'Einstein ring' snapped by James Webb Space Telescope is most distant gravitationally lensed object ever seen

[billslugg]

"If matter did not expand along with space, then everything would need to still be smaller than that atom-sized space that once contained it all (in theory - the BB Theory)." - Unclear Engineer

Under BB theory, all the matter in the existing universe was compressed into a volume the size of a subatomic particle. Such a high level of compression is needed in order to develop the high temperatures needed for reactions to occur.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Right, but the issue is how long would it have taken light to travel across that volume at that time? If the speed of light is really invariant as measured by local observers despite the expansion of space, then it should have taken just as long to cross the universe then as it would now. But, that makes for causality problems in the early universe.

It seems to me that the BBT explanation keeps making jumps between different frames of reference that leads to inconsistent postulates.

That is not surprising because the early parts of the BBT are being imagined by laboratory scientists thinking about quantum level experiments in their laboratories, where they are "outside" observers, and then trying to use their perspective to explain astronomy observations for a whole universe, where they must be "inside" observers.

The inability to combine quantum models with relativistic gravitation models is just a corollary to that main conceptual inconsistency.

 

[Questioner]

Are they combining red-shift?
Maybe using hydrogen spectrography or something?

If matter were expanding simultaneously with space-time how would we even know the difference?
A yardstick would expand with space I am pretty sure leaving us clueless.
Only from a differential with the yardstick can we measure changes in space. (gaps between matter)

If time changes but our clocks change with it, again how could we tell?

What are we 'blind' to because we don't have sensory inputs of it?

Can be a little unsettling.

 

[Helio]

The ant (light) has a fixed rate of progress.

As a side comment, if the balloon expands fast enough the ant can never circumscribe the balloon.
If the circumference doubles every given period of time. It becomes analogous to Zeno's paradox.
Given a nonzero starting circumference 2 times greater than the ant's traversal rate for the given period of time. (one might shave that down with continuous expansion)

The answer is in the fact that the little ant is traveling faster than the cord at its location.

Here is an animated illustration and explanation where an ant, traveling 100,000x slower than the cord, will finally reach the end of the very fast end of the cord. This only illustrates the point, but the expansion of space is more difficult because the rate is per unit distance, whereas the cord speed shown is fixed. Thus, there are regions that we can see today, but we won't be able to see tomorrow, where the light will never reach us; the observable universe becomes less even as the universe gets larger. Ironic, huh?

 

[Helio]

Regarding the question about whether matter expands along with space:

It seems odd to me that this is even a question, at least among the people who believe that the whole universe expanded from something smaller than an atom (as measured with today's dimensions). If matter did not expand along with space, then everything would need to still be smaller than that atom-sized space that once contained it all (in theory - the BB Theory).

That's a fair point, but BBT posits that the earliest period contained only energy, so I doubt size is that critical. Once quarks and, soon, protons, etc. formed, then the question should be, to your point, was the universe big enough to house these things without them being much smaller than today?

Using a quark vol. of 4e-57 cu meters and a universe of 1E80 particles, then I get a universe of a little more than 6 km radius to hold them.

It's likely that these values are well known, but it gives at least a hint of what we are talking about.

It's possible these particles could have been compressed, as well.

IMO, the size of objects today are not much smaller than they would have been 13 billion years ago due to the idea that their size, in my view, is a result of net forces, and not expansion having some locking ability onto matter where it drags it along. Perhaps I love FBDs too much.

 

[Helio]

Right, but the issue is how long would it have taken light to travel across that volume at that time? If the speed of light is really invariant as measured by local observers despite the expansion of space, then it should have taken just as long to cross the universe then as it would now. But, that makes for causality problems in the early universe.

Me (stuck in this box).... I'm unclear what you're saying. At a fixed speed through space, it takes far less time to traverse the distance of, say, a proton, than the entire universe today. The problem, however, is that the expansion rate would have been so great that it would not allow enough time for even the tiny universe to become homogenous, hence Inflation attempts to solve that particular problem, and another problem as well

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Helio, even a universe 6 km in diameter that is solid quarks would have a problem expanding without space "dragging" the matter with it to diffuse it. So, it must create space between quarks. Now, maybe quarks can combine into baryons in a manner that defeats the expansion within the baryons, but the baryons must still be pulled apart by the expansion of space, or everything would still be only 6 km across.

So, as soon as there was baryonic matter to at least theoretically make meter sticks, those meter sticks must have gotten longer as the universe expanded (assuming that it really was ever that small and really did expand that much).

