want the formula's? Can do. Or do you want a rundown of all the various ways you can cause a redshift without resorting to a Doppler? That'd be quite a list...

Here's another art-critic with some more info... Haven't checked it all out yet, but he seems to think along similar lines. Also has a few links to people who try to counter his arguments, which makes me think he's at least a decent bloke:

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/redshift.htm

and one (more technical) email about why observed 'time-dilution' in supernovae doesn't work, the guy even gets pretty worked up about not all raw data being released so he can SHOW the error....

BTW: as to Blobrana's Cepheids (variable stars): they don't actually use those in modern measurements anymore, they use the CBR data.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/Steady%20State.txt

Recently I read that the scientists have decided that the universe is like a flat sheet, with little or no curvature. It occurred to me that this could still fit into a model where there is a 'foam' of universes stuck together like a collection of bubbles. Look at a foam of bubbles and you'll notice that the bubble-films are usually flat or slightly curved, and join up with each other at all sorts of odd angles. If we explore far enough, will we find other universe-size 'sheets' of galaxies which are attached to our own universe at odd angles? I suggest that when we do find a universe which can be shown to be definitely curved, we will have found the true edge of the universe. Just as at the edge of a foam, the bubbles are curved.

@mercurio


BTW: as to Blobrana's Cepheids (variable stars): they don't actually use those in modern measurements anymore, they use the CBR data.



Hum,

The point is that to check that the supernovas brightness is indeed a true measure of the distance was also measured/calibrated with Cepheid variables in the host galaxy.
Plotted out there is a slightly curved, rather than a linear plot – which indicated an accelerating and expanding universe.

The reason that they don’t use variables anymore is rather to do with the inability to resolve them in galaxies beyond a certain distance.

[<i>and it should be pointed out that the original data was flawed due to the discovery that there were at least two different `families ` of the Cepheid variables with differing intrinsic brightness – this however – doesn’t actually affect the results. i.e. curved rather than linear plot</i>]

As for using CBR data to measure distances – I don’t know how one would <b>do</b> that, beyond my physics.

Virgo was redshifted, I'm pretty pos-def. It's one of the school examples together with Hydra and a few others, even. Same pics in all the books...
Huuumm... than why we are going towards it?

I'm not sure I understand your second question properly: do yo want the formula's? Can do. Or do you want a rundown of all the various ways you can cause a redshift without resorting to a Doppler? That'd be quite a list...
I asked why the speed of light is important....

@mercurio


Hum,

The point is that to check that the supernovas brightness is indeed a true measure of the distance was also measured/calibrated with Cepheid variables in the host galaxy.
Plotted out there is a slightly curved, rather than a linear plot – which indicated an accelerating and expanding universe.

The reason that they don’t use variables anymore is rather to do with the inability to resolve them in galaxies beyond a certain distance.

[<i>and it should be pointed out that the original data was flawed due to the discovery that there were at least two different `families ` of the Cepheid variables with differing intrinsic brightness – this however – doesn’t actually affect the results. i.e. curved rather than linear plot</i>]

As for using CBR data to measure distances – I don’t know how one would <b>do</b> that, beyond my physics.

http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/Foundations/chapter12.html

gives a decent rundown on CBR and redshift.

BTW check the pictures on that link and compare them to this (figure 2):

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0305-4470/29/5/003/ja29005l3.html

curious, hunh?

Huuumm... than why we are going towards it?


I asked why the speed of light is important....


1: It's a very, very large group. Some have a redshift, some a blueshift. As a whole they 'move away from us' with 1100 km/s or something like that. But maybe not such a clearcut example as the textbooks portray it.

http://www.obspm.fr/messier/more/virgo_gal.html

2. Because 'Doppler' was strictly intended for Newtonian use, without relativity playing a role. Since there is no 'material' link or medium the normal formula cannot say anything about the speed or direction of the source relative to the observer AND Newton does not explain relativistic phenomena (like time dilation).

http://www.jca.umbc.edu/~george/html/courses/glossary/redshift.html

That's why they came up with a new formula which, since it was cut to size, works perfectly ofcourse.

Thing is, is the explanation not worse than the problem? We have shifts in our spectral data, and there are lines that have no right to be there, according to accepted theory. Big deal.

Why suddenly assume the most outlandish of all possible scenarios, leading only to worse and worse theories?

Frankly, I think expansion creates more problems than it solves, and we are wasting an enormous amount of time and energy on it, both which I'm not so sure we can afford to waste, at this point in human development.

We have shifts in our spectral data, and there are lines that have no right to be there, according to accepted theory.


Care to elaborate?
And if you were then to reject the red shift theory, because of some unknown resonance/ spectral property.

How would you explain the supernova data?
It couldn’t be intervening dust as that would leave tell tale spectral lines. You would then have to come up with a theory that removes or masks that evidence.

A bit messy i think.

Care to elaborate?
And if you were then to reject the red shift theory, because of some unknown resonance/ spectral property.

