the expanding universe

[ajna]

Oldschool you are just too tantalising for my health! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Can I add a couple of comments/questions?<br /><br />"through 70 powers of 10 from much smaller than the size of an atom to the size of a tennis ball"<br />I understand this according to the scales we see within this universe, and am I correct in assuming that the scales we see are related back to the scale of the magnetic quadrupole? Is that the most absolute scale we can have in the universe? <br />This doesn't say anything about our scales realtive to that within which we emerged though. If we are a dimensional unfolding within a larger universe, what is our scale relative to that? Does the CMB data offer a clue?<br /><br />"are all actually speaking of Gravitons-- the elastic thing which is holding the Universe together."<br />I think the same thing, meaning that IMO gravitons are a large part of dark matter. Brian Greene has talked about a highly energetic string needing such a small dimension that it is not visible spatially in 4D. Couldn't these objects be candidates for gravitons and/or dark matter?<br /><br />"This is what I predict: that what we are now calling the Universe is actually part of a much larger Cosmic structure. "<br />Exactly, and so the CMB must containg something about that, because every other bit of data has been transformed into something else. Being able to see into the parent universe would be a monumental advance.

 

[ajna]

"Also in addendum-- ironically the Universal quadrupole is orthogonal to the Galactic quadrupole:<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302496 "<br /><br />That sends a chill, the other day space.com reported that the solar system is sailing perpendicular to the galactic plane of the milky way, as below:<br /><br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070515_st_mag_field.html<br /><br />So are we aligned or anti-aligned, and does this have anything to do with how the sun flips its polarity and/or the polarity of CMEs? Thanks, Andrew

 

[oldschoolmojo]

"I can understand all your arguments, but I cannot yet reconcile them with the metric expansion we observe. It seems to me that the two concepts aren't really linked. And yet you link them."<br /><br />There is only one concept: the Universe expanded outwards in all directions from a central point. <br /><br />"Although there are always a few anomalies, we generally see a picture of the universe where the further away a galaxy is, the faster it's recession speed is. The correlation is pretty much consistent in any arbitrary direction. This implies that the volume is expanding, the metric that defines distance is changing over time, and the same would be true wherever you were."<br /><br />You are refering to a truism and not an absolute truth. It is an assumption that observers located anywhere in the Universe would make similar observations to our own (the Copernican Principle). The farther away a Galaxy is from us, the more the space has expanded in the time since the light left that Galaxy, so the more the light has been stretched, the more redshifted the light is, and so the faster it appears to be moving away from us. Recent studies have shown that the Universe is both slowing down and also speeding up, depending on where and how one looks, so go figure. In any case what we are seeing is a Universe that is in-situ still expanding. Why does this have to be a problem? <br /><br />The center of our Galaxy has a multipole magnetosphere, complete with a quadrupole. We can infer from its local neighborhood that every so often the matter-energy accumulating in the Black Hole's center reaches a critical mass before exploding outward in a huge release in all directions, and yet the gravity well in the magnetosphere still exists and survives to begin the accumulation all over again. Like breathing. Some believe our Universe does the same, which is perhaps why when we look *backward in time we can see Galaxies much older than they should be: they are relics of a past exp

 

[oldschoolmojo]

"I understand this according to the scales we see within this universe, and am I correct in assuming that the scales we see are related back to the scale of the magnetic quadrupole?"<br /><br />In a sense. To generalize, the multipole Universe we are seeing compared to the scales measurable by our telescopy is much more massive. It's difficult to extrapolate a comparison at this time, but compared to the larger Universe, the bubble of the CMB data would be akin to placing a marble or orange on the floor of a gymnasium. <br /><br />"Is that the most absolute scale we can have in the universe?"<br /><br />Absolutely not. The CMB data just gives us a glimpse of an immensely large structure, and the super-structure may take hundreds of years to map out. To draw a comparison, we keep finding phenomenon outside of our own Galaxy such as a halo and external rings. And we are only just beginning to further the development of the telescopy needed to compile pictures of the entire magnetic structure to the farthest limits of the Milky Way. <br /><br />"This doesn't say anything about our scales realtive to that within which we emerged though. If we are a dimensional unfolding within a larger universe, what is our scale relative to that? Does the CMB data offer a clue?"<br /><br />With the instrumentation we currently possess, including the CMB data, we couldn't directly guess. But we can entertain the thought. IF our Universe exists within a larger Multiverse, itself perhaps with a magnetosphere shape, then the scale may be guessed at by comparing the size of our Solar System in terms of light years to the size of our Galaxy in the same terms. <br /><br />Let's walk our way out to the veil and beyond. It is estimated that the outer edge of the Oort Cloud is about 100,000 AU's away. The Solar System extends from the sun almost halfway to Proxima Centauri which is about 4.2 light years away. Therefore the Solar System itself is about 3.6 to 4.2 light years in circumference.

