I feel like we are all idiots repeating "space is expanding" if humans could live 14billion years in age, and we were present when it started, but we left good old Bob on the part of the universe that was travelling away from us, he would have traveled FTL from us. Even if you said space expanded, the traveling has been accomplished. So now we know that space expansion is how you travel FTL. In other words if humans…
Ok, but you can’t use it to go to anywhere FTL. You can only use it to get further away from somewhere FTL.
If the universe is 13.8B years old, how can we see 46B light years away? (2018)
121–130 of 133 posts
Re: If the universe is 13.8B years old, how can we see 46B light years away? (2018)
#122If you are turning in bed and can't sleep I'll give you some questions to think about. Even though some are non-sensical in a way, they are a good starting point to ponder about: - Is space really flat (infinite) or curved (finite)? - If it is flat and the universe had the beginning (big bang) then does it just have "potential infinity", by ever-expanding? - If it is curved is it implied that it is encompassed by som…
> - What would happen if you would happen to stand at the edge of space/universe and push a hand through the edge? That doesn't make sense if you say the universe is curved or infinite. There will be no edge. > - Space could be infinite but at the same time with a boundary. Can you imagine that boundary without trying to imagine what it is bounded from? No. That's what the definition of infinite is. There are no boun…
That just hand-waves away the subjective experience, based only on some mechanisms we have a ho-hum understanding of at the moment.
>Math is very basic. It starts with set theory and then builds on top of that. It is invented since set theory is invented.
Many prominent mathematicians beg to differ. And Hilbert called, he would like his plan back.
Re: If the universe is 13.8B years old, how can we see 46B light years away? (2018)
#123Re: If the universe is 13.8B years old, how can we see 46B light years away? (2018)
#124Re: If the universe is 13.8B years old, how can we see 46B light years away? (2018)
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really.
FTL speed requires infinite amount of energy in this iteration of physics, except for case when vacuum is not empty, but even in this case medium cannot move at supersonic speed of medium, while still in one piece. If far away vacuum moves at FTL speed, then there must be "sonic" barrier somewhere.
Re: If the universe is 13.8B years old, how can we see 46B light years away? (2018)
#126So space expands itself at every point at a certain rate. There is an elephant in the room here: how do all the parts in space coordinate to expand at about the same steady rate? Why don't we see radically different expansion rates in different parts of the universe, e.g. stars on the left are getting further apart 10x faster than those on the right? We often use the air balloon analogy, but an air ballool is inflate…
No, the evidence suggests that the rate is time-dependent; that is, the expansion is accelerating.
> how do all the parts in space coordinate to expand at about the same steady rate?
This is a good question!
The answer is: the coordination happens in the much earlier much denser universe in our past, just like the coordination that happened among the fields of the Standard Model that led to the earliest atoms and molecules.
Let's first take the case where there is no accelerated expansion (which is unlikely with current evidence). In this case, the mechanism can simply be inertia, with an enormous early impulse like those in the family of cosmic inflation theories. There must be a fine balance between the density of matter in the earlier universe and the impulse, because gravitational interactions will decelerate the expansion from the early impulse until the matter-density drops/dilutes-with-expansion to a critical point after which the rate of expansion will be constant.
Observations support an early deceleration and subsequent fixed-rate expansion, but about 8 billion years ago the expansion began to accelerate, as seen in images of galaxies with redshifts less than about z ~ 0.5.
> a simple underlying mechanism
This is what the study of dark energy is about: a simple explanation for the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Typically one starts with a field that fills the whole of spacetime, with enormous energy-density in the early universe, with that energy-density decaying at later times. In extremely high-quality vacuum and far from structures like stars and black holes, the decay of this field is faster than near those structures (too near and the field becomes locally stable; the solar system, for example, is not expanding). When the field decays, it gives a local increase to the inertial expansion rate described in the no-dark-energy case a couple paragraphs up. Because there is so much empty space outside galaxy clusters, there is a lot of local, and the amount of local increases over time, so larger regions of the field decay at faster rates as the unvierse gets older.
There are other approaches too, but the effect is the same: the amount of space outside matter structures increases at an accelerating rate in the late universe, and this corresponds in a frame-dependent way to an energy-density that remains constant as the energy-density of the fields of the Standard Model decreases. That is, in such a frame of reference, matter and radiation dilute away with the expansion MUCH faster than dark energy does.
Another approach is literally the cosmological constant, which if zero gives the inertial picture above, but if it takes on a small positive value, it produces a late-time acceleration of the expansion. No known fields behave like this: matter-density varies by location in spacetime (clumpier in space, tending to diffuse apart (especially light) or collapse gravitationally (especially baryons) over time), gravitational fields vary with position in spacetime and typically with the distribution of matter. By contrast, the cosmological constant is literally identically everywhere-and-everywhen. More likely we will find evidence for something which closely approximates the cosmological constant at large scales, with differences in the density of the "cosmological not-quite-constant field" lining up very closely with observed differences in the density of matter.
> clever nature of this mechanism
Cleverness shouldn't be expected of the mechanism itself, although it will probably take some cleverness to describe the mechanism in a tractable/scalable-yet-accurate-in-detail manner.