How would you explain the supernova data?
It couldn’t be intervening dust as that would leave tell tale spectral lines. You would then have to come up with a theory that removes or masks that evidence.

A bit messy i think.

Well, there are 'forbidden' lines in the spectral data. These cannot be caused by electric dipoles, as I said earlier. This indicates interference.

http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/datarefs/IAU/WG2/report2.html

I'm still investigating Mr. Wright's arguments, and will look into the supernova data too, but I suspect it all falls foul of the following effect, although there is another candidate that I am working on: simple hydrogen.

http://physics.njit.edu/~dgary/728/Lecture3.html

scroll down to :

"In most mediums you may be familiar with"

and read about the group speed of light that is, somewhat surprisingly, greater than lightspeed itself inside a plasma....

I think that's at least one of the culprits... :)

BTW what did you think of the Husimi eigenstate pics? A random quantum 'scattering' looks like ... CBR. Now ain't that something?

Ahh,
The 'forbidden' lines …
Yeah those pesky spectral lines emitted from a metastable states had ppl puzzled for a long time. Not observed on earth, however they show up in solar and nebula observations. And some even named a new element after it…
But it was found that by decreasing densities down to less than 108 cm-3, the lines suddenly appear…

More here:
http://home.achilles.net/~ypvsj/spectra/Nebulium.html

Re: Husimi eigenstate pics.
Yeah, that was what was predicted what the CBR would look like. The quantum fluctuation (when inflated) would actually create a universe full of bubbles with galaxies forming at the `walls`.

What is the atomic number for the Nebulium? How many protons it has? Is it radioactive? Etc...

Ahh,
[1] The 'forbidden' lines …
Yeah those pesky spectral lines emitted from a metastable states had ppl puzzled for a long time. Not observed on earth, however they show up in solar and nebula observations. And some even named a new element after it…
But it was found that by decreasing densities down to less than 108 cm-3, the lines suddenly appear…

More here:
http://home.achilles.net/~ypvsj/spectra/Nebulium.html

[2] Re: Husimi eigenstate pics.
Yeah, that was what was predicted what the CBR would look like. The quantum fluctuation (when inflated) would actually create a universe full of bubbles with galaxies forming at the `walls`.

Mmm. I think you misread a few things: they WERE obeserved on earth, since we knew about them for more than a century before ever launching anything.
'Not observed in terrestrial lights' it says. Which is not the same.

Also, they do not 'disappear' when you 'decrease densities', it means that Millikan discovers low pressure nebulae could account for (some of) those lines. Below those pressures they are not observed, but that is also because you'd not be looking at a nebula then by definition, or at any particular lightsource to speak of, so that does not mean a thing.

[2] Not true. CBR was predicted 30 years before they found it, and the people that found it never knew it had been predicted.

I'd really like to know who told you differently....

What it would look like, or its specific temperature, they did not know. More importantly, the big bang would explode into nothingness, and leave a different 'footprint' than a scatter through an existing medium.

But in that link it mentions Rydberg molecules btw. Every looked up what those are? Especially Rydberg Hydrogen:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3700/19/18/006

What is the atomic number for the Nebulium? How many protons it has? Is it radioactive? Etc...

I really don't know how to break this to you ... :eek:

[2] Not true.

"<i>that was what was predicted</i>" - blobrana (regarding the fluctuations in the Cobe satellite data - The thermal spectrum was predicted by Big Bang theory, and Roger Penrose and physicist Stephen Hawking brought that to the attention of the scientists at Bell Laboratories.

the lines suddenly <b>appear</b>

ie <i>metastable states</i>.

Hum,
I think we got crossed wires here. I think you would agree…

But tnx for the extra info.

"<i>that was what was predicted</i>" - blobrana (regarding the fluctuations in the Cobe satellite data - The thermal spectrum was predicted by Big Bang theory, and Roger Penrose and physicist Stephen Hawking brought that to the attention of the scientists at Bell Laboratories.



ie <i>metastable states</i>.

Hum,
I think we got crossed wires here. I think you would agree…

But tnx for the extra info.

Planck predicted a perfect blackbody. So did Rayleigh, btw, although his first model had to be revised, it is every bit as valid as Plancks without using quanta, FYI. Different philosophy altogether.

The interesting thing is that CBR isn't. It's not perfectly smooth, as it should be:

http://astro.uchicago.edu/~kerry/sze_anisotropies.html

so NOW they say inverse Compton scattering did play some role... within the Big Bang scenario. Not yet 'cutting and running', but 'cutting and walking'...
We'll get there.
:D

About the lines:
I see. Basic problem remains: it's a phenomenon related to 'nebulous' gas in space, but not necessarily an integral part of VISIBLE gas a long way off.

What would help here is some study of data of 'normal' visible stars, preferably outside our own galaxy (I know, tall order). If they also contain such lines, it should be crystal clear there is something wrong. I'll see what I can find.