So, yes, it would be hard to measure expansion with a meter stick that was itself expanding.

Many posts ago in another thread, we were looking for some means to actually measure expansion, and I proposed using a pendulum to see if its period changed, although I don't think we have the precision to actually do that. And, that would also require that the rate of time passage is absolutely constant, which might not be true, either.

But, it all does make me wonder if we might be misevaluating red shift meaning as only due to expansion of space. Would different dimensions of hydrogen atoms and their constituents earlier in the history of the universe have made the their energy states different and resulted in the photons emitted by their energy state changes be different wavelengths than they are here and now?

I am not seeing theorists seriously consider such concepts. There are a lot of "believers" in the BBT who post absolutist statements on the Internet that such things are not possible, but they do not support those assertions with data or logic.

 

[billslugg]

"Many posts ago in another thread, we were looking for some means to actually measure expansion," - Unclear Engineer

If we assume a 70 km/s/mpc Hubble Constant, then the velocity of the Sun moving away from us is 70,000 m/s/mpc x 1 AU/1 mpc.
1 AU = 150 million km = 1.5e11 meters
1 ly = 9e15 m
1 parsec = 3.26 ly = 3e16 m
1 mpc = 3e22 m

Recession velocity of Sun due to expansion of space = 70,000 x 1.5e11 m / 3e22 m = 3.5e-7 m

The Sun is moving 0.35 microns per second away from us due to space expansion. Over one year the distance increases by about 11 meters. This would not be measurable as there is no solid surface to reference to.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Bill, as we agreed many threads ago, we can't measure that small amount of distance change with enough precision in our solar system, even.

That is why I am wondering if there is some other method that might be useable with laboratory instruments that could measure physical phenomena that depend on spatial dimensions in a more sensitive manner than just using a meter stick or distance transit timing technique (e.g., radar ranging). I say "wondering" because I cannot think of one. But, others might be able to think of one.

 

[billslugg]

There would be immense distances required to eke out enough movement to measure. We would have to be far, far outside the Solar System's gravity so it would not affect the reading. Then the ony known way would be a laser beam interferometer. The problem is when we zero it out, we are zeroing the thing we are trying to measure. Only a rigid tape measure could be used. Not a chance.

 

[Questioner]

I worry about the 4cm the moon's orbit is lengthening.

11 meters!

We orbit at a delicate balance between gravity & inertia.
I propose they use the moon for 'gravity assist' for every relevant outer space launch to try & trim that escape. & it's 'free' energy.

Perhaps we should use the Earth for gravity assist at every opportunity, too.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

BIll, we seem to be talking past each other.

I agree with your conclusion that we are not going to be able to measure distance changes directly. So , why do you keep repeating that?

I am suggesting that there might be some other means to detect scale changes in the universe, perhaps by detecting changes in things like transition energies of atomic states, or other such things that might depend on dimensions at the quantum level, and result in things we can measure precisely such as photon wavelengths.

I agree that it is easy to argue that we just can't do it in any manner - but we can't prove that. So, I am just wondering about whether we could possibly find a way to do it.

 

[billslugg]

I understand now, you want to measure distance using some other method than a ruler or a clock. I'll think about it.

 

[Classical Motion]

How much mass via solar wind does the sun lose per year? And mass loss due to light conversion? Could this explain the creep-age out?

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Bill, That sounds sarcastic, so I am going to take it that way, and repeat that I am suggesting that there might be some effects of "space inflation" that could be manifest in changes in phenomena that we can measure. If so, then we could test the theory that distances are increasing with time due to "expansion of space" that is also simultaneously and proportionally expanding the things like meter sticks that we use to measure distances.

That would need to involve some physical phenomenon that is not directly proportional to the first power of the change in dimensional scale.

And, it could be further complicated or made impossible if the rate of time passage is also changing along with the linear scale factor of "space".

I am not saying that there is or must be such a testable predictor of expansion. But, if there is none, then that effectively reduces the "theory" of space expansion in everything to mere speculation, since it is not testable.

 

[Helio]

Helio, even a universe 6 km in diameter that is solid quarks would have a problem expanding without space "dragging" the matter with it to diffuse it. So, it must create space between quarks. Now, maybe quarks can combine into baryons in a manner that defeats the expansion within the baryons, but the baryons must still be pulled apart by the expansion of space, or everything would still be only 6 km across

I was countering the view that matter had to be smaller in the past to fit in the small universe when they formed.

