Breaking the infinite pigeon hole theory

[KC Strom]

Thank you, Rod & David G. Franks.

Something just doesn't seem right to me. I don't have an alternative idea, but my spidey-senses are tingling.

Things (even space itself) doing anything at a speed faster than light itself gives me pause. Oh well. Brighter minds than mine are figuring it out.

 

[David-J-Franks]

Now my head officially hurts (and its not even Saturday or Sunday morning). Three questions:

1. All of these distance calculations are based upon observed redshift as the key variable in the equations?
2. If a photon left GN-z11 today it would take 32 billion light years to reach us? Does that 32 include the effect of expansion from the day it leaves (today) that occurs during its transit?
3. Current accepted science is that space is expanding 3 dimensionally at a rate well in excess of the speed of light.?

1. It would be nice if rod could expand a little more for this question

2.If my example in post 23 is correct the distancnce of GN-z11 was a bit over 42 million light years away from our yet to be location when it emitted the light we see, yet it still took 13.3 billion years to get here. So keeping the same ratio, something 32 billion light years away would take 10,000 billion years to reach us. Where GN-z11 is now space is expanding up to 2 or 3 times the speed of light (rough guess)away from us

3. Yes, the edge of the observable universe is receeding about 3.37 times the speed of light. (radius 46.5 billion light years / by 13.8 billion years it took to get there).

 

[David-J-Franks]

Thank you, Rod & David G. Franks.

Something just doesn't seem right to me. I don't have an alternative idea, but my spidey-senses are tingling.

Things (even space itself) doing anything at a speed faster than light itself gives me pause. Oh well. Brighter minds than mine are figuring it out.

Special relativity puts an upper limit of light speed on things travelling through space, but it places no limit on the speed of expansion of space itself, kind of cheating if you ask me. Bear in mind that space is a 'something', it's not a complete void, it consists of quantum foam and quantum fields and who knows what else.

 

[David-J-Franks]

So, we think we see light that has traveled 46.5 Glyrs, but it did so in 13.5 Glyrs?

No, it might help if you see my example of galaxy GN-z11 in post 23. That is the furthest and oldest light we can see, and it's only travelled 13.3 billion light-years, whereas the object itself is now 32 billion light years away.

 

[Helio]

Now my head officially hurts (and its not even Saturday or Sunday morning). Three questions:

1. All of these distance calculations are based upon observed redshift as the key variable in the equations?
2. If a photon left GN-z11 today it would take 32 billion light years to reach us? Does that 32 include the effect of expansion from the day it leaves (today) that occurs during its transit?
3. Current accepted science is that space is expanding 3 dimensionally at a rate well in excess of the speed of light.?

1). Yes, IMO. Redshift is the key variable, but as Rod noted, there are other important ones. It’s the basis for the Hubble-Lemaitre expansion rate, first attempted in 1927 by Lemaitre using Slipher‘s redshifts and crude distances for the corresponding galaxies.

2). The universe would have to stop expanding for that to happen. So the prior answer seems quite correct.

3). Yes, but only the more distant regions, of course. There is an interesting fact that the areas currently expanding faster than c, but not much faster, are not beyond observation since light from these closer regions will travel to regions that aren’t moving faster than light. It’s a little tricky to see this but there are some simple analogies.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

So, we think we see light that has traveled 46.5 Glyrs, but it did so in 13.5 Glyrs?

IMO kind of like trying to explain how a 100 mph car can go 200mph then 400 mph in a maximum speed limit of 199 mph almost 2x spl.
Faster than that and it's invisible to us forever.

A better solution is we are seeing a galaxy or star at the edge of a neighbor universe heading towards us at 1.99 slp red shift.

No matter how you stretch space in our universe it maxes out about 27 bly so explaining 46.5 is a difficult prospect in our BB universe.

 

[David-J-Franks]

IMO kind of like trying to explain how a 100 mph car can go 200mph then 400 mph in a maximum speed limit of 199 mph almost 2x spl.
Faster than that and it's invisible to us forever.

A better solution is we are seeing a galaxy or star at the edge of a neighbor universe heading towards us at 1.99 slp red shift.

No matter how you stretch space in our universe it maxes out about 27 bly so explaining 46.5 is a difficult prospect in our BB universe.

