A false-color image from the Gemini North Telescope in Hawaii shows the afterglow of GRB 090423 [circled], the most distant astronomical event yet observed.
Image: Gemini Observatory/NSF/AURA, D. Fox and A. Cucchiara (Penn State University) and E. Berger (Harvard University)
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
A violent explosion picked up by a NASA satellite earlier this year is the oldest object ever seen by astronomers, its light having been emitted some 13 billion years ago. At that time the universe was roughly 5 percent of its present age and the big bang was a fairly recent occurrence, having taken place just 600 million years earlier.
NASA's Swift Gamma-Ray Burst spacecraft spotted the flash signaling a massive stellar explosion on April 23. The explosion was officially designated GRB 090423, after its type (a gamma-ray burst) and date of detection; the space agency quickly announced it as the new record holder for cosmic distance. Now, two papers in the October 29 Nature present detailed analyses of the burst and afterglow, confirming the initial distance assessments and providing a few clues as to conditions in the early universe.
"We don't know much" about the event that produced GRB 090423, says Bing Zhang, an astrophysicist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who wrote a commentary for Nature accompanying the new studies. (Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group.) "What we know is that at that early time we already had a star and that star exploded, and that star is not that different from the nearby stars that produce gamma-ray bursts."
Specifically, the progenitor star appears to belong to the second or third generation of stars, rather than the first generation. The earliest stars are thought to have been massive, short-lived balls of hydrogen and helium, whereas their offspring incorporated heavier elements formed in the first generation's explosive demise. The burst and afterglow of GRB 090423 is not unlike that of closer (and hence more recent) gamma-ray bursts, pointing to a later-generation progenitor. "We know that this star is not first-generation, because its observational properties are quite similar to its nearby cousins," Zhang says. The first stars, long a target for researchers, have eluded detection thus far.
Still, the burst puts scientists closer to the first generation than ever before: It is about 150 million years older than any other known astrophysical object, says astronomer Nial Tanvir of the University of Leicester in England, the lead author of one of the new Nature papers. "On the one hand, that doesn't sound all that significant, given that they're all sort of 13 billion years or so of age," Tanvir says. "But in terms of pushing back closer to the very first stars that formed in the universe, we think this is quite a significant leap."
Swift's X-Ray Telescope trained itself on GRB 090423 just 73 seconds after the satellite's Burst Alert instrument picked up the signal of the event, and Tanvir's team had the U.K. Infra-Red Telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii looking at the afterglow just 20 minutes after the burst. But the weather in Hawaii was not ideal, and this particular gamma-ray burst was not especially bright, limiting the amount of additional information astronomers could glean from the explosion.
In principle, Tanvir says, a bright, well-observed GRB at great distances could expose the makeup of the intergalactic medium as well as the chemistry of the star's host galaxy, which would in turn indicate the products of previous generations of stars.
As for the galaxy to which GRB 090423 belongs, Tanvir says that his group will be using the Hubble Space Telescope next year to seek it out, now that its location has been marked. "We hope to locate the host galaxy," he says. "We have very little idea of what galaxies were like at that time. We have only very sketchy ideas."
See what we're tweeting about
80 Comments
Add CommentBEAUTIFUL!!!! But I'm still concerned with how that star got thirteen billion light years away in 600 million years. The big bang makes the math work...but that's all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso...The universe has been described as "uniform". Has there been any research as to where the center is? Thus determining where the big bang occurred? 13 BILLION YEARS!!! KMA, creationists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow , now, The Dude, let's keep that swollen ego safely tucked away in your trousers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this. Based on Einstein's theories that gravity bends light, any distance given is only a guess. But what are we to think but straight line distance since our brains aren't wired to grasp curved space. In fact, we may only be seeing something that is 6.5 light years away but took 13 billion years for the light to travel its circuitous path to get here and be seen! If we knew where to look, the light given off at the creation of the Moon could be coming full circle and we could see for ouselves how it was formed!
