Nice gravitational lens observation! We're hoping to use the same technique with the Sun to observe exoplanets by launching a fleet of small satellites to 547 AU (80 billion km / ~3 light days). The craft would sample the distorted Einstein ring around our Sun from that vantage point, then combine and reconstruct an image of the disk of an Earth-like exoplanet up to 100 light-years beyond, at a resolution of 25 kilom…
Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?
61–70 of 252 posts
Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?
#62I've always been puzzled by the estimated age of the universe at being 13 billion years. That's just the size of the observable universe, correct? Isn't there a future horizon beyond which light will not currently reach us?
No, 13 billion years is the age of the universe. The observable universe is a sphere with a diameter of ~93 billion light years (And is likely to only be a subset of the entire universe).
We cannot prove the absence of light in a place that is already so far away that it's light will never reach us. Do you agree? We can prove what we can observe, and from that proof we can make inferences about what we cannot observe.
The entire premise of dating our universe is based on its observed rate of expansion. This was accomplished by extrapolating data from observable light and tracing it back to the so called Big Bang.
I see a lot of problems with this one dimensional assumption, which to me seem really obvious.
First of all, let's assume that we actually got it right this time and accurately traced light back to the Big Bang - how can anyone be sure that it was the first and only Big Bang?
Pangea, the super continent, for instance - many may think of as a single place and time in history, but in fact it's more likely that many Pangea's have come and gone in various states as the planet roils on. There will likely be another in the far future.
Perhaps the Big Bang was merely a "localized" event and there are Big Bangs occuring in distant places whose light will never reach us. Perhaps we have gone through many Big Bang / Big Crunch cycles. We simply cannot prove it one way or the other, and so to take a strong position on this would be unscientific.
More food for thought - imagine that the universe has already been through a near infinite number of Big Bang / Big Crunch cycles, it begs the question, do we reset the clock every time or do we let it run?
In my opinion, currently accepted theory is akin to believing that the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around us. We were wrong about that too.
Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?
#63Isn't it possible that the galaxy is much younger and it actually moved faster than light? I seem to remember reading that "islands" of spacetime could do that.
Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?
#64> The thing is, where they found it is not normal: The light we see from it left the galaxy 12.4 billion years ago, meaning we’re seeing it as it was when the Universe itself was only 1.4 billion years old! It's not confusing at all. It's because the long-worshipped, conventional big bang theory is wrong. The universe doesn't have a beginning or end. It's eternal. The original sin of that theory is that it's tainted…
How do you explain the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe, i.e. that the farther away something is, the more redshifted it gets?
How do you explain the cosmic microwave background radiation enveloping us in all directions?
Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?
#65Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, 13 billion years is the age of the universe. The observable universe is a sphere with a diameter of ~93 billion light years (And is likely to only be a subset of the entire universe).
I have a question: Just over 20 years ago when the accepted view was that the expansion of the universe was slowing down, would you have backed that position with as much certainty as you are backing this one? That the universe is a mere 13.7 billion years old? We cannot prove the absence of light in a place that is already so far away that it's light will never reach us. Do you agree? We can prove what we can observ…
This was always my view of the state of the universe from childhood onward. The Void of space is infinite, and within that Void our universe could be one of an infinite number of other universes that we will never know about because they are so far outside our ability to observe them. Perhaps there is as as much relative distance between universes in the Void as there is between galaxies in our own universe.
This concept is the only way I've ever been able to accept that our own universe has a measurable size.
Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?
#67All right hackernews. Genuine question, not sure where else to ask. If galaxies and stars at the other “end” formed out of matter resulting from the big bang, just as the matter we are made of, how did we get here at the same time that that matter got there? Is it because speeds faster than light are possible, and around the big bang all matter was spread near instantly at that speed? I don't understand how matter of…
this is because things aren’t ‘moving apart’— space itself is expanding (into what? nobody knows). it’s not that the galaxies are being propelled apart from a force in a particular place either; everything is expanding away from everything else . On the traditional balloon model, the surface of the balloon represents space itself. Those dots on the surface of an expanding balloon are not moving relative to space (the…
I have a terrifying theory on this (granted, the Earth will be long gone). What if the universe is not actually expanding in the sense that it is being propelled by an initial explosion, but instead falling towards a much greater mass - the end of time so to speak, where all mass ends. Considering that gravity is a "weak force", the scale of such a mass makes me uncomfortable to think about.
Perhaps what we observe as the fabric of space-time itself "stretching" is actually a similar process to what happens to matter as it enters a black hole?
Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a reference to Douglas Adams' absurdist Sci Fi series, "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," which is amazing and I recommend everyone read! https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13.The_Ultimate_Hitchhik... (The first book is "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," there are 5 books, one of which is titled "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe")
It bugs me that no one realizes that the “end” refers not to the “edge” but at the closing of the universe - the restaurant is in a frozen time bubble that can watch the universe end.
Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?
#69I've always been puzzled by the estimated age of the universe at being 13 billion years. That's just the size of the observable universe, correct? Isn't there a future horizon beyond which light will not currently reach us?
No, 13 billion years is the age of the universe. The observable universe is a sphere with a diameter of ~93 billion light years (And is likely to only be a subset of the entire universe).
According to [1], the ratio is about 5.56E-10, so I guess this would contribute about a year to the age of the universe, so.. not that much. I guess I answered my own question.
However, this does pose an interesting question about the age of the universe in extreme gravity wells doesn't it? Or am I misunderstanding something?
[1] https://www.quora.com/How-much-time-on-earth-is-1-hour-in-sp...
Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?
#70All right hackernews. Genuine question, not sure where else to ask. If galaxies and stars at the other “end” formed out of matter resulting from the big bang, just as the matter we are made of, how did we get here at the same time that that matter got there? Is it because speeds faster than light are possible, and around the big bang all matter was spread near instantly at that speed? I don't understand how matter of…
this is because things aren’t ‘moving apart’— space itself is expanding (into what? nobody knows). it’s not that the galaxies are being propelled apart from a force in a particular place either; everything is expanding away from everything else . On the traditional balloon model, the surface of the balloon represents space itself. Those dots on the surface of an expanding balloon are not moving relative to space (the…
Space itself is getting larger, everywhere, all at once. The scale factor of the universe is getting larger. New space is constantly being "made". Every second, every kilometer in the universe grows by 2.2×10^-18 centimeters. If no other forces were in play, it'd carry everything along with it and pull everything a bit further apart. However, local forces like gravity and the strong and even the weak nuclear force are more than sufficient to hold everything together despite this, so the expansion cannot be locally observed.
That's a small number, but the universe is very big. The hubble constant is usually represented in km/s/Mpsc (kilometers per second per megaparsec), and in those units it comes out to 68. So, every second, every Megaparsec in the universe grows by 68 kilometers. The more parsecs between us and some distant thing, the more space is growing between us and them every second.
For reference, our nearest galactic neighbor is Andromeda, which is 67 kpc away, so about 100 meters of new space is created between our galaxies every second. That being said, Andromeda is heading towards the Milky Way at 110 km/s, so it easily overcomes this and will crash into us any day now^W^W^Win 4.5 billion years.