Humbled by Hubble

[Roosters for ever]

An alternative theory is, that Energy is u8ncreatedable. has always existed, is still there in the pre-universe realm, aka timespace Energytime and is absorbed as our home universe expands.

The energy in the universe/spacetime, probably came from the decay of what we call inflation...this was a period of "faster then "c" expansion, that occurred for a tiny fraction of a second at about 10-36 seconds post big bang. This did not contravene Einstein's relativity, as it was not matter expanding just the fabric of spacetime. In fact matter of any sort (atoms, neutrons, protons) did not exist at that time. The fundamentals of matter, quarks, electrons etc, condensed as an extremely hot and dense universe cooled, all still within a second post big bang. As temperatures continued to drop, our first basic atomic nuclei, protons and neutrons formed at 3 minutes post big bang. (A good description of this process is given by Stephen Weinberg, in his book "The First Three Minutes")
The opaque universe of quarks, electrons, neutrons and protons, and atomic nuclei, essentially plasma, continued to cool for about 380,000 years until the universe/spacetime had cooled to around 3,000K and electrons started to couple with the atomic nuclei, protons and neutrons, forming our first elements, hydrogen and helium and perhaps a trace of lithium.
From that point it is essentially plain sailing, and our first generations of stars started to form over the next 3 or 4 hundred million years.
These huge, short lived behemoths, (10's of millions of years) then went supernova and the heavier elements started to form.

 

[Roosters for ever]

Do we have any theories as to what may have been going on in the period between 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang and 38,000 years after the BB?

Yes as James has indicated. (although more speculative hypotheticals at this time) The one I find most likely and "sensible" is given by Professor Lawrence Krauss in his book, "A Universe from Nothing"
Essentially what he speculates is that the big bang arose from a fluctuation in the quantum foam. The quantum foam is defined as spacetime at the quantum/Planck level, and also that which has existed for eternity. This "quantum foam" is what Krauss defines as nothing...spacetime at the quantum/Planck level. Remembering that we normally define the vacuum of spacetime (as we know them) as nothing, that is until the Casimir effect was discovered.
The Casimir effect is a phenomenon that occurs when two uncharged parallel metal plates, experience an attraction due to quantum fluctuations. While the book is certainly based on speculative scenarios, there is some evidence supporting it....(the univseres's total zero energy, cosmic inflation, and quantum vacuum fluctuations such as virtual particles.

 

[beil]

Edwin Hubble never saw the most distant galaxies speeding away from us (or us speeding way from them) because he saw them as they moved billions of years ago. and at that time they were moving away fast. Now, just like us, their clip could be different .
Echoing Kraus, the alternative theory in ALMA calls for eternal energy (in whatever form) existing in energytime and occupying timespace that allowed our universe to be made from that energy following the laws imposed on it. ( different universe might have different laws).
Not all energy was exhausted in that creation even (aka Big Bang). but still resides in future time. The expansion of our universe into timespace allows more of that eternal residue energy to be absorbed.
Nothing new here, Dirac, Penrose, Kraus rewritten.

 

[James R]

Edwin Hubble never saw the most distant galaxies speeding away from us (or us speeding way from them) because he saw them as they moved billions of years ago. and at that time they were moving away fast.

No. The red shift of the light we see now is indicative of how fast the source is moving away from us now. The assumption is that the red-shift accumulated while the light was in transit. It didn't all happen at the source.

Echoing Kraus, the alternative theory in ALMA calls for eternal energy (in whatever form) existing in energytime and occupying timespace that allowed our universe to be made from that energy following the laws imposed on it.

What's ALMA?

What's "energytime"?

And why don't you use the term "spacetime"? That's the term scientists use.

Also, our universe is not "made from energy". Energy is not stuff that can make things. It is not a substance. It is essentially an accounting system. Energy is a number. Numbers can't make matter.

Not all energy was exhausted in that creation even...

Energy doesn't get "exhausted". In fact, the Law of Conservation of Energy says that the total energy of the universe is constant. You can transfer energy from one location to another, or transform it from one notional "type" to another, but when you calculate the number that is "total energy" at the start and end of the process, you get the same value. That's what energy conservation is all about. It's why the concept of energy is useful.