Curved spacetime leaves telltale signatures, so we do know that the light came from that far away, and isn't simply the result of some really roundabout route here. For example, there are Einstein rings, which have been observed many times. As far as The Dude's question regarding its distance, it didn't start here and then move there, it was over there when the universe was only 600 million years old.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisso the light we get is actually emitted 13 billion years ago. Does this mean this star is somewhat 13 billion light-years away from us?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough the light took 13 billion years to reach us, this should not imply the event took place then? Where in the universe were we when this happened? And with all things being relative to the observer have we moved away from this event? and what would be the time displacement - the distance we have traveled from the time of the event took place?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough the light took 13 billion years to reach us, this should not imply the event took place then? Where in the cosmos were we when this event occurred? With all things being relative had we for example moved away from this explosion? If so, should we be considering perhaps calculating the time displacement - the distance we have moved relative to the time of the explosion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can something so old be something so ordinary if time from the start of the big bang is what we are using as the rule to measure time of our creation. They didn't expect this, they were looking for something more exotic. We made the big bang into a science and threw out other theories such as the steady state model. To keep their BB model alive, they are going to have to push back the beginning date of the big bang once again. I can see in the future where they keep on pushing the date back for the birth of our universe into infinity, then and only then will they realize that they were studying the steady state universe all along.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAAAARRRRGH !!! COMMON SENSE PEOPLE !!!! How fast do objects move from an explosion ???? certainly NOT at the speed of light !!! Light moves MUCH faster ! Even from a so called mega event like the BIG BANG ! ( I do not believe that theory anyway) Therefore any light from the big bang would have passed this point WAY before our solar system found this spot to homestead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The only way to look back at a big bang would be to somehow shoot a telescope out PAST where the front of the light wave from the event is NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! In other words we are NOT looking back at an infant universe when we see this object. We are merely looking at an object that was there 13 billion years ago!!!!! Curved universe indeed ! ! ! Why can't people wrap their brains around the idea of infinity ????? Those who believe in curved space and the big bang are STILL creationists ! You might as well go back to believing in GOD !!! WHAT I BELIEVE ? Our universe is a dust particle floating in space of a much larger universe ! That would even explain your big bang ! If the dust particle were thrown out from an explosion of a much larger object.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for the comments. This is the type of discussion that I come to this site for!! Again, curved space as well as the big bang are theories that make the math work. In Einstein's time the math proved the theory, which was developed through observation. Now the theory is modified to prove the math. My degrees are all in business and law, so I don't have a math background. But don't get me wrong...I am very curious about the universe and I really want to learn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuicksilvermx...You and I are thinking along the same lines. No theory that I have learned about takes into account infinity (distance) or forever (time). Scale is the only way to RATIONALLY explain these two things without relying on variables. However, the major theories have come up with ideas such as multiple universes and variable speed of light. WHAT I BELIEVE? There are an infinite number of universes, both larger and smaller than ours. The scale is so great that we will never be able to directly observe any others. Rather than a speck of dust, I think that our universe might be an atomic particle (or string) of a much larger one. The speed of light is very important, I think...maybe some type of multiplier for both time and size.
I wonder if the LHC will create big bangs, and if ours was the result of some particle theorist's wild experiment 13.6 billion years (our time, of course) ago!
Why do they call this an "artifact"? I thought artifacts were contaminants of human origin, either to be eliminated from a data set or sought after, as in archaeology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGravity is a Push
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlack holes are neither. Space-time and matter are mutually antagonistic. Gravity is not a force, just a consequence of this interaction of space-time and matter. When enough matter is concentrated in one place, space-time is twisted to the point that a balance is reached between space-time and matter. This balance results in a "bubble" of matter of nearly infinite density becoming virtually a two-dimensional sphere with nothing on the inside.
