A Gallaxy disappearing forever.

[xelasnave]

Put your thinking caps on make a cuppa and ponder upon this☺

Some background...having a chat on another forum re The Big Bang Theory and how it is clums6y attempt to incorporate the pagan cosmic egg concept into science...for a laugh☺

Anyways it occurred to me our conclusion that the universe is expanding relies upon interptetation of red shift...and there was a time where folk proposed what I will call "tired light" hypothesies where red shift was seen to be caused by some sort of resistence being encountered by light such that energy is reduced and it is those mechanics that produces red shift...those ideas are today seen as near crack pot but in fact were presented as faulsifiable at the time...and this part of the history of cosmology is , as all of it is, most interesting.

So lets assume only for the purpose of a discussion here that we are faced with two competing propositions ..tired light static universe or red shift due to cosmic expansion...how can we tell if the universe is expanding by other observations.
Well I have it.
We observe a gallaxy at the very edge of the observable universe at a point where it will cross over to that part of the universe we can only call the unobservable universe.
Would this be possible is the question.
Not in a humans life time comes to mind so what would be the velocity at the edge of the observable universe...how long would it take a gallaxy to finally disappear.
Further can we observe to the edge of the observable universe ....
Alex

[xelasnave]

And thinking about it more...should we would we or could we expect to find galaxies more tightly packed given our onservation is of a time where expansion has not moved them away from each other.
Alex

[Imme]

Alex....it’s Sunday morning, I had a late one last night, I’m a little hung over...........and those couple paragraphs have made my headache worse.

Please refrain fro posting such in-depth posts on a Sunday......I was just hoping to see pretty pictures this morning.

[RD400C]

Alex is on the case - The James Webb Telescope will seek out exactly what he is looking for.

[xelasnave]

I found out something I really should have picked up on years ago...
I thought the Steady State Model went for a non expanding universe but it has in common with the Big Bang Model expansion...it seems it is the Static universe model that is without expansion.
And another unteresting aspect Hubble would not publicly say he favoured an expanding universe model which is rather funny given it was his onservations that were used to promote an expanding universe.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edwin-Hubble
Alex

[xelasnave]

This is from the above site ...take note of the last sentence.

Starting with Albert Einstein’s 1917 paper “Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorien” (“Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity”), a number of physicists, mathematicians, and astronomers had applied general relativity to the large-scale properties of the universe. The redshift-distance relation established by Hubble and Humason was quickly meshed by various theoreticians with the general relativity-based theory of an expanding universe. The result was that by the mid-1930s the redshift-distance relationship was generally interpreted as a velocity-distance relationship such that the spectral shifts of the galaxies were a consequence of their motions. But Hubble throughout his career resisted the definite identification of the redshifts as velocity shifts. Hubble hoped to shed light on this issue by investigating the numbers of extragalactic nebulae that lay at various distances in space. Hubble conducted these studies in part with the distinguished mathematical physicist and chemist Richard C. Tolman. Writing in the mid-1930s, however, Hubble and Tolman stressed the uncertainty of the observational data.
They declined to choose publicly and unambiguously between a static and a non-static model of the universe. (Hubble later argued that the evidence seemed to favour the concept of a stationary universe, but he did not definitely rule out an expanding universe.)

Alex

[Atmos]

What you’re talking about here Alex is the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). It is the edge of the observable universe that has been red shifted from the point in time when the universe was no longer a plasma until the microwave background that we detect today :)

[xelasnave]

Thanks for your input Colin.
It is hard to get ones head around this ...well it is for me...but the CBR...keeps coming it seems.
Will there be a time when it will stop?

Alex

[Stonius]

Jon, I'm rolling down the street laughing!:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Stonius]

My (admittedly half assed) understanding of such things is that objects do not dissapear, but rather, fade away as the wavelength of their emitted light is stretched to longer and longer wavelengths. I assume the particle nature of light would lead to a point where we get photons that are at such long wavelengths and arrive so irregularly that they are impossible to separate from noise.

Markus

[xelasnave]

Hi Markus
The way I understand things is the universe is expanding and at a point or place is expanding relative to us faster than the speed of light so anything past that point can give out light but the light gets further away..it can never reach us...think man on a truck with a hose pointing behind at you and he is going away...the water he directs at you although travling in your direction may hit you at first but falls shorter and shorter as he goes away.

The CBR is different in so far as its continually coming.
Alex

[Stonius]

Sort of, but that analogy doesn't take into account the extreme ends of red-shift. For example, could we ever detect a photon who's wavelength was the width of the observable universe?

Markus

[xelasnave]

Yes but not by any method known to exist.