The expansion forces overcame gravity at that time. Also, with homogeneity, there was no point to collapse to, so I’ve seen stated, not that it’s a strong argument.

But, it all does make me wonder if we might be misevaluating red shift meaning as only due to expansion of space. Would different dimensions of hydrogen atoms and their constituents earlier in the history of the universe have made the their energy states different and resulted in the photons emitted by their energy state changes be different wavelengths than they are here and now?

ZPE (Zero Point Energy) may interest you. It argues that electrons are gaining in momentum with time, thus we see today weaker energy (redshift) light from those weaker emissions. I’m not buying into it, but new theories should always be welcome if they are falsifiable.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Also, with homogeneity, there was no point to collapse to, so I’ve seen stated, not that it’s a strong argument.

You seem to have missed my point, there.

If space did not expand the lump of matter in it when space itself expanded, then there would not have been "no point to collapse to" because space would be larger, and empty except for that still only 6 km diameter lump of matter. So, for the homogeneity of the universe to be maintained during inflation, the matter must expand with the space in that theorized early universe.

Another way to look at it is that, if space were to expand so that different parts of it had relative velocities far exceeding the speed of light (which is what is theorized), then, for matter to not expand with it, matter must have passed through space at greater than the speed of light.

The only consistent way to theorize that space inflated dramatically faster than light speed is to assume that the matter in space expanded/ diffused along with the space, and I believe that is indeed what the BBT theorizes. Otherwise, it could not have turned quantum scale density fluctuations into the macro density fluctuations seen in the cosmic microwave background radiation and attributed to inflation of quantum fluctuations in the early universe.

The question remains whether there is some connection between quarks, baryons, atoms, or clumps of atoms ranging from dust to galaxies that is somehow including "space" that is not expanding now. My take on that is there seems to be no valid reason proposed for why space in such objects is not expanding now, when it is clearly a requirement of the theory that space in such objects expanded when the universe was much younger.

It just seems like another example of inconsistent thinking among folks who are convinced that the BBT model is correct.

 

[Questioner]

Rethink,
with global warming 11 meters a year is probably a good thing.
A little loss of solar mass also helps.
Science has to stand on the wobbly legs of its measurements.
If they seem consistent to us, quite possibly for us, relatively speaking, they are consistent.
For 'longer' lived creatures discerning consistency or change is likely useful so possibly evolution filters for that.
Although the stronger filter is for socio self accommodation.
Reealism takes precedence over avoiding rudeness especially when confronting 'lab coated' quackery like back surgery and 3 piece suit 'experts' telling you a subprime mortgage is a 'good' thing.
Sensible adulthood requires one to do one's own homework and own thinking.

 

[Classical Motion]

That's my problem with modern theory. If you can't check things out, it's a waste of good argument. Both the large and the small. And let's indirectness lead us around. Indirectness is flimsy and can bend both ways.

 

[Helio]

You seem to have missed my point, there.

If space did not expand the lump of matter in it when space itself expanded, then there would not have been "no point to collapse to" because space would be larger, and empty except for that still only 6 km diameter lump of matter. So, for the homogeneity of the universe to be maintained during inflation, the matter must expand with the space in that theorized early universe.

Expansion, IMO, is only of space. Thus the space between particles would grow larger, causing their increase in separation.

At the time of Inflation, ~1E-35 sec, there was no matter, only energy. As temperatures dropped, matter formed from cooler energy.

Another way to look at it is that, if space were to expand so that different parts of it had relative velocities far exceeding the speed of light (which is what is theorized), then, for matter to not expand with it, matter must have passed through space at greater than the speed of light.

If we glue buttons on a balloon, will the buttons get larger as the balloon expands?

The only consistent way to theorize that space inflated dramatically faster than light speed is to assume that the matter in space expanded/ diffused along with the space, and I believe that is indeed what the BBT theorizes. Otherwise, it could not have turned quantum scale density fluctuations into the macro density fluctuations seen in the cosmic microwave background radiation and attributed to inflation of quantum fluctuations in the early universe.

The quantum wrinkles are for energy events, causing the anisotropy…I think.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

If we glue buttons on a balloon, will the buttons get larger as the balloon expands?

Well, that was a misdirection-by-analogy!

A much more appropriate question would be to note that a spot painted on the balloon surface would expand with the balloon, but a button glued to the balloon's surface would not, so the issue is whether various things in real space act like they are intrinsically part of space, or somehow independent entities from space.