WRT your final sentence, General Relativity works just fine in the total absence of dark energy, and dark energy as the cosmological constant has been captured as the factor \Lambda in the Einstein Field Equations. That's like saying that all matter has been captured as a factor in the Einstein Field Equations, though: it has taken a lot of work including things like studying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering to work out many of the finer details of the stress-energy tensor. A comparable program likely is needed to work out the finer details of \Lambda, which might lead to a formal explanation along the lines of the informal one a few paragraphs above.
Re: If the universe is 13.8B years old, how can we see 46B light years away? (2018)
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet you can't account for them now being 46B light years away without breaching C, or encompassing the expansion of the universe, within which things are moving. I think he manages a clear explanation of that without scaring away too many. Your "correct" version on the other hand, leaves more questions than answers, not least of which being how do we ever get 46B ly distance in something 13.8B years old. Then you hav…
This was described almost hundred years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law "(...) the notion of the universe expanding at a calculable rate was first derived from the general relativity equations in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann" The space expands. It's been known for a long time. We might not know why exactly this happens and there is still some discussion about ultimate fate of the universe although pr…
When tracks start moving as well it gets mind bending, and no longer intuitive. Now we have multiple scenarios where the combination of track movement (universe expansion), and train movement result in it being "obvious" you have to exceed C somewhere, which we're told is impossible. Otherwise how can the distances end up where they are. It's between these two points most non-physicists stop as it starts to feel deeply contradictory.
Re: If the universe is 13.8B years old, how can we see 46B light years away? (2018)
#128If you are turning in bed and can't sleep I'll give you some questions to think about. Even though some are non-sensical in a way, they are a good starting point to ponder about: - Is space really flat (infinite) or curved (finite)? - If it is flat and the universe had the beginning (big bang) then does it just have "potential infinity", by ever-expanding? - If it is curved is it implied that it is encompassed by som…
> - What would happen if you would happen to stand at the edge of space/universe and push a hand through the edge? That doesn't make sense if you say the universe is curved or infinite. There will be no edge. > - Space could be infinite but at the same time with a boundary. Can you imagine that boundary without trying to imagine what it is bounded from? No. That's what the definition of infinite is. There are no boun…
just a thought: it sounds like you are more describing the concept of an uncountable infinity in a mathematical sense, a set that is infinite and with no discernible end, as opposed to a countable one, where the set is certainly infinite but it can be iterated through and conceptually has some point where it transitions into a higher meta-set that encompasses it and far more. at least, that's the metaphor i use to interpret the concept of an infinity that is bounded; conceptually, everything that exists must be contained within something if you ask me. it could even be contained within a conceptual nothing, but that nothing itself acts as a boundary point for the infinite.
also: i am definitely not a cosmologist or a scientist in any rigorous sense, im just a person that likes to think a lot. my arguments or thoughts likely wouldn't hold their weight compared to one substantiated with support and such, so I just want to make it known that I don't exactly treat my views internally as the canonical explanation, just the one that makes the most sense to me given my limited scope of understanding. thanks for your time :)
Re: If the universe is 13.8B years old, how can we see 46B light years away? (2018)
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can give one thing for you to ponder: what's the true difference of the world you experience in the waking state and the world you experience during dreaming state and the cause behind both of these? The puzzle of the universe, infinity and multiverse can become apparent if you ponder over the above question.
The world we experience in the waking state is persistent and objective. The world we experience during the dreaming state is subjective and temporary. There, I pondered, and it did not make “the puzzle of the universe, infinity and multiverse apparent”.
Regarding the persistency argument, the waking world seems persistent to you because it has a longer duration relative to your dream. Sometimes we dream in a dream and experience continuity of the dream-world as well. There are stories of people experiencing years of life in dreaming [0] which confirms that continuity in dream is also possible.
That said, I'm not trying to prove that waking and dreaming state are literally the same. The idea is to ponder on the generality behind waking and dreaming states and question/contemplate on the true nature of reality. Do we not observe that it's the mind which seems to be the cause of us experiencing both these states the way we experience them? If so and if the dream seems to be our personal creation then the question arises what if the waking world is a our collective (cosmic) mind dream? If it's a cosmic dream then we can start deducing answers such as there cannot be any boundary to the universe because it's all in mind as a reflection. And multiverse is also possible as the same cosmic mind can dream N number of worls/universes as it's not bound by any real material quantity.
There have been interesting books [1] written on this subject going very deep into above idea which also talk about methods to realize it as experience rather than just as an intelectual exercise.
0: https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-inexplicable-experience... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripura_Rahasya
Re: If the universe is 13.8B years old, how can we see 46B light years away? (2018)
#130If you are turning in bed and can't sleep I'll give you some questions to think about. Even though some are non-sensical in a way, they are a good starting point to ponder about: - Is space really flat (infinite) or curved (finite)? - If it is flat and the universe had the beginning (big bang) then does it just have "potential infinity", by ever-expanding? - If it is curved is it implied that it is encompassed by som…
Is (curved, infinite) sine-like ripples an option?