I doubt if you could get such a wave length simply as the goal post is always on the move☺...I think when a photos energy is that diminished it could not go anywhere and would accumulate with others like it to form dark matter...and it would take a lot of them because they are massless.

Alex

[Stonius]

<Alex quietly solves the problem of Dark Matter/Energy on IIS>

And why not? Maybe there are lots of photons that have energies that are not zero, yet with wavelengths too long to be detected.

Come to think on it, A photon with a wavelength equivalent to the size of the observable universe would have the highest probability of detection wherever where the observer happens to be, since every observer is at the centre of their own observable universe. To exist within the observable universe, yet have a wavelength of equivalent size *to the observable universe, places the probability wave at the centre of that same observable universe.

But I think I'm correct in saying that Heisenberg's conjugate variables would mean that a precise knowledge of the location of such a particle would therefore also mean that we couldn't *also know the energy of such a photon.

I suppose - and I'm thinking very up in the air now - that since it is not possible to have a photon with greater wavelength than the universe itself, that one could consider the wavelength of such a photon to be a 'base frequency' of the universe. Higher frequency photons would constructively or destructively interfere with the 'primordial' photon creating interference diffraction patterns (this would not be the case if the lower extent of wavelength was infinite and it were possible to have a photon with a wavelength longer than the observable universe). Perhaps detection of interference patterns would tell us if there is much energy at these lower wavelengths?

Interesting to ponder, but I'm probably just talking a load of old Bahtinov, as I don't have any kind of qualification in the area. Some long-suffering physics professor will probably chime in and slap me around the head for thinking such things, and fair enough too. :-)

Markus

[xelasnave]

Firstly dont listen to Heisenberg he has been discredited due to animal cruelty.
You can get aroundcthe uncertainty issue by getting ywo particles check the speed of one and the position of the other and average the result.
I think you are on the right track.I will add your name to the paper if you can get me a tux for prize night.
Alex

[Stonius]

I've only got the one, but happy to split it with you. Do you want to wear the pants or the jacket? FWIW, I don't remeber the 'Wooden Spoon for Physics' awards having a formal dress code? :lol:

[Atmos]

It is largely because of the time of the universe in which we live. Red shift is determined by the distance that light has to travel before reaching us. As the distance between us and the CMB increases, as more time passes it will reshoot more and more.

We currently call it the Cosmic MICROWAVE Background but over the course of millions of years from now that will stretch further and eventually become the Cosmic Radio Background and over many many many more tens to hundreds of billions of years, it will disappear entirely; red shirted out of detectable existence.

[blindman]

If it is only red shift and no blue shift - what does it tell you? :-)

[xelasnave]

I think M31 is blue shifted.

Maybe there are others?

But if all we observe are red shifted galaxies I think that under the Big Bang Theory that means the Universe is expanding...under other models it could mean the discredited tired light idea is correct...I don't know what it means under say ancient Summerian cosmology.

Are you are suggesting the universe is expanding or do you have something else in mind?


I like red it is the colour of blood....mmm blood.:tasdevil:
alex

[el_draco]

The composition of the early universe is different...

[Stonius]

I always think it's weird how we say the universe is homogenous on all scales, when it plainly isn't.

On the smaller scales (that of a single galaxy or close cluster of galaxies and smaller) the universe is contracting. Think about it. Gas and dust contracts to form stars and planets that then often form clusters of stars which all ultimately revolve around the galactic disk. Eventually, the planets will be consumed by their stars which will be in turn consumed by the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way.

At scales less than a single galaxy, the universe sucks, at scales greater than that, it blows, if you take my meaning.

The only similar thing I can think of in nature is the weak magnetic force which holds atomic nuclei together, except when they are too big and heavy. Then they spontaneously decay into lighter elements which are ejected at high energies called radioactive decay. In this case too, the weak magnetic force sucks until there are too many protons and neutrons, then it 'blows'.

Perhaps if gravity had a limited range it would explain the expansion of the universe?

Markus

[silv]

Article from November 1st 2018, not yet accepted. https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401147.pdf
It discusses why the heck the Peculiar Galaxies NGC 7603+B have different red shifts, lower ones, than 2 bright objects (possible quasars) within the filament connecting them. Tired light is mentioned, too.

The article is a follow up of one of the same title published in Nature in 2003 or thereabouts. It doesn't end with a "conclusion" but only with a "summary".

Maybe the expanding universe in academical circles is still much more of a hypothesis than what us non-pro folks with pubsci "non-knowledge" gained from newspapers believe?