Any light coming towards us from a neighbour universe would have a blue shift not a red shift. The only blue shift we see at the moment is is Galaxy's being attracted in towards the centre of a cluster of galaxies., and thus temporally going against the grain of expansion.

Don't forget the 46.5 billion light-year radius is only the radius of the observable contents of the Big Bang. The whole contents of the Big Bang are at least 1000 times bigger, there is a minimum size put on on the whole contents because if it were any smaller we would notice a curvature of space in our observable universe, which we don't see, it is mostly flat as far as our instruments can tell.

Any light from another universe would have to penetrate through the whole contents of our big bang not just the observable contents so I think this is completely implausible. Also, the expansion rate at the edge of the observable contents is just over 3 times the speed of light, so the whole contents will be expanding much much faster than this, so I don't think light from another universe will get through.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Any light coming towards us from a neighbour universe would have a blue shift not a red shift. The only blue shift we see at the moment is is Galaxy's being attracted in towards the centre of a cluster of galaxies., and thus temporally going against the grain of expansion.

Don't forget the 46.5 billion light-year radius is only the radius of the observable contents of the Big Bang. The whole contents of the Big Bang are at least 1000 times bigger, there is a minimum size put on on the whole contents because if it were any smaller we would notice a curvature of space in our observable universe, which we don't see, it is mostly flat as far as our instruments can tell.

Any light from another universe would have to penetrate through the whole contents of our big bang not just the observable contents so I think this is completely implausible. Also, the expansion rate at the edge of the observable contents is just over 3 times the speed of light, so the whole contents will be expanding much much faster than this, so I don't think light from another universe will get through.

As i first thought that another universe BB would have blue shifts (heading towards us)
Let not forget that balloon A has everything red shifted in it so anything in balloon B will also be Red shifted because Balloon A is expanding itself.

Light from the edge of balloon B simply has been traveling 45 Bly into our red shifted expanding BB universe.

We do get into a limit of how fast light can catch up to expansion, about 1.9999 x the speed of light and light never catches up so everything beyond that red shift is invisible to us.

Hard to say what exists at the edge of the BB or if it has an edge at all.
It breaking the C speed law at it's beginning has 3 possibilities.
It doesn't exist in reality since it never has a connection to time/space.
Or nature reeled it back to C speed and it looks very much like the rest of the BB universe and just thins out to nothing.
Or a globe of powerful Radiation traveling at C will continue until it runs into a neighbor BB, creates a new BB at that location at a giant Black hole state universe or bounces back to halt ours, or both.

Good fun to think about the possibilities of our BB just being 1.
Kind of like discovering the earth wasn't flat, but the universe might be
Flat Universe could simply be a trick of time/space showing neither really exist as we see them.
Could be flat because conception of size could be wrong.
Universe might be no more than a dot.

 

[David-J-Franks]

As i first thought that another universe BB would have blue shifts (heading towards us)
Let not forget that balloon A has everything red shifted in it so anything in balloon B will also be Red shifted because Balloon A is expanding itself.

Light from the edge of balloon B simply has been traveling 45 Bly into our red shifted expanding BB universe.

We do get into a limit of how fast light can catch up to expansion, about 1.9999 x the speed of light and light never catches up so everything beyond that red shift is invisible to us.

Hard to say what exists at the edge of the BB or if it has an edge at all.
It breaking the C speed law at it's beginning has 3 possibilities.
It doesn't exist in reality since it never has a connection to time/space.
Or nature reeled it back to C speed and it looks very much like the rest of the BB universe and just thins out to nothing.
Or a globe of powerful Radiation traveling at C will continue until it runs into a neighbor BB, creates a new BB at that location at a giant Black hole state universe or bounces back to halt ours, or both.

Good fun to think about the possibilities of our BB just being 1.
Kind of like discovering the earth wasn't flat, but the universe might be
Flat Universe could simply be a trick of time/space showing neither really exist as we see them.
Could be flat because conception of size could be wrong.
Universe might be no more than a dot.

I knew this would come back to haunt me

Hard to say what exists at the edge of the BB or if it has an edge at all.

Anything that starts with a finite size, has a finite rate of expansion and a finite age has an edge (and dare I say it, a centre as well).