... but still resides in future time.

It makes no sense to claim that energy "resides in future time".

Are you suggesting some kind of time travel that energy (a number) can do?

The expansion of our universe into timespace...

The expansion of the universe is an expansion of spacetime, not an expansion into spacetime.

... allows more of that eternal residue energy to be absorbed.

What is "residue energy"?

Nothing new here, Dirac, Penrose, Kraus rewritten.

Rewritten in such a way that any sense that was there seems to have been lost in the "rewriting" process.

If I recall correctly, you were previously excluded from posting in our Science sections, beil (aka nebel). It looks a lot like you're returning to your old habits with this nonsense. I hope I don't need to reinstate your exclusion from our science sections, but I will do it if you continue to post pretend science to the science sections.

 

[beil]

No. The red shift of the light we see now is indicative of how fast the source is moving away from us now. The assumption is that the red-shift accumulated while the light was in transit. It didn't all happen at the source.

What's ALMA?

What's "energytime"?

And why don't you use the term "spacetime"? That's the term scientists use.

Also, our universe is not "made from energy". Energy is not stuff that can make things. It is not a substance. It is essentially an accounting system. Energy is a number. Numbers can't make matter.

Energy doesn't get "exhausted". In fact, the Law of Conservation of Energy says that the total energy of the universe is constant. You can transfer energy from one location to another, or transform it from one notional "type" to another, but when you calculate the number that is "total energy" at the start and end of the process, you get the same value. That's what energy conservation is all about. It's why the concept of energy is useful.

It makes no sense to claim that energy "resides in future time".

Are you suggesting some kind of time travel that energy (a number) can do?

The expansion of the universe is an expansion of spacetime, not an expansion into spacetime.

What is "residue energy"?

Rewritten in such a way that any sense that was there seems to have been lost in the "rewriting" process.

If I recall correctly, you were previously excluded from posting in our Science sections, beil (aka nebel). It looks a lot like you're returning to your old habits with this nonsense. I hope I don't need to reinstate your exclusion from our science sections, but I will do it if you continue to post pretend science to the science sections.

with due respect I started this thread not in the science section, not even in "ALTERNATIVE" - but with PSEUDO sc , The lowest FRINGE.

ALMA is the " Alternative Theories" thread ( 165 000 views) That, starting with a question on radio astronomy data ----morphed into a full blown world view, complete with variations on Einstein's nomenclature.---- hopefully fair game for us on the fringe.
Novel ideas might make fully committed scholars uncomfortable, but progress was made that way. and -surprise- will happen again. .
I did not intend to have the whole cosmology dragged into the simple question here of:
Distance seen in the "now" or: in reality: condition of the distant "past"?

For the idea of uncreated energy residing in " time ( the 1st dimension ) that stretches from the infinite past into the infinite future, please consider post # 1 147 in the "Alma" thread. -- To come back to the current query:

Did E. Hubble not see galaxies as they were ~13 billion years ago? and were they not speeding then? Now: they are probably keeping pace with us.

 

[Pinball1970]

with due respect I started this thread not in the science section, not even in "ALTERNATIVE" - but with PSEUDO sc , The lowest FRINGE.

I questioned why it was in pseudoscience because we were talking about Hubble and what he discovered.

Just making terms up on top of his work does not add anything.

Novel ideas might make fully committed scholars uncomfortable, but progress was made that way

You are confusing things here. Researchers try and answer questions that have not been fully answered yet, some ask questions that have not been asked yet. This work however is on a solid scientific basis building on previous knowledge and usually carried out by teams.
The time of a lonely solitary physicist like Einstein going over his equations in his spare time and work are long gone. Even he went to university completed a physics degree, was top of his class then completed a PhD.
Progress is certainly not achieved by some "independent researcher" pulling things out of their ass.

 

[Pinball1970]

Distance seen in the "now" or: in reality: condition of the distant "past"?

