Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Big Bang has nothing to do with explosions
Please enlighten us.
Wouldn't it be easier to just go take a look at the wiki article?
Or even to type "is the big bang an explosion" into your search bar?
James Webb Telescope Confirms That the Universe Is Expanding at Different Speeds
61–70 of 104 posts
Re: James Webb Telescope Confirms That the Universe Is Expanding at Different Speeds
#62Re: James Webb Telescope Confirms That the Universe Is Expanding at Different Speeds
#63This result has 8.3-sigma confidence, so it's as good as it can get statistically. Even greater confidence than that of the Hubble tension itself. The Hubble Tension is real. The expansion of universe is accelerating.
> The expansion of universe is accelerating. We knew that before. This goes deeper than that. It accelerates in a way that cannot be explained by a constant dark energy density, which is part of our standard model. We have plenty of alternative models that can explain this, but our measurements are not precise enough yet to rule any of them out. Hopefully Euclid will provide data that is.
> We knew that before.
There was an amazing paper on this published on HN a year or three ago that explained at certain discrete points in the future, entire percentages of the known universe will be beyond our reach. It was profoundly beautiful and sad at the same time.
I'll try to dig it up.
Edit: found the post (three years ago) and some of the quotes and figures I pulled from it:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26734913
Edit 2: another commenter had made a note about the Big Rip. I was writing a response, but they unfortunately deleted their (good) comment. I'll include my response below:
> wait until you find out about the Big Rip (paraphrasing)
That one's even wilder. To think every atom of every place and loved one you ever touched would vanish infinitely far away. Every atom and then subatomic particle of your own once corporal body, regardless of its final resting place, torn and scattered.
Last Contact is a great short story if you're in the mood [1].
Then there's vacuum collapse and all the other theories.
I wonder what humans or human descendents 500 years from now will figure out about the universe's ultimate fate.
[1] https://zestfullyblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/last-contact-by-s...
Re: James Webb Telescope Confirms That the Universe Is Expanding at Different Speeds
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The expansion of universe is accelerating. We knew that before. This goes deeper than that. It accelerates in a way that cannot be explained by a constant dark energy density, which is part of our standard model. We have plenty of alternative models that can explain this, but our measurements are not precise enough yet to rule any of them out. Hopefully Euclid will provide data that is.
> We knew that before. There was an amazing paper on this published on HN a year or three ago that explained at certain discrete points in the future, entire percentages of the known universe will be beyond our reach. It was profoundly beautiful and sad at the same time. I'll try to dig it up. Edit: found the post (three years ago) and some of the quotes and figures I pulled from it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item…
[deleted]
Re: James Webb Telescope Confirms That the Universe Is Expanding at Different Speeds
#65This does not seem strange to me, since time does not flow the same everywhere - and phenomena occur at different subjective speeds.
Things like time dilation are accounted for in the measurements.
Re: James Webb Telescope Confirms That the Universe Is Expanding at Different Speeds
#66If the universe expands at different speeds, is it even possible to determine expansion relative to earth since you don’t have something fixed (since everything is at different speeds) to measure earths local expansion against?
Yes, in fact, because the big bang happened everywhere and not in one central place, pretty much every part of space is moving away from Earth, so movement from earth is a pretty good measurement.
Think of it not as things moving apart, but that space, emptiness, is expanding. Like if you laid the universe out on a sheet of rubber and then pulled at the corners. Everything gets further apart and the expansion is happening everywhere
Re: James Webb Telescope Confirms That the Universe Is Expanding at Different Speeds
#67Garbage article, clickbait tile; they're talking about the Hubble tension, not any kind of anisotropy in the Hubble constant. The latter would be actual news.
Re: James Webb Telescope Confirms That the Universe Is Expanding at Different Speeds
#68But what is it expanding into? If the universe is expanding like a balloon then there's some sort of "edge". What is that edge expanding into? Imagine we had a craft that could take us to the edge and you could stand on it, the way you place your finger on the outside of a balloon. If you could stand on the outside/edge of the expanding universe, what would you see, that we're expanding into?
It can't be nothing. Something can't expand into nothing.
Re: James Webb Telescope Confirms That the Universe Is Expanding at Different Speeds
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think that should not be possible? It's a pretty well accepted fact.
I think it is fair to find dark energy disturbing! It disturbs many cosmologists. It is very established empirically but we lack a good explanation.
As far as I understand dark energy/matter is not established, it's just a placeholder as we don't quite know what's missing in our formulas. Isn't it like that?
Re: James Webb Telescope Confirms That the Universe Is Expanding at Different Speeds
#70This result has 8.3-sigma confidence, so it's as good as it can get statistically. Even greater confidence than that of the Hubble tension itself. The Hubble Tension is real. The expansion of universe is accelerating.
> The expansion of universe is accelerating. We knew that before. This goes deeper than that. It accelerates in a way that cannot be explained by a constant dark energy density, which is part of our standard model. We have plenty of alternative models that can explain this, but our measurements are not precise enough yet to rule any of them out. Hopefully Euclid will provide data that is.
If expansion at the big bang started with a rate of X. Could the varying densities at different points cause their expansion to deviate from the original rate?