And maybe the 2 possible quasars, before we detected them, went to the time horizon of the universe... and then ran back to tell their elders, NGC 7603+B, about it.
What we see as bigger redshift is actually their excited storytelling, jumpin up and down, tugging the sleeves of granny and grammy NGC 7603+B to get their attention.

[JA]

V. Good - Gravity v Explosion, resp. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Best
JA

[xelasnave]

Note my comment ...gravity does not suck...the force of attraction is a fundamental incorrect assumption.
No experiment exists establishing such a force.
Take the time to wonder how such a force could be communicated and if you can suggest a nechanism please let me know.

Without saying that GR is flawed at some point we must realise it looks somewhat from the inside out whereas I suspect to understand gravity we should look from the outside to the inside.
I suggest gravity works as a type of pressure which will cause nearby onjects to get closer and distant objects to move apart.

A pressure system can only result in the gallaxy curves we observe.

Dark matter and Dark energy are no longer necessary on the assumption the math will support my general overview.

Alex

[JA]

Well of course it doesn't suck. It's not a vacuum cleaner:D. I understood Stonius to be using a little artistic licence, hence the "if you take my meaning" at the end of his sentence to create in my mind a catchy punch-line . I understood him to be referring to the gravitational force directed towards the centre of mass.

Best
JA

[xelasnave]

Well I saw suck and nothing else and that is enough to prompt a rant...I was not aware of what was actually being said or why until you took the time to explain...
And even now my mind is not connected to the conversation☺

I am travelling in a car and not thinking about much really☺

When I stop I will go back and try to join in by reading what is being posted.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Yes I say gravitational force is non suck in the context of equating suck with attraction.
Folk thing objects are attracted and I say that is wrong...thats my point...I dont know if its relevant but I like to point it out.

In my view the key to understanding everything lays in realising there


s no force of attraction.aa

[JA]

There exists a gravitational force between masses. Its magnitude can be had from Newton's Law of "Universal" Gravitation F=GxM1xM2/(r^2). You can measure the effect with the right equipment. Design an experiment and you can show it exists.

Best
JA

[xelasnave]

Sure.
My point is this.
How does one object "tell" the other its details, such as presumably its mass, its position and by inference if its position is changing (velocity) and any other information that dials in the magnitude of this alledged force.
And does the other object send back a message acknowledging all that information and set out how they will interact with each other.
My view is that for a firce of attraction we need some mechanism that includes a thete and back communication...the gravity☺ of what I am trying to point out seems so simple one will dismiss thinking about it but the consequence of a there and back communication must suggest these communication take place at twice c if the overall responce is onserved, as it is at c.
And dont get me wrong our math for gravity is excellent I just look for how the force really works.
Anyways having thought about the difficulty of a supposed there and back communication U thought a kenetic interaction to be more reasonable...but one yhing at a time you may not perceive the problem I recognise and if so there is little point in suggesting a mechanism that would get around the problem of an attraction system...attraction requirumg a there and back method of communication.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Sorry about the mistakes still being driven around and it is such a small phone.
Alex

[JA]

Well you can think of it as communication if you like, but it's an interaction at the atomic and subatomic level between the masses and their constituent particles and their state that create the attraction.

You mention an "alledged force", so to cut to the chase - Do you believe that there is an attractive force between two masses or not? (Let's say two real-world (non-ferromagnetic) objects you could pick up and hold in opposite hands. Anything from a few grams to however many kilograms you could hold). Will there be an attraction between such objects or not?

Best
JA

[xelasnave]

I have said or at least that is my recollection that I believe there is not force of attraction between masses...if there is and you know how it works please let me in on the specifics.
What particle leaves mass 1 and what information does it carry to mass 2...bosons I think...in the vase of gravity we have the hypothetical graviton...

[xelasnave]

Damn ruff ride...

Anyways for a force of attraction one mass must say to the other mass...come here...how is that achieved.
Alex

[xelasnave]

I think the standard model says one mass passes a photon.
Anyways not conducive to typing so I will go and let others ponder and present a view.
Alex

[JA]

Alex, there are 2 questions that you have raised there to be clear:

Q1. Whether there is an attractive force between two masses?

YES there is. It was measured experimentally way back in the 18th century by Henry Cavendish and has been replicated many times since. The best way to accept something you don't believe is to look at the physical evidence and experiment.You could do it today and possibly much more accurately or easily with different techniques and equipment.

Q2. If there is (such an attractive force) and you know how it works please let me in on the specifics.

Sure, I answered that in my previous and last posts, in terms of the magnitude, direction and the atomic/subatomic/particle state basis for the force. Beyond that, there's always an Atomic Physics Lab, CERN etc... :D

Best
JA

[xelasnave]

Thanks JA
I dont think yhe Cavendish experiment proves the force is attraction ...it is asserted...I could say...the experiment proves the masses were pushed together by an external force and in either case neither side has explained how their alledged force works.