It breaking the C speed law at it's beginning has 3 possibilities.
It doesn't exist in reality since it never has a connection to time/space.
Or nature reeled it back to C speed and it looks very much like the rest of the BB universe and just thins out to nothing.
Or a globe of powerful Radiation traveling at C will continue until it runs into a neighbor BB, creates a new BB at that location at a giant Black hole state universe or bounces back to halt ours, or both.

I'm more inclined to think there would just be a gradual merger, with another big bang not coming straight away, but after the new mess has sorted itself out.

This expansion business bugs me. A lot depends on what space is. If it's quantum foam and quantum fields surely they must get thinner or stretch out, thus losing strength. I don't accept something can expand indefinitely, that would be something for nothing. So I think by the time the contents of our big bang collide with another contents, expansion will have slowed down, it will tend toward an equilibrium with our gravity pulling the opposite way.

Also as we've both suggested previously, some of the expansion force may well be that of neighbour universes gravity pulling on us.

 

[Helio]

This expansion business bugs me. A lot depends on what space is. If it's quantum foam and quantum fields surely they must get thinner or stretch out, thus losing strength. I don't accept something can expand indefinitely, that would be something for nothing.

The aether story is a curious one indeed. The 120 order discrepancy with QM might offer some assistance.

I’m more curious how EM photons lose energy as they travel vast distances. Doppler would make sense to me, but that no longer is today’s explanation for distant redshifts. So, if the extra tiny force of gravity can hold galaxies and clusters together, why not the super strong EM force prevent the energy leakage photons are deemed to suffer with their “cosmological redshift”?

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

I knew this would come back to haunt me

Anything that starts with a finite size, has a finite rate of expansion and a finite age has an edge (and dare I say it, a centre as well).I'm more inclined to think there would just be a gradual merger, with another big bang not coming straight away, but after the new mess has sorted itself out.

This expansion business bugs me. A lot depends on what space is. If it's quantum foam and quantum fields surely they must get thinner or stretch out, thus losing strength. I don't accept something can expand indefinitely, that would be something for nothing. So I think by the time the contents of our big bang collide with another contents, expansion will have slowed down, it will tend toward an equilibrium with our gravity pulling the opposite way.

Also as we've both suggested previously, some of the expansion force may well be that of neighbour universes gravity pulling on us.

Got to love thinking about what happens if we do have more than one BB universe when 2 of them meet.
I tend to think that each BB edge will be a colossal shock wave much like a star going nova but on a much larger scale.
Bouncing off, merging or cannibalizing to make a bigger universe.
Bouncing off to halt expansion is the most logical to keep each section with a set amount of energy but nature has no reason to please me
It could be a very chaotic event of all 3.

I like to think we do get something for nothing but not an endless amount of something just a potential energy then no more or no less.
A great start point and reason for everything is just a E potential from the state of nothing to the state of fluctuation.

I agree pulling our universe apart from external force has no fundamental force breaking or energy breaking laws.
Dark energy theory as the cause of expansion is getting that free energy for no reason and an endless amount of it.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

The aether story is a curious one indeed. The 120 order discrepancy with QM might offer some assistance.

I’m more curious how EM photons lose energy as they travel vast distances. Doppler would make sense to me, but that no longer is today’s explanation for distant redshifts. So, if the extra tiny force of gravity can hold galaxies and clusters together, why not the super strong EM force prevent the energy leakage photons are deemed to suffer with their “cosmological redshift”?

A bit of interference might answer that.
Lets pretend that QF has 3 entry points, crest, valley and void.
Crest that everything exists and how light travels.
Valley home of neutrinos trip through a place that has no other bits.
Void realm of gravitons amazing travel though lack of space and time.

A freak accident of a neutrino interacting with a photon will cause an energy loss and added red shift.
A short light trip and an accident never happens, 100 of years maybe 1 or 2 times.
A billion LY lots of freak accidents.
Loss of those photons from the stream will make it appear that light took longer to reach us.


Or QF decides to create a temp particle/energy/space on the photons path that causes light to travel further than the real distance.

JMO but a decent reason for extra red shift and energy loss.