 

[oldschoolmojo]

Now that we've all presumably had our say, it may be prudent to consider at least one alternate opinion. Before we do, I want to point out that although I've only been focusing on the quadrupole aspect of the multipole, the dynamo seen in the CMB data has other poles. There is a dipole which we pay little attention to because it must be canceled out due to the motion of our Solar system. There is also an octupole and a hexadecapole. I concentrate on the quadrupole because, even though there are two north poles, it shows a definitive Universal axis. This axis is pointed towards the Virgo Cluster, which is very intriguing for various reasons. When I say that the Milky Way quadrupole is orthogonal to the Universal quadrupole I am saying that it is at a right angle, sort of like Venus is on its side with respect to the Solar equatorial plane. <br /><br />To get our bearings, the Earth's north is also basically our Solar north as well as our Galactic north. So we can look beyond Polaris to see the basic Galactic north. To look towards the center of the Galaxy, find the tail of Ophiuchus. While this isn't exact, we can roughly draw a line from the tail of Ophiuchus through Polaris and across the sky which represents the line of the Winter and Summer Solstice as well as (if I understand this correctly) the equatorial plane of the Galaxy, which of course would also be represented by the slightly arced Milky Way seen in the nightsky. Now find Virgo and trace a line through Polaris the other way, representing the Spring and Fall Equinox and also completing the X where the two quadrupoles roughly intersect in their orthogonal right angle. <br /><br />With that out of the way, I think it is prudent to mention that Plasma Theory seems to be transcending the BB Theory in leaps and bounds. One of these bounds represents the death of the illusion of Red Shift. I won't go into the details here but let you read for yourself why so many contemporary scholars are feeling tha

 

[MeteorWayne]

Uhhh, you're bearings are quite wrong here. The galactic North Pole is on Coma Berenices, so 60 degrees away from Polaris. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[oldschoolmojo]

Thanks for the correction Wayne, I was off by a bit. This means that the UNP and the GNP intersect just north of the Virgo cluster, which is very helpful to know.

 

[majornature]

Okay... I tried to find a way to join this discussion. Let me ask a question.<br /><br />Okay we only know a small percentage of our present universe. Correct?<br /><br />So wouldn't it be the case that the "unknown" portions or the rest of our universe in which we have yet to discover be the cause of our universe accelerating? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />So wouldn't it be the case that the "unknown" portions or the rest of our universe in which we have yet to discover be the cause of our universe accelerating? </font><br /><br />I often thought along those lines. Mass in the unseen universe, could accelerate the mass in our observed universe. I think of it like pulling on a rubber band. The pulling side, being the unseen universe. That would be the case, if our universe were part of a bubble universe, with many bubbles in it.<br /><br />OTOH, if we're not part of a bubble universe, gravity may just fall off to nill, in the unseen universe. Kind of like, going over a cliff. Somewhat similar, to the MOND Theory of Gravity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[ajna]

OK Oldschool I gotta bite...<br />"Wouldn't it follow that the String's are actually made of Gravitons, strung together like pearls?"<br /><br />I can conceive of this, but it also means gravitons comprise branes right? And that ergo the Higgs Boson is simply one type of manifestation of 'a graviton', the manifestation of which depends on its interdimensional setup. <br /><br />Can Higgs Bosons decay into branes and vice versa? Hmm

 

[ajna]

"Okay we only know a small percentage of our present universe. Correct?"<br /><br />I think this may be one of our greatest tautologies. If we acknowledge that we only know a portion of the universe, then we already 'know' of the rest. In other words, the data that links us to the rest of the universe is already there, but unseen. It is already affecting us as Majornature says.<br /><br />What connects us and the unseen universe? Gravity. Magnetics. Time.<br /><br />When we find the connection between these we will know a whole lot more about the rest of the universe.

