Live data from Hacker News

Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

esa.int

371–380 of 380 posts

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#371
post #183

The article mentions the cosmic distance ladder, which is one of my favorite things in all of science. How do we know how far away the really far stuff is? It's non-trivial and I find the history fascinating. It all started with knowing the distance from the earth to the sun. Nobody had a clue until Richer and Cassini got within 10% in 1672. Then we nailed it down in 1769 with James Cook's voyage to Tahiti, the prima…

Great comment! Maybe you can help me with a book recommendation? I was recently looking for a book which was basically your comment, but more in depth and covered the last couple thousand years. I wanted a to read about the history of astronomy - yknow, what was the state of the art in, say, 1350 or whatever. If you know of anything, I’d be super interested!

Cosmos by Carl Sagan covers this history. Either the book or the still-excellent TV series.

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#372

Hubble's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law Expansion of the universe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe : > While objects cannot move faster than light, this limitation only applies with respect to local reference frames and does not limit the recession rates of cosmologically distant objects Given that v is velocity in the opposite direction, and c is the constant reference fram…

> How far away in light years does a mirror in space need to be in order to see dinosaurs that existed say 100 million years ago?

A mirror in a vacuum 1ly away will return the photonic signal from t=0 at t=2 light years, with diffraction (due to matter in [solid, liquid, gas, plasma, and superfluid/superconductor] phases describable with superfluid quantum gravity (e.g. Fedi's with Bernoulli pressure))

  # m = meters
  # s = f(decay_rate_of_cesium_atom)
  # c = const x: meters/second
  Time = TimeInLightYears
  
  t_tx = t_transmitted: Time = 0
  t_rx = t_received: Time
  d = distance: Time
  # d == d_ab == d_ba
  
  # t_tx, d, t_rx, 
  test_data = [
    [0, 0, 0.0],
    [0, 2, 1],
    [0, 1, 0.5],
    [-1, 0, None],
    [-100e6, 0, None], # dinosaurs
  ]
  
  @pytest.mark.parametrized('t_tx, d, t_rx', test_data)
  def test_test_data(ttx, d, trx'):
    assert trx == ttx + (2*d)
  
  m = scattering_matrix: # FluidDiffractionTensorMatrix
  
  assert is_YangBaxterMatrix(m)
A water droplet [in space] reflects enough [photonic,] information to recover a modulated signal and also a curvilinear transformation of Escher looking into a crystal ball, with c the speed of light as a consideration only at cosmological distances.

How large of water droplet, a regular or irregular spheroid or reflective and/or lensing matter configuration is necessary to reflect a sufficient amount of photonic information to recover information from cosmological information medium, in terms of constructor theory?

Inverse scattering transform: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_scattering_transform

R-matrix > R-matrix method in quantum mechanics: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-matrix :

> [now generalized for photonic diffraction]

Quantum inverse scattering method > Procedure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_inverse_scattering_met... :

> 1. Take an R-matrix which solves the Yang–Baxter equation.

> 2. Take a representation of an algebra T_R satisfying the RTT relations. [[clarification needed]]

> 3. Find the spectrum of the generating function t(u) of the centre of T_R

> 4. Find correlators

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tachyons aren't a thing. Tachyons are sci-fi nonsense. Nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light. This does not hold for the universe itself. It can and does expand faster than the speed of light, using specific reference frames (i.e., big enough). So, space can increase FTL. Particles do not travel faster than light tho, that is nonsense.

Take a star in a region of the universe that recedes from us at 3c. In what sense is the star not traveling faster than the speed of light relative to us?

.

  v   - c 

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#374

Hubble's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law Expansion of the universe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe : > While objects cannot move faster than light, this limitation only applies with respect to local reference frames and does not limit the recession rates of cosmologically distant objects Given that v is velocity in the opposite direction, and c is the constant reference fram…

> do we account for velocity in determining whether light traveling at c towards earth will ever reach us? As far as I know this is not necessary because the speed of light is constant regardless of the velocity of both the source and the observer (this is Einstein's special relativity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity )

> Expansion of the universe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe :

>> While objects cannot move faster than light, this limitation only applies with respect to local reference frames and does not limit the recession rates of cosmologically distant objects

Then the length traveled changes for two photons emitted when they cross the starting line at different velocities:

  const d = distance = 1
  # d_start = 0
  # d_finish = d

  c: Velocity   # of a photon in a vacuum
  v1: Velocity  # of photon emission source 1
  v2: Velocity  # of photon emission source 2
  
  v1 + c != v2 + c

  distance / (v1 + c) ?= distance / (v2 + c)

  ((v1 + c)*t) - ((v2+c)*t) ?!= 0
Should (v + c) be prematurely reduced to just (c), with a confirmed universal expansion rate?