 

[David-J-Franks]

The aether story is a curious one indeed. The 120 order discrepancy with QM might offer some assistance.

I’m more curious how EM photons lose energy as they travel vast distances. Doppler would make sense to me, but that no longer is today’s explanation for distant redshifts. So, if the extra tiny force of gravity can hold galaxies and clusters together, why not the super strong EM force prevent the energy leakage photons are deemed to suffer with their “cosmological redshift”?

Very interesting question. My first thought was that since the universe is expanding energy is spread out in a larger volume, it becomes more dilute, but the total amount of energy in the increased volume is still the same, so conserved.

That doesn't explain what happened to individual photons that you refer to. So, I found this article that says the photons are doing work in contributing to the expansion of the universe.

Is Energy Conserved When Photons Redshift In Our Expanding Universe?

When the Universe expands, photons redshift to longer wavelengths and lower energies. So where does that energy go?

www.forbes.com

It's a bit long winded so here's the key paragraph;

"So yes, it's actually true: as the Universe expands, photons lose energy. But that doesn't mean energy isn't conserved; it means that the energy goes into the Universe's expansion itself, in the form of work. And if the Universe ever reverses the expansion and contracts again, that work will be done in reverse, and will go right back into the photons inside."

 

[David-J-Franks]

Got to love thinking about what happens if we do have more than one BB universe when 2 of them meet.
I tend to think that each BB edge will be a colossal shock wave much like a star going nova but on a much larger scale.
Bouncing off, merging or cannibalizing to make a bigger universe.
Bouncing off to halt expansion is the most logical to keep each section with a set amount of energy but nature has no reason to please me
It could be a very chaotic event of all 3.

I like to think we do get something for nothing but not an endless amount of something just a potential energy then no more or no less.
A great start point and reason for everything is just a E potential from the state of nothing to the state of fluctuation.

I agree pulling our universe apart from external force has no fundamental force breaking or energy breaking laws.
Dark energy theory as the cause of expansion is getting that free energy for no reason and an endless amount of it.

I still prefer to think of it as a quiet, steady and gradual event. Take for example 2 galaxies colliding. There isn't a gigantic explosion, the stars mostly pass by each other, the most energetic thing would be both central black holes merging, and even that doesn't go with much of a bang.

Maybe by the time universes collide, most of the objects in them will have become just black holes. Then, over time they will merge and become bigger until one day 2 big ones collide and start a new big bang! Just my theory in a nutshell

I would have no problem with dark energy if they could build in a mechanism to have it thin out or lose strength with expansion. Then expansion could be a combination of dark energy and the gravitational pull from neighbour universes.

 

[rod]

Very interesting question. My first thought was that since the universe is expanding energy is spread out in a larger volume, it becomes more dilute, but the total amount of energy in the increased volume is still the same, so conserved.

That doesn't explain what happened to individual photons that you refer to. So, I found this article that says the photons are doing work in contributing to the expansion of the universe.

Is Energy Conserved When Photons Redshift In Our Expanding Universe?

When the Universe expands, photons redshift to longer wavelengths and lower energies. So where does that energy go?

www.forbes.com

It's a bit long winded so here's the key paragraph;

"So yes, it's actually true: as the Universe expands, photons lose energy. But that doesn't mean energy isn't conserved; it means that the energy goes into the Universe's expansion itself, in the form of work. And if the Universe ever reverses the expansion and contracts again, that work will be done in reverse, and will go right back into the photons inside."

An expanding universe using H0 = 69 km/s/Mpc = 6.9E+6 cm/s, so in 1E+6 pc, 3D space is expanding at about 2.24E-18 cm/s

 

[David-J-Franks]

An expanding universe using H0 = 69 km/s/Mpc = 6.9E+6 cm/s, so in 1E+6 pc, 3D space is expanding at about 2.24E-18 cm/s

I'm confused. First I struggle with the E symbols when I first saw you use E I had to ask google what it meant, I had never come across it before. I'm used to using ^.

Before I continue, can you confirm my understanding;

HO = 69km/s/Mpc, ok, then that = 6.9x10^6cm/s ( also /Mpc I assume), ok so far? Then you say;

"so in 10^6 pc (is that still a Mpc?), 3D space is expanding at about 2.24E-18 cm/s" (is that 2.24 x 10^-18cm/s?)