 

[oldschoolmojo]

(Oldschool)<br />"Wouldn't it follow that the String's are actually made of Gravitons, strung together like pearls?" <br /><br />(Ajna)<br />I can conceive of this, but it also means gravitons comprise branes right? And that ergo the Higgs Boson is simply one type of manifestation of 'a graviton', the manifestation of which depends on its interdimensional setup. <br /><br />(OS)<br />Yes I would agree with that. <br /><br />(AJ)<br />Can Higgs Bosons decay into branes and vice versa? Hmm <br /><br />(OS)<br />Why would they have to decay? Branes are theoretical, so let us theorize that they exist more in our own dimension than a hypothetical "zero-dimension". Like 0-Branes, a Graviton seems to be a point-like particle. Like 1-Branes, the Gravitons may organize themselves into a series of strings. Like 2-Branes, these strings may organize themselves into a membrane. Since only so many Gravitons can gather on each 1-Brane, they never become superfluous. A mass with a steady rotation would splay out its 1-Branes more in the equatorial plane give or take 20 degrees or so, creating weak spots in the Gravity membrane (the Poles for instance). I get headaches when thinking about Hill Spheres and Lagrange Points so I'll let you puzzle out the implications. <br /> <br />

 

[dutchie]

Don't want to spoil the party here, but I was reading this thread from the original post and somewhere along the line (and it wasn't that far from the first post..) I thought OK, this is way beyond me...<br /><br />Just like the thread starter (who obviously left the thread somewhere along the way as well..) I am looking for simple to read, clear answers to questions. <br />When reading threads like these, I - being not very "savvy" as well - don't exactly feel encouraged to start a thread in this forum. <br /><br />It's called "Ask the Astronomer", but when threads tend to quickly drift away into long winding technical discussions full of jargon among The Gods, I think it should be renamed..<br /><br />Just my 2 eurocents....

 

[dutchie]

and then... there was radio silence... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

shssssshsssssssshhhhhhssssshhh<br /><br /><br /><br />{just adding a little CMBR} <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

The problem is that the thread was "derailed" with talk of universal coordinate systems and magnetic poles, which really are a separate issue from the original posters question..<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> The answer I'm looking for is not the name of the direction we're moving but rather: Can we measure that we are expanding outward? Can we look at the exact opposite direction and call that the point at where our universe began? </font><br /><br />We cannot measure that we are expanding "outward", all we can measure is that everything else seems to be expanding away from <b>us</b>, and we think this would be true wherever you are in the universe. Everywhere is expanding away from everywhere else at the largest scales. Wherever you are, it looks like you are at the centre of the expansion, and the further you look, the faster the objects are receding from you.<br /><br />We cannot look and find the "point" where our universe began, because the whole universe began <i>in</i> that "point" and so everything we see (including space) was once in that "point". When we look outwards, we look back in time, towards the beginning of time in <i>every</i> direction. The first objects in this universe are the most distant objects we see, and we see them in all directions at the edge of our observable universe.<br /><br />So, there is no "point" of origin, but we might consider there to be a <i>surface</i> of origin that completely surrounds our observable universe.<br /><br />If we imagine the whole of space and matter was once a single point then everything was <i>inside</i> that point, and as the point expanded into a volume the point <i>became</i> that whole volume. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[nexium]

The current theory is the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. I suppose we could change our minds next decade, but that is unlikely. It is thought that the solar system, our galaxy and the local group of galaxies are not expanding, but the space between galactic groups is generally getting bigger. A possible exception is in the direction of Virgo. Nearly all the nearby clusters of galaxies are heading that way. It is called the great attractor.<br />We can only measure a few hundred light years directly. This process is called parallax. The base line is about 185 million miles. For greater distances we make assumptions, which have been sort of confirmed. We cannot point in a direction and say, "the big bang started over there" There is little or no indication that the big bang started in the opposite direction of Virgo. The theorist loose me at this point. Some of the theorists say, "The big bang started everywhere" Neil

 

[nimbus]

Space not being infinite, the big bang did happen everywhere. Without an edge to space, there is no center. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[weeman]

It's hard to vision the big bang starting everywhere. I suppose if all space started as a single point, then you could say it was everywhere since that's all that space was. <br /><br />Of course, it's also hard to vision what some theorists believe. Some believe that the universe expands only into itself, since it represents everything that there is in all of existence. Some people might ask, "if it's expanding, what is it expanding into?" Again, a theorist would reply, "Itself."<br /><br />It is impossible to find a center since every point of space is essentially expanding in its own region. A diagram with galaxies A, B, C, and D can help illustrate.<br /><br />A---B---C---D<br /><br />Imagine that the line on which the galaxies are held together is a rubber band. If we stretch the rubber band, this is what we get.<br /><br />A-------B-------C-------D<br /><br />From A's perspective, all other galaxies moved away from it, with D being the fastest. In addition, to B's perspective, all other galaxies moved away from it, again having D be the fastest. Now, from C and D's perspective, all galaxies are moving away, with A being the fastest. It seems somewhat paradoxical, but it is easily explainable. You can make this experiment with household items in no time!<br /><br />The rubber band represents the expansion of space, and shows how the expansion does not allow us to find a "center" of the universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