But that is exactly what happens when we look at things, on the earth the time between the "now" and the light reaching your retina and your brain deciding what it is, is obviously very short but it is not instant.
Look at the moon it is 1.5 seconds, the sun 8 minutes, hours for the outer planets hours.
What does that mean exactly? If the sun exploded on a fine summer's day, you would not see (or feel) the blast for 8 minutes.
So yes, we see things in the past.
James point is that all that red-shift does not occur at source, why would it? It is spacetime (please note this term) itself that is stretching.

 

[Pinball1970]

Did E. Hubble not see galaxies as they were ~13 billion years ago? and were they not speeding then? Now: they are probably keeping pace with us

I doubt Hubble's telescope saw anything remotely close to galaxies that far away.
The actual HST and next generation telescopes do though. The current record holder is MoM-z14 which formed 280 million years after the BB, about 13.5 Gya so not that much younger than the universe itself.
How far away is it from us? Over 30 billion light years away, when you think about spacetime stretching whilst the light from MoM-z14 was travelling, you will realise why two numbers are so different.

 

[Pinball1970]

Now: they are probably keeping pace with us

Not if they are red shifted, if they are red shifted they are travelling away from us and most galaxies we see are.
There are some exceptions, Andromeda is blue shifted i.e. travelling towards us.

 

[beil]

But that is exactly what happens when we look at things, on the earth the time between the "now" and the light reaching your retina and your brain deciding what it is, is obviously very short but it is not instant.
Look at the moon it is 1.5 seconds, the sun 8 minutes, hours for the outer planets hours.
What does that mean exactly? If the sun exploded on a fine summer's day, you would not see (or feel) the blast for 8 minutes.
So yes, we see things in the past.
James point is that all that red-shift does not occur at source, why would it? It is spacetime (please note this term) itself that is stretching.

I questioned why it was in pseudoscience because we were talking about Hubble and what he discovered.

Good point. I have a thread, on this forum, a few lines down. -- based on the Orbital and Rotational velocities of all planets/moons, ( Jupiter's velocities cancel ), packed full of real data, with ~ 70 000 views and it is on the bottom of the Fringe too. Apparently, just because the values are real does not guarantee that their treatment is considered science.

so, as you said, if we see things as they were in the past, Did Hubble see them as they moved so much faster? then?

 

[Pinball1970]

stretches from the infinite past into the infinite future

From what I have read the universe is thought to be spatially infinite but temporally finite.
This is still an active area of research.

 

[Pinball1970]

so if we see things as they were in the past, Did Hubbel see them as they moved so fast? then?

This is the sequence of events. Large galaxy MoM-z14 emits light from the 100 billion suns residing within.
This light spreads out in all directions.
This light travels through deep space for 13.5 billion years and space stretches while it is traveling.
It hits your telescope.
Looking back towards MoM-z14 the distance between your telescope on earth and MoM galaxy has been stretching the entire time, it is now over 30 billion light years away.

 

[Pinball1970]

moved so fast? then?

We do not see things moving that distant. All the celestial bodies in the solar system including ATLAS 3i are spinning and moving relative to us, as we move and rotate relative to them.
We do not see that motion however.
If ATLAS would have collided with the earth we would have seen that motion eventually, when it got close enough.

 

[Pinball1970]

infinite past into the infinite future, please consider post # 1 147 in the "Alma" thread. -- To come back to the current query

"# 1 is timespace of the future that the universe expands into into"

This is a misconception. The Universe does not expand "into" anything, there is no deep infinite void that matter expands into.
Space expands and the distance between the galaxies expand with it.

 

[beil]

No. The red shift of the light we see now is indicative of how fast the source is moving away from us now. The assumption is that the red-shift accumulated while the light was in transit. It didn't all happen at the source.

thank you! I worked under the assumption that the redshift observed was entirely due to the doppler phenomenon. ( the change in pitch of a speeding siren in a departing policecar) so:
How can we be certain that the redshift is in what proportion due to the stretching of space versus the proper outward velocity of the now distant/ early galaxies?
Light does not age, so I assumed the fast readings were all speed readings in the radar gun.