Frankly, with quantum mechanics claiming that all particles are really waves in "fields" in space, and redshift being explained as the expansion of space making photons bigger so that the have longer wavelengths, it just seems extremely inconsistent to suggest that there is anything that does not expand with space when space expands - even "energy" if you are calling photons energy.

 

[rod]

"Many posts ago in another thread, we were looking for some means to actually measure expansion," - Unclear Engineer

If we assume a 70 km/s/mpc Hubble Constant, then the velocity of the Sun moving away from us is 70,000 m/s/mpc x 1 AU/1 mpc.
1 AU = 150 million km = 1.5e11 meters
1 ly = 9e15 m
1 parsec = 3.26 ly = 3e16 m
1 mpc = 3e22 m

Recession velocity of Sun due to expansion of space = 70,000 x 1.5e11 m / 3e22 m = 3.5e-7 m

The Sun is moving 0.35 microns per second away from us due to space expansion. Over one year the distance increases by about 11 meters. This would not be measurable as there is no solid surface to reference to.

Very interesting. Allowing for 11 meters/year expansion rate between Earth and the Sun, the astronomical unit distance can change greatly over 4.5 billion years. I get about 0.33 au distance change. That looks significant for the 4.5 Gyr age model for the solar system. Consider that the proto earth before Theia impact said to create Moon, likely would form inside the orbit where Venus is today and now, we see 1 au distance separation between the Sun and Earth, originally much closer inside of 0.7 au at time of formation. Since telescopes used to observe and measure the size of the Sun, we have 400 years so about 4400 meters distance increase. I do not know if that small amount would be detectable and angular size changes for the Sun between perihelion and aphelion. Very interesting but I have no specific sources that reference this amount of change in the Sun and Earth system over 4.5 Gyr period.

 

[billslugg]

The way I read it, even though the space between us and the Sun increases, the distance between us is controlled by forces that quickly overwhelm the "force of expansion". The length of the meter does not change, we just get more meters. It's all very confusing.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I agree that there are things that can contract through space to remain the same size or even get smaller as space expands. Obviously, gravity can cause that to happen in things like mass collapsing into black holes. Most likely, galaxies do not expand and maybe galaxy groups do not expand in a net effect with gravity vs whatever expansion really is.

But, that still does not logically tell us if smaller lumps of matter, like a meter stick, or even atoms themselves, do not expand, if space really is expanding. Remember, I am not sure that it does. I am just pointing out inconsistencies in the logic of people who keep insisting that their theories are established facts.

Rod made an interesting observation about the effects that the theorized expansion might have had on the evolution of our solar system over a period of 4.6 billion years. That is another inconsistency in our theories - we just assume that didn't happen. But, assuming it happens wherever it helps explain things, but doesn't happen wherever it would foul-up existing explanations of observations is not respectable "science". Science requires consistent logic.

 

[Helio]

Well, that was a misdirection-by-analogy!

The analogy isn't to match your model, but mine -- a simple FBD approach. The analogy requires one to understand that the pulling strength of the rubber has too little strength to enlarge the button. Going further, we could agree that because the button experiences surrounding tension, that the sum of the forces will reveal the button does actually increase in size, but this increase is trivial, and for a given tension (expansion rate) it doesn't continue to grow because the molecular bonding forces are fixed. This is precisely the view I am expressing.

A much more appropriate question would be to note that a spot painted on the balloon surface would expand with the balloon, but a button glued to the balloon's surface would not, so the issue is whether various things in real space act like they are intrinsically part of space, or somehow independent entities from space.

[That's why I went with buttons. ]

But the reason the colored dots expand is because their internal bonding is overcome by the expansion force. Clear coat them and see what happens.

Matter is held together by forces far exceeding GR's local gravitational forces.

Frankly, with quantum mechanics claiming that all particles are really waves in "fields" in space, and redshift being explained as the expansion of space making photons bigger so that the have longer wavelengths, it just seems extremely inconsistent to suggest that there is anything that does not expand with space when space expands - even "energy" if you are calling photons energy.

That's a fair question and one I have asked. Given the far greater strength of EM forces found for photons, why would they be subject to the very weak expanding gravitational field. Or, perhaps another model, would be simply to have the photons lose energy over time [a Tired Light model of some kind], which is also a challenge. Perhaps the loss goes to DE? [Speculation, but if so, how?]

It wasn't until the 1960s when the Doppler model began to fail because they began observing objects with redshifts faster than light, something Doppler couldn't address.