[xelasnave]

I will read up on bosons again but I have read it all and from recollection the problem I see is not solved with the standard model.
Your input has been fantastic so I thank you.
I will be off the air for a while.
Alex

[JA]

Good Luck with that:D... whether they are pushed together OR pulled together, they are attracted by a measurable force, which if you wanted to do so experimentally, you could compare with theory. ... QED

Best
JA

[Stonius]

I thought all electromagnetic forces were mediated by Bosons? The Graviton hasn't been discovered yet, but neither had the Higgs Boson until recently.

[xelasnave]

This is rather simple but like many simple things may be effect to get a feel for the matter.

Force carriers
07/16/13 By Kelly Izlar
Particles communicate with one another through force carriers.

Force carriers are particles that act like messages exchanged between other particles.

Scientists have discovered force carriers for three of the four known forces: electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force. They are still searching for experimental evidence of the force carrier for the fourth force, gravity.

Particles communicate with one another in different languages, as defined by the kind of force carriers they exchange. Two particles can communicate with one another only if they are exchanging force carriers that convey a language they both understand. For example, a charged particle like an electron responds to force carriers for the electromagnetic force, but a neutral particle like a neutrino does not.

Sometimes two particles must be very close together to communicate via force carriers. They can “whisper” a message that would be too soft to extend over a long distance. Electrons and neutrinos can exchange W bosons, which are force carriers for the weak force, only when they are close to one another.

A force carrier can convey different messages. Protons and electrons, which have opposite charges, are attracted to one another through the electromagnetic force. The particles that carry that force, called photons, act like love notes. They draw the protons and electrons together.

When two electrons, which both have a negative charge, communicate through electromagnetism, the photons act more like hate mail. They push the electrons apart.

Alex

[xelasnave]

I think you are correct as to your first assumption ... that is if you are going to take the standard model over my ideas☺

I dont know the latest in the hunt for the graviton I will have a look.
Alex

[xelasnave]

It seems that there is no hope in finding one as the equipment required would involve enlisting a mass similar to that of Jupiter.
And then the GR folk really dont want it found as that would put them all out of work from yhe little I can understand.
So if this is indeed the case there will remain a large hole in the standard model.
Alex

[silv]

But they or "we" are trying to detect actual gravity communication.
Think of LIGO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO as antenna for that special language / communication medium, no?

I like the way you think and express your thoughts. But it's a bit harsh assuming we are not trying to detect it at all.


LIGO doesn't necessarily have to be the antenna for actual gravitational communication.
It might "only" be an antenna for the result of such a communication when it influences its environment of known-to-us communicators and makes them whisper to each other: "Hey, have you heard what happened in a galaxy far far away?"

The disturbing thing - in your line of thought disturbing, I assume - with LIGO's 12 detections is that the sources were of 2 items which only "exist" theoretically to explain away gaps in the standard model: mergers of a) black holes and b) neutron stars.

[xelasnave]

Hi Annette

I dont think LIGO is at all interested in anything but a GR explaination...but I am trying to form opinions on matters I dont understand really.

But it does seem that if you mention " a mechanical explanation" or "the graviton" GR folk get somewhat defensive...but as I said I dont know.

I am not a fan of LIGO.

I see no virtue in continuing looking for gravity waves...they found gravity waves and can tell two black holes merged billions of light years away...who cares.

Lets spend the money on exploration of every place in the solar system to find life and at least understand different geologies.

Alex

[blindman]

Something else

[xelasnave]

There are about 200 others but M90, M86 and M98 are most notable from ourclocal group.
Alex

[silv]

Hi Alex,
but you do care. You want to understand how gravity works and how it speaks. Detecting a symptom of a black hole merger here on earth helps understanding more. Not you and me. But them who are doing it professionally.

Why not do both?
Even geologies in our solar system were and are affected by gravity. So understanding more of the latter expands knowledge of the former, as well.
ALMA was used to detect protoplanetary dust clouds, or rings rather, around young stars. Got published in a special issue of 12 articles just a few days ago.
https://export.arxiv.org/find/all/1/ti:+AND+resolution+AND+angular+AND+ high+AND+at+AND+substructures+AND+t he+disk/0/1/0/all/0/1


That helps understanding our solar system, too, I reckon. And in its wake maybe narrows down the search for ET on exoplanets.

But I get it that you're cranky that they or we are not focusing enough on gravity, rocks, dolphins and all the rest. *flower bouquet smiley*

[xelasnave]

Hi Annette.