I don't get what you mean by the last part of your sentence, grateful for any clarification, Thanks

 

[rod]

I'm confused. First I struggle with the E symbols when I first saw you use E I had to ask google what it meant, I had never come across it before. I'm used to using ^.

Before I continue, can you confirm my understanding;

HO = 69km/s/Mpc, ok, then that = 6.9x10^6cm/s ( also /Mpc I assume), ok so far? Then you say;

"so in 10^6 pc (is that still a Mpc?), 3D space is expanding at about 2.24E-18 cm/s" (is that 2.24 x 10^-18cm/s?)

I don't get what you mean by the last part of your sentence, grateful for any clarification, Thanks

E+ is MS Excel language for exponents also used in computer code. 10^6 pc is one Mpc = 3.08570E+24 cm or 3.0857x10^24 cm. 69 km/s = 6.96E+6 cm/s or 6.96 x 10^6 cm/s. Divide 6.96E+6 cm/s by number of cm in 1 Mpc, see what you get

 

[David-J-Franks]

E+ is MS Excel language for exponents also used in computer code. 10^6 pc is one Mpc = 3.08570E+24 cm or 3.0857x10^24 cm. 69 km/s = 6.96E+6 cm/s or 6.96 x 10^6 cm/s. Divide 6.96E+6 cm/s by number of cm in 1 Mpc, see what you get

Thanks rod, source of confusion here was your last concluding sentence;

"3D space is expanding at about 2.24E-18 cm/s"

You didn't, I think, make clear this should have read;

3D space is expanding at about 2.24E-18 cm/s PER CM

By the way my calculator said 2.2555 x 10^-18 so somethings gone wrong there, but at least I still got the 10^-18 bit right.

 

[rod]

Thanks rod, source of confusion here was your last concluding sentence;

"3D space is expanding at about 2.24E-18 cm/s"

You didn't, I think, make clear this should have read;

3D space is expanding at about 2.24E-18 cm/s PER CM

By the way my calculator said 2.2555 x 10^-18 so somethings gone wrong there, but at least I still got the 10^-18 bit right.

David-J-Franks, yes per cm so 2.24 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm which is super sensitive. The cosmological constant and QM energy in the vacuum of space should blow the universe up https://www.scientificamerican.com/...onstant-is-physics-most-embarrassing-problem/

Also the forums discussion, https://forums.space.com/threads/cosmological-constant.37076/

Between QM and GR, we have some 10^120 order magnitude of error or more. 2.24 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm can only vary a bit and if cosmological constant and vacuum energy conflict (QM), no universe.

 

[David-J-Franks]

David-J-Franks, yes per cm so 2.24 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm which is super sensitive. The cosmological constant and QM energy in the vacuum of space should blow the universe up https://www.scientificamerican.com/...onstant-is-physics-most-embarrassing-problem/

Also the forums discussion, https://forums.space.com/threads/cosmological-constant.37076/

Between QM and GR, we have some 10^120 order magnitude of error or more. 2.24 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm can only vary a bit and if cosmological constant and vacuum energy conflict (QM), no universe.

Yes, this figure you have worked out is very small, but it is measurable with current instruments. The only problem is, is where is this expansion happening? I'm under the impression that the force between atoms is strong enough to overcome expansion in objects and also gravity is strong enough such that there's also no expansion in our galaxy and possibly none in the whole local group.

I think you'd have to be between clusters to measure anything, so no direct experiments anytime soon!

There's still some confusion, as I was told by Dr Jo Pesce in the AMA thread https://forums.livescience.com/threads/ama-with-astrophysicist-dr-joe-pesce.3469/ posts 8, 11, 12 and 16 that all space is expanding including in you and your coffee cup. I think he was wrong. Have you any ideas as to what's going on?

 

[rod]

Yes, this figure you have worked out is very small, but it is measurable with current instruments. The only problem is, is where is this expansion happening? I'm under the impression that the force between atoms is strong enough to overcome expansion in objects and also gravity is strong enough such that there's also no expansion in our galaxy and possibly none in the whole local group.

I think you'd have to be between clusters to measure anything, so no direct experiments anytime soon!