 

[beil]

From what I have read the universe is thought to be spatially infinite but temporally finite.
This is still an active area of research.

"active" --right. It is wrong, imho, to think that our universe is the only show there is, like the pre-Galilean view of "Earth is all there is to it. We at the center of it all."
Many authors have grappled with the -pre/outside of our little part of the cosmos- question.

spatially infinite? finite in time? Since distance =time, How would a portion of our abode exist without having time to exist in? or: If time is finite: where/when was the tremendous amount of (uncreated) Energy that is locked up in our cosmos?

 

[James R]

How can we be certain that the redshift is in what proportion due to the stretching of space versus the proper outward velocity of the now distant/ early galaxies?

For very distant objects, if we were to compare their so-called "proper" motions (i.e. the speeds they have moving through their local space, relative to things nearby) to their recession speeds caused by the expansion of space, we would find that the proper speeds are negligible compared to the recession speeds. It is reasonable to make the approximation, then, that all of the speed we measure from the shift in the spectrum of light we receive from very distant objects is due to the expansion of space that occurred while the light was travelling to us.

Another thing to consider is that the Doppler shift (mostly) tells us how fast something is moving towards or away from us. We don't generally see distant objects moving "sideways" (perpendicular to the line of vision), which confirms that any "sideways" proper speed must be small compared to the recession speed. There's no reason to expect that distant galaxies would have any "preferred" direction of proper motion in space, relative to us, yet what we measure is essentially entirely velocity directly away from us.

 

[Pinball1970]

spatially infinite? finite in time?

Yes that one is a thinker isn't it? James R or Janus58 will probably be able to shed light on it. From memory when I asked the exact same question I did not understand the answer or I probably would have remembered it!
One thing I do remember is that if something is infinite now, it has always been infinite.
Why do some Cosmologists think the universe is infinite? I suspect that will have something to do with either GR or QM or both and the mathematics of which I am unable provide.

 

[TheVat]

We don't generally see distant objects moving "sideways" (perpendicular to the line of vision), which confirms that any "sideways" proper speed must be small compared to the recession speed. There's no reason to expect that distant galaxies would have any "preferred" direction of proper motion in space, relative to us, yet what we measure is essentially entirely velocity directly away from us.

A clarifying point I've rarely seen mentioned in these types of cosmology chats. Thanks.

Why do some Cosmologists think the universe is infinite?

I remember Adler planetarium (Chicago) had a show on this matter of eternal inflation theory. I think they've got a page on it. Here (scroll down to the bubble universe multiverse theory section):

The Top Three Multiverse Theories: Many Worlds, Bubble Universes, And Shadow Matter - Adler Planetarium

What is multiverse theory? Dive deeper into many worlds, bubble universes, and shadow matter theories, as seen in Niyah and the Multiverse.

www.adlerplanetarium.org

 

[beil]

For very distant objects, if we were to compare their so-called "proper" motions (i.e. the speeds they have moving through their local space, relative to things nearby) to their recession speeds caused by the expansion of space, we would find that the proper speeds are negligible compared to the recession speeds. It is reasonable to make the approximation, then, that all of the speed we measure from the shift in the spectrum of light we receive from very distant objects is due to the expansion of space that occurred while the light was travelling to us.

Another thing to consider is that the Doppler shift (mostly) tells us how fast something is moving towards or away from us. We don't generally see distant objects moving "sideways" (perpendicular to the line of vision), which confirms that any "sideways" proper speed must be small compared to the recession speed. There's no reason to expect that distant galaxies would have any "preferred" direction of proper motion in space, relative to us, yet what we measure is essentially entirely velocity directly away from us.

If all these redshifts observed are due to the expansion of space, Where does the assertion come from that their own velocity outward was smaller than now? Normally does not a tighter packed material have higher proper velocities aka heat? Brownian motion at a cosmic scale? Does not that kind of observed spectrum change then merely measured distance? Of course
in the baked "raisin cake" analogy, the outer raisins moved faster than the lower ones.