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#375

Hubble's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law Expansion of the universe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe : > While objects cannot move faster than light, this limitation only applies with respect to local reference frames and does not limit the recession rates of cosmologically distant objects Given that v is velocity in the opposite direction, and c is the constant reference fram…

Tachyons aren't a thing. Tachyons are sci-fi nonsense. Nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light. This does not hold for the universe itself. It can and does expand faster than the speed of light, using specific reference frames (i.e., big enough). So, space can increase FTL. Particles do not travel faster than light tho, that is nonsense.

If the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, how are particles not traveling faster than the speed of light indeed with zero acceleration relative to the expansion?

If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, particle states are correlated after a photonic beam splitter; if you measure entangled photons after a beam splitter, their states are still linked.

If virtual particle states are entangled with particle states in black holes or through ER=EPR bridges, is there effectively FTL?

There is FTL within dielectric antennae.

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tachyons aren't a thing. Tachyons are sci-fi nonsense. Nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light. This does not hold for the universe itself. It can and does expand faster than the speed of light, using specific reference frames (i.e., big enough). So, space can increase FTL. Particles do not travel faster than light tho, that is nonsense.

Well, we have (virtual) particles that can travel backwards in time, without breaking causality. There's no proof that Tachyons exist, they are purely hypothetical, but they are not outright nonsense.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38045112#38047149 :

> from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35877402#35886041 : "EM Wave Polarization Transductions" Lt. Col. T.E Bearden (1999) :

>> Physical observation (via the transverse photon interaction) is the process given by applying the operator ∂/∂t to (L^3)t, yielding an L3 output

[and "time-polarized photons"]

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#377
post #334
post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the "big crunch" theory. It's been pretty dubious for quite a while now though.

The "big crunch" wikipedia says that it's an idea about the end of the universe, where expansion will reverse and everything will collapse back in on itself. That is not what I'm asking. I'm asking if expansion and contraction could fluctuate in perpetuity, like stress waves through a block of jello.

We believe that the universe is accurately described by the Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric, for which we have good reasons, and which only allows a few trajectories of the scale factor. I'm not aware of any model with a sine-like scale factor, but there are people considering cyclical cosmologies. But they would still be a series of big bangs and big crunches.

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#378
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we’ve been using the 13.8 billion cosmological age estimate ever since I started brushing up my layman's understanding of the subject. I remembered the age of the universe as as 13.7 billion years, but I wasn't sure why that was. Well, the initial WMAP results in 2003 supported an age of 13.7 billion years. Later results nudged this upwards to 13.8 billion years. Of course, all the results have error bars.

> Of course, all the results have error bars. Not to mention the underlying philosophical assumptions, such that the "rate of time" has been constant across all of... time. Aka: How do we know a "year" 13 Billion "years" ago bears any resemblance to one now? What would it mean for it not to?

Could you elaborate on your questions? As it stands right now, they don't sound well-defined/answerable. ("rate of time" etc.)

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#379
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know that galaxies are accelerating away from us and not moving at constant speed? There's a more basic question: How do we know the galaxies are moving? It seems (I haven't seen any other response, like... ever) that we have one and only one way to measure the speed of galaxies: the red shift. It's impossible to triangulate those huge distances and the time scale would also be a barrier, so no way of confi…

You're not going to get a simple answer because the answer is quite complex. Astronomy is the paleontology of photons. You should take an astronomy course if you really want to know, but essentially a "ladder" was built of distances, starting with the very near and slowly building outward using various techniques and discoveries of physics as they became available. This is called the cosmic distance ladder . You star…

> It's quite fascinating, but I can't really dump out an entire book into a comment.

Speaking of which, do you happen to know a good book which illuminates this whole story step by step? I have yet to find one which doesn't start with "Let us assume an FLRW metric…"

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#380
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a deflated baloon with two dots drawn close to each other. Now inflate it; the dots didn't move but the plane that they were drawn/positioned on did.

I understand that concept. I'm asking, how can you materially tell the difference?

Here is one difference: The "velocities" suggested by an expansion of space can be well above the speed of light whereas classical velocities cannot.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-speed-of-li...

Post reply on HN