There's still some confusion, as I was told by Dr Jo Pesce in the AMA thread https://forums.livescience.com/threads/ama-with-astrophysicist-dr-joe-pesce.3469/ posts 8, 11, 12 and 16 that all space is expanding including in you and your coffee cup. I think he was wrong. Have you any ideas as to what's going on?

David-J-Franks, I do not know. I heard the same about space expanding including our atoms, etc. However the cosmological constant in GR plays the critical role and QM dumping energy into the vacuum of space throws things off by some 10^120 orders of error. That means the very sensitive rate of expansion I showed using cm/s/cm, is balanced on the head of a pin, otherwise no universe and you and I are not here.

 

[Catastrophe]

"I heard the same about space expanding including our atoms, etc."

Universe is supposed is be all inclusive. We have the colloquialism "the universe of so-and-so which intends the total information on that subject.

The problem I have is "why is not everything, atoms, galaxies, etcetera included, all expanding. In which case the ruler would be expanding with what is being measured, and the subject would still measure x inches". No expansion could be measured.

Can anyone please help me?

Cat

 

[rod]

"I heard the same about space expanding including our atoms, etc."

Universe is supposed is be all inclusive. We have the colloquialism "the universe of so-and-so which intends the total information on that subject.

The problem I have is "why is not everything, atoms, galaxies, etcetera included, all expanding. In which case the ruler would be expanding with what is being measured, and the subject would still measure x inches". No expansion could be measured.

Can anyone please help me?

Cat

Cat, the BB cosmology presently has 3D space expanding at 2.24 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm using H0 = 69 km/s/Mpc. This suggest that everything in 3D space could be expanding. Consider inflation epoch. 3D space expands > 3 x 10^30 cm/s/cm then slows down to our 2.24 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm. Planck time, Planck length, very tiny dimensions Somehow, the universe allowed structure to form and 3D space not to expand too fast, i.e. the cosmological constant problem.

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod, my ignorance suggests to me that the "cosmological constant problem" (nice to have a posh name to conceal our ignorance) is of such a dimension (no pun intended) as to totally unhinge the "expansion of the Universe" hypothesis.

After all, how can you propose an Expansion of the Universe when lots of bits don't do what they are told? Not very Universal is it?

Now please don't remind me that I am a scientist, and should know better, because I am very suspicious about believing mutually contradictory "facts" when obviously inherent contradictions exist. I would suggest that one solution (probably it has been suggested already - if so I am unaware of it - and I apologise) is that there is some lack of our understanding of space which becomes more troublesome as distance (from the observer) increases.

Anyway, as always, I will value your response.

Best wishes,

Cat

 

[rod]

Cat in your post #49, "Rod, my ignorance suggests to me that the "cosmological constant problem" (nice to have a posh name to conceal our ignorance) is of such a dimension (no pun intended) as to totally unhinge the "expansion of the Universe" hypothesis..."

Yes the cosmological constant will *unhinge* expansion of space and everything moves away so fast when the wrong values are plugged into the math. You will not see the Moon , see Post #44 has the links and discussion, takes some reading of those links to see that problem appear. Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, Fourth edition has an entire section on cosmology and constants use, also lambda, the cosmological constant and its value, page 649. I am no expert here Catastrophe Einstein used it early on in GR to show a static universe, others came along and changed the value and discovered that space could expand, later came redshift observations in astronomy and used to support the explanation of 3D space expanding. I updated my MS Excel astronomy spreadsheet I created and converted H0 (Hubble constant) into c.g.s. units. Things get real dicey going back to inflation and comparing with the present value, about 2.24 x10^-18 cm/s/cm vs. using 69 km/s/Mpc. In the BB model, the universe radius today may be some 46.5 billion light-years away from Earth, see How Big Is the Universe? https://www.livescience.com/how-big-universe.html, August 2019

At this distance, H0 = 9.83 x 10^10 cm/s/cm much faster than c velocity, about 3 x 10^10 cm/s, still nothing like inflation epoch though. How the cosmological constant was used to calculate the radius after BB today some 4.4 x 10^28 cm, I do not know. A complete history of the changes used in the cosmological constant and expansion rate changes expressed in cm/s/cm, I think would be very interesting (entertaining too) for reading