Your diagram is close, but it more like this:<br /><br />Early Universe:<br /><br />A-B-C-D<br /><br />Current from A's perspective:<br /><br />A--B----C--------D<br /><br />Current from D's perspective:<br /><br />D--C----B--------A<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[ajna]

If there is a point and/or surface then they must be so with respect to an external reference frame, otherwise how can they be described as a 'point', 'surface' etc?<br /><br />The surface and what is within it, they are obviously correlated, but once again a surface implies an external reference, and the internal implies the surface.<br /><br />As for the Big Bang starting everywhere, it fits and makes sense. It also implies it is still occurring, and will keep occurring, so long as our particular dimensional setup does.<br /><br />And weeman &amp; derekmcp you get me thinking. If we see the universe is expanding, either we are getting smaller or the universe IS expanding INTO something. This has to be something with the same base units/fundamentals as our own reality, or we would not see it. I reckon this same something is the 11D framework the string theorists have come up with, plus an extra, 0D, making 12 in all. If we observe that we are 'expanding', maybe the dimensionality of our universe is on a constant evolution with respect to the 12D universe.<br /><br />An answer may be that the center is in everywhere, but our now just reveals the consequences of that.<br /><br />

 

[SpeedFreek]

Not necessarily. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />There is no need to imply an external reference frame - indeed, modern cosmology implicitly ignores any outside reference frame.<br /><br />We can only describe the universe from "the inside". We see the universe is expanding, and imagine it as an expanding volume of space and matter. But <b>all</b> empty space is inside that volume... there doesn't have to be an "outside" for space to expand into, the universe might well be self-contained dimensionally.<br /><br />At the risk of bringing a sci-fi theme into this discussion, but to use it simply as an example, consider Doctor Who and his Tardis. The Tardis is much bigger on the inside than it is from the outside. Theoretically it could be as large as it wants inside, whilst the outside always stays the same size. It could be continually expanding, creating more and more volume inside, whilst never growing from the outside (The idea for the TARDIS was probably developed using concepts from general and special relativity).<br /><br />This doesn't mean that there isn't an outside of the universe, it means there is no need for us to consider it. In fact, we cannot consider it, for if we did it would have to be part of our universe, and become part of the "inside"! The universe is everything we can know about, so there will never be anything outside it that we can know about....<br /> <br />What is the universe expanding into? Well it may well be expanding into itself! I know this concept seems like a fudging of the issue, but it's the best we can do using our current data. Anything else is purely untestable hypothesis. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[oldschoolmojo]

"shssssshsssssssshhhhhhssssshhh"<br /><br />Well sung!<br /><br />http://msowww.anu.edu.au/~pfrancis/Music/<br /><br />"Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard<br />Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;<br />Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear'd,<br />Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone"<br />(John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn, stanza 2)<br /><br />

 

[oldschoolmojo]

"Don't want to spoil the party here, but I was reading this thread from the original post and somewhere along the line (and it wasn't that far from the first post..) I thought OK, this is way beyond me... <br /><br />"Just like the thread starter (who obviously left the thread somewhere along the way as well..) I am looking for simple to read, clear answers to questions. <br />When reading threads like these, I - being not very "savvy" as well - don't exactly feel encouraged to start a thread in this forum. <br /><br />"It's called "Ask the Astronomer", but when threads tend to quickly drift away into long winding technical discussions full of jargon among The Gods, I think it should be renamed.. <br /><br />"Just my 2 eurocents...."<br /><br />Dutchie, nearly every thread on "Ask The Astronomer" is technical, speaking of such concepts as Quantum Physics, Comet Rotation, the Mass of Planets, Proper Telescopes etc etc. Complaining and trying to get everyone else to dumb down their posts for your sake doesn't make any euro-sense at all. If you wish to start a post on any astronomical subject just do so and try not to be intimidated. Eventually, like the original poster of this thread, you will get a response. I highly doubt anybody will look down on you for less technical questions. As Kipling said: "Don't black a man's face because he is not what he wasn't been born". Or perhaps you should consider seeking out one of the several astronomy sites which cater to a less developed understanding of such things? <br /><br />"Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn't learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn't learn a little, at least we didn't get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn't die; so, let us all be thankful"<br />(Buddha)<br />

 

[Saiph]

If the answers get over your head, or you don't understand some aspect of them, pipe up and say so! It'll actually increase my respect for you (not that it starts low for anyone <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />) because you'll be willing to speak up.<br /><br />Part of the problem with the forums is that we can't actually see who we're talking to, and we can't notice the confused look that's bound to arise. Since we can't see that, we have to rely on people to say they're confused.<br /><br />Often the heavy weights around here let a discussion wander off into technicalities because they believe the basics have been answered, and then they'll nitpick each other to further their own understanding. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>