2
   

The "Big" Bang is misleading...

 
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 09:42 pm
The point I was trying to make was that the statement would make sense if atoms and such weren't expanding. Then youl'd have a refference.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 09:45 pm
Einherjar wrote:
The point I was trying to make was that the statement would make sense if atoms and such weren't expanding. Then youl'd have a refference.


I guess that's true, but if all of space is expanding, then are the atoms expanding also, or are they a constant size?
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 09:55 pm
That's what I was getting at with the shrinking bit. The expansion of the universe could be an expression of a change in the ratio of universe size to some 'constant' size measure. I really don't have a clue, but at least that way I can make sense of it.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 10:09 pm
No expertise here, but I've lost hundred of hours reading about this stuff... and I'm pretty sure the common 'Universe is expanding' statement is in reference actual measurements against a supposed 'constant'... The constant may or may not be expanding along with the entire Universe as well, but that's not what the theory refers to. Upon further thought, if this wasn't the case, what could have been measured? If it were everything, we'd detect no change whatsoever.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 10:10 pm
Point in case.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 11:00 pm
The points aren't expanding. It's only the space between the points which is expanding. The force left over from the bang is nowhere near as powerful now as even gravity is, (the weakest of the four forces.)
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 11:25 pm
it is all about relationships; not 'size' (sounds like this belongs in the 'dating' forum?).

while i'm into 'nothing', rather than an initial 'pea', the size of the preBigBang, 'singularity' is unimportant, and, as you say indefinable; but the relative size of everything which has transpired since, is definitely................'bigger'!
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 06:37 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:

"what could have been measured? If it were everything, we'd detect no change whatsoever."

Good point and absolutely correct. The tape measure would be expending along with everything else. We'd never know, on Tuesday, that using Monday's measurement as a benchmark, we had all grown much taller. Because evrything else had, too.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 07:41 am
Here's a rather concise explanation I think...

Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which established the relationship between matter, space, time and gravity, governs modern cosmology's view of the universe. But when Einstein began to apply his theory to the structure of the universe, he was dismayed to find that it predicted either an expanding or contracting universe--something entirely incompatible with the prevailing notion of a static universe. In what he would later call "the greatest blunder of my life," Einstein added a term called the cosmological constant to his equations that would make his calculations consistent with a static universe.

Einstein admitted his mistake in 1929 when Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were, indeed, receding from the earth, and the further away they were,the faster they were moving. That discovery changed cosmology.

Enter Hubble's Law.

The familiar sound of a train whistle as it recedes into the distance is a consequence of the Doppler Effect. As the train moves away from the listener, the crests of the sound waves are stretched out or shifted, resulting in a lower pitch. The faster the train recedes, the more stretched out the waves become. The same holds true for any wave-emitting object--whether they be sound waves, light waves, or radio waves. Conversely, the wavelength of objects that are moving toward us are shorter than those emitted by an object at rest.

Atoms emit or absorb light in characteristic wavelengths: hydrogen, helium, and all the other atomic elements have their own spectrum signatures. In the early part of this century, Vesto Slipher was studying the spectra of light emitted from nearby galaxies. He noticed that the light coming from many galaxies was shifted toward the red, or longer wavelength, end of the spectrum. The simplest interpretation of this "redshift" was that the galaxies were moving away from us.

Hubbles's Law


Hubble, who had been the first to establish that the universe included many other galaxies outside of our own, noticed something else: the galaxies were receding from us at a velocity proportional to their distance. The more distant the galaxy, the greater its redshift, and therefore the higher the velocity, a relation known as Hubble's Law.

http://http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/Images/hubble_lg.jpg

The velocity v could be determined by multiplying the distance R by H, the Hubble constant, given by the slope of the line in the above graph, in units of kilometers per second per million light years. The Hubble constant describes the universe's rate of expansion.

The apparent linearity of Hubble's Law implies that the universe is uniformly expanding. What does that actually mean?

For one thing, it means that no matter which galaxy we happen to be in, virtually all of the other galaxies are moving away from us (the exceptions are at the local level: gravitational attraction pulls neighboring galaxies, such as Andromeda and the Milky Way, closer together). In other words, it's not as though we here on earth are at the center of the universe and everything else is receding from us. The universe has no "edge" as such.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 01:20 am
That can't ever justfy claiming that the universe expands faster than the speed of light.
0 Replies
 
satt fs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 01:59 am
Nothing but the scale changes. If you are on the surface of a rubber ball, and see that the wave length from a distant point is (proportionally) longer than that from a nearby point, then you must conjecture that the scale of the rubber ball is getting larger.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 02:04 am
satt_fs wrote:
Nothing but the scale changes. If you are on the surface of a rubber ball, and see that the wave length from a distant point is (proportionally) longer than the that from a nearby point, then you must conjecture that the scale of the rubber ball is getting larger.


Alright, now explain how you would calculate a fixed expansion of that rubber ball from those wawelenghts.
0 Replies
 
satt fs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 02:13 am
Quote:
Alright, now explain how you would calculate a fixed expansion of that rubber ball from those wawelenghts.

Simply, it is already given as the Hubble's law.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 02:21 am
Alright, so the "faster than light" number is prior to factoring in relativity, sort of a rest point expansion rate, got it.
0 Replies
 
satt fs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 02:26 am
"[Faster] than light".. The expansion rate of the rubber ball is not limited by the wave length. A wave can be stretched after becoming a line (no more wave).
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 02:51 am
satt_fs wrote:
"[Faster] than light".. The expansion rate of the rubber ball is not limited by the wave length. A wave can be stretched after becoming a line (no more wave).


This I can't make sense of, what do you mean?
0 Replies
 
satt fs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 03:53 am
If the "wave" is a line, it is no more a wave, and as a wave of light it is invisible. But the expansion of the ball can continue even after that situation occured.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 04:49 am
satt_fs wrote:
If the "wave" is a line, it is no more a wave, and as a wave of light it is invisible. But the expansion of the ball can continue even after that situation occured.


How can a wave of light be a line? I'm not following.
0 Replies
 
satt fs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 05:25 am
If the wave length is "infinite", then the "wave" appears to have zero energy, and hence invisible.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 05:34 am
Riiight

Well, I'm sticking to my understanding that the "C+" speed of light for the expansion of a given stretch of the universe is newtonian as opposed to relativistic.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 06:36:29