Problem:
In the interstellar medium electrons may recombine with protons to form hydrogen atoms with high principal quantum numbers. A transition between successive values of n gives rise to a recombination line.

(a) A radio recombination line occurs at 5.425978´1010 Hz for a n=50 to n=49 transition. Calculate the Rydberg constant for H.

(b) Compute the frequency of the H recombination line corresponding to the transition n=100 to n=99.

(c) Assume the mean velocity in part (b) is 106m/s. At what frequency or frequencies would the recombination line be observable?

Solution:

(a) lotsamath
(b) lotsamath

(c) The line is Doppler shifted.

lotsamath

http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/qm2/modules/m1-3/hydrogen.htm

;)

About the lines:
I see. Basic problem remains: it's a phenomenon related to 'nebulous' gas in space, but not necessarily an integral part of VISIBLE gas a long way off.

What would help here is some study of data of 'normal' visible stars


Yeah,
Lines are found in the low density regions (chronosphere) of the Sun, so they would be present (i assume - though i can’t find any studies relating to it) any star spectra - albeit very faint or below current detection methods.

It’s a phenomenon related to quantum probabilities/resonances of the atoms in those regions.

Found some extragalactic stars, but they are Cepheids, and I still have to find spectroscopic data on them...

http://www.klima-luft.de/steinicke/AGN/vargal/vargal2000.htm

The old textbooks I've been checking up on all mention the fact there IS some momentum transfer with inverse Compton scattering, but modern sources deny that... puzzling. Still trying to find where THAT got shoved under the rug. Even the tiniest bit would add up tremendously, so that's not something trivial.

mercurio, you can always apply to use a telescope, if there is any around you.
Of course, that if you cannot find the data you are looking for. And you would need to clearly tell them what it is for......

Yeah,
Lines are found in the low density regions (chronosphere) of the Sun, so they would be present (i assume - though i can’t find any studies relating to it) any star spectra - albeit very faint or below current detection methods.

It’s a phenomenon related to quantum probabilities/resonances of the atoms in those regions.

4) Coronal Line Region is observable through forbidden transitions of highly ionized atoms such as those seen in the solar corona. It is still not in general known whether most CLR emission comes from low-density gas far from the nucleus, or high-density gas much closer in (e.g., Spinoglio and Malkan 1992, Ferguson, Korista and Ferland 1997).

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/amdata/ampdata/law/reports/malkan/

(cool article...)

But the winner is - best alternative for explanation of forbidden transitions I've seen to date - and even better, *makes* that claim ....:

http://www-laog.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr/~afaure/afaure9.pdf

Photons giving little waterdrops a bit of spin... :m:

Thanks for the tip, Truthseeker, we have a few here, but I wonder if they could squeeze anything in on a reasonable timescale, knowing the sort of demands everybody keeps piling up....

Care to elaborate?
And if you were then to reject the red shift theory, because of some unknown resonance/ spectral property.

How would you explain the supernova data?
It couldn’t be intervening dust as that would leave tell tale spectral lines. You would then have to come up with a theory that removes or masks that evidence.

A bit messy i think.

Checked out how they handle Supernova data. Read this and weep:

http://snap.lbl.gov/pub/bscw.cgi/d96758/SNAP-SCI-02005.doc

" Maximum integration time allowed with the ETC is 1000 seconds because of the need for cosmic ray (CR) splits, i.e. in single exposures of length greater than 1000 seconds the number of pixels affected by CRs will be large – by taking multiple exposures the CRs can, be filtered out."

What spectral lines of telltale dust? You never get to see any, because they are REMOVED from the data. That's how you keep things from going messy.... :D

@mercurio
>>"they are REMOVED from the data"

Hum,
that does sound like a bad practice.
Though if the spectral lines were removed from the components of our own galaxy then that seems acceptable (unless the supernova lay close to the galactic plane) as that would not affect external supernova brightness data; And if it were applied to all the observations.

But if a supernova were seen in a particularly dusty galaxy then those lines would have to be taken into account (to show that it was indeed a dusty galaxy – and the apparent brightness was reduced –and closer to us than the brightness would indicate - er, which is the purpose of the whole exercise. But I suppose that observations of the infra red components in the galaxy would show up the dust)

“Maximum integration time” exposures are quite normal and indeed because the supernova events are dynamic over a few days - weeks, they don’t affect the brightness data. Multiple observations are preferred to give a rise – peak -fall graph plot (ideally) to show what type of supernova actually happened.

@mercurio
>>"they are REMOVED from the data"

Hum,
that does sound like a bad practice.


Well, it will make me more cautious, for one. Seems there IS no face value even in data...

Anyway, it all reminds me very much of another hobby of mine, human vision and how to translate that to machine vision, and I've found the eye does not work like a camera, at all. We CREATE the picture largely.

Seems we always do. We only see what we already think we know.

Anyway, found this by Paul Marmet, another art critic, still have to go through it, but it looks interesting:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html