I am a old man who cant live with others...its my job to be cranky and critical of all things and I take my job seriously☺.
And its hard work as there is just so much that deserves a pasting☺
I already know how gravity works☺ and I dont need any information that may conflict with what I already know...I dont want to have to sort thru and realise that this or that agrees with me and disregard anything that does not fit my view☺.
There would be just so much to throw out☺.

But finding life or not would be neat.
There may be an advanced civilization under some of that ice out there and yet we think recording a short bleeep and speculating one black hole was this big and the other was that big and they were 2 billion light years away...yawn...which means it was 2 billion years in the past....old news...not interesting, not useful and you cant mine it.

Thanks for the link and you have a nice day.
Alex

[xelasnave]

What I would find interesting is speculation as to the physical process in a black hole merger explained to show how the hypothetical gravitons crossed space to cause a fluctuation in space time and caused the beeeep.
Mass tells space how to move..how? How is that message transmitted?
I want move than observing the results I would like to know what is going on at a particle level...I enjoy the show but would likecto know how is the magic done.
Alex

[xelasnave]

For Blindman..7000 maybe

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/blue-shifted-galaxies.93240/#post-2489760

[blindman]

Maybe you will have interest to see this interview...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=554TOFX3FW8
Let me know, interesting, isn't it?

[Stonius]

I'm not sure I understand your objection. Do you accept Bosons operate in the mediation of other forces (strong, weak and electromagnetic)?

If so, is it a matter of distance (but photons travel large distances already, so there is precedent for that too).

If not, do you have issue with the idea of all Bosons?

Best

Markus

[xelasnave]

Most interesting.

It is really scarey to think there are people like that out there...however they seem to be contained in nice facilities that look normal ...I thought no bars on the windows was a nice feature and I guess part of a philosophy to give these poor people some sence of dignity even though they are clearly insane.

I was on the edge of my seat waiting for proof of a flat Earth but sadly they must have run out of time.

Thanks for presenting the vid as it makes you realise just how lucky one is to be normal well adjusted and non delusional.

It is so sad folk like these lie and distort the simplest of facts to pad out a delusion that has no basis in reality.

They seem harmless but if folk like that were allowed they would herald in the next dark ages.
These attacks on science is alarming.


But one thing they are right in so far as each of us are the center of our observable universe but sadly those guys would not undetstand my meaning at all.

The author is a liar the interviewer is a fool they should remain locked up and well sedated.

Thank you for the vid once again but it does have me worried about leaving the house as it reminds me how many crazy people there are in the world.

And thanks for probably getting my thread closed by introducting religion which is against the rules ...you could be banned for a blatant breach of rules.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Hi Markus

I do not have a problem with bosons at all.

The reason I refer to the graviton as hypothetical is because it is indeed hypothetical and the reason I ask for speculation is because as far as I am aware there is no model speculating with a hypothetical particle...a y views can only be speculative I would have thought.

What I am asking is ...does anyone have an idea how the boson may work and show how they would work in a black hole merger...a quantum explaination of gravity waves.

I am not disagreeing with anything I am just trying to be respectful of the science which has not included a graviton as far as I am aware.

What I am looking for is ...the current thinking is the graviton may work this way or that way and there would be millions or a few crossing space to regulate or pass on the message of gravity.

So no I worded my post out of respect for science not a lack of such or a disbelief in any aspect of the standard model.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Perhaps I should encourage members to look at the vid presented by blind man with a recommendation not to turn it off a short time in as one can get a hint at the problem science must recognise.

I saw a "talk" given by the chap in the vid and it is most alarming that his message is being told which is no more than lies lies and more lies.
His game is to take science and manipulate it and also various experiments to give a science approach to the destruction of science.

It is no wonder that flat earth is being taken up by idiots when folk like the chap in the vid is making folk think science is bunk.

The movement this chap appeals to must be seen as a real threat to civilization and if you think its all just hsrmless fun just think how the movement plays a huge roll in wheter or not action will be taken re climate change...to name one example.

But when you get folk presenting that the world is stationary and the center of the universe dont just write them off as nutters, which they are, but realise they appeal to between 2O% and 80% of the polulation of the most influential nation in the world.

Their lobbying will have more effect as time passes and as this mob gathers on their mind will be a good old book burning and perhaps a couple of public hangings.

Want to understand why Trump is in office well understand it is folk like these in the vid who we must thank.

Our rules here prevent a discussion but please realise that the problem is real and it is growing and promises a slide into another period of dark ages.

I hope this post does not get me banned but if it does the problem is greater than is healthy.
Alex