When a star collapses, space-time is stressed to the point that it rebounds forcing the mass outward resulting in a nova. If there is enough matter, space-time pressure (gravity) will balance the outward pressure of collapsed space-time resulting in a black hole.
Extrapolating backward in time, the beginning of our observable universe can be attributed to the intrusion of matter/energy into this space-time continuum. The reaction of space-time on this intrusion dispersed most the intrusion driving it violently apart. The remainder became a bubble of space-time with a two-dimensional surface; the first black hole.
Incidentally, gravity is not a force. Gravity is the consequence of the mutual antagonism of matter and space-time. This antagonism results in spherical planets, the limit of the speed of light, and the accelerating expansion of the universe.
As a consequence, gravity does not precisely follow the Newtonian Inverse Square Law. Observations of trajectories of spacecraft slingshoting around planets show a clear, consistent discrepancy between the mathematical predictions and actual results. These are just some observations that are not adequately accounted for by conventional theories of gravity:
• Extra fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed.
• Pioneer anomaly: The two Pioneer spacecraft seem to be slowing down in a way which has yet to be explained.[1]
• Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater accelerations during slingshot maneuvers than expected.
• Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this.
• Anomalous increase of the AU: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are expanding faster than if this was solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy.
• Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[4].
• Dark flow: Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass. Such a large mass is too large to have accumulated since the Big Bang using current models and may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[4].
• Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[4].
These and other observations suggest a revision of classical gravitational theory is necessary.
If, as I suggest, gravitation is a consequence of space-time pressure on matter due to mutual antagonism, then gravitational phenomena are not linear but volume dependent, then, instead of an inverse square law, gravitation requires an inverse cube law; Gravity at A = gravity at B × (distance B / distance A)3 .
Interestingly, this suggests that what is called the Strong Nuclear Force that serves to hold atomic nuclei together is not a separate force at all, but the very same space-time pressure that results in what we perceive as gravity. This theory also accounts for the galactic rotational anomalies “explained” by the fallacy of dark matter and the accelerating expansion of the universe attributed to “dark energy.”
Using simple, undergraduate level equations, the mass pressure of space-time can easily be calculated as 5.757 X 10-17 gs. Using this, the observable limit of the speed of light in a vacuum becomes a consequence of space-time pressure. This is the calculation: Space-time mass pressure @ C = 1.727 X 10-26 m/gs2. Incidentally, this means that photons have mass, despite what you read in high school physics textbooks.
Further research to refine mathematical rigor and make the observational measurements necessary is indicated.
1. ^ Wanted: Einstein Jr, The Economist, 6th March 2008.
2. ^ Dark energy may just be a cosmic illusion, New Scientist, issue 2646, 7th March 2008.
3. ^ Swiss-cheese model of the cosmos is full of holes, New Scientist, issue 2678, 18th October 2008.
4. ^ a b c "Where Matter Fears to Tread", New Scientist issue 2669, 14 March 2009
Keep in mind that the expansion of the universe is not restricted to the speed of light. The red shift indicates that this stellar explosion is, in fact, 13 billion light years away from our location and occured 13 billion years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the expanding universe it must be presumed that since this light was emitted when the universe was 600 million years old and it traversed spacetime for 13B years our own galaxy must have been receding away from the observered light for a long time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't do the math, but much of the 13B light years seperation distance at reception had to result from our own galaxy's recession from the approaching light during its traversal. As a result, the light traversal distance cannot indicate the 'current' distance to the emitting object or necessarily its 'current' relative location, but simply the distance to its absolute location at the moment of emission.
If this is correct, the perception that all distant objects are rapidly receding away from us is an illusion produced by our own galaxy's relativistic motion in the expanding universe. But then, I'm no scientist...
If by now this is the oldest object ever seen by astronomers, how can we be sure about not existing older objects further away and not visible?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInflation ,a time when the universe expanded at an unknown distance faster than the speed of light, answers all of the questions above.We can never know how long this dark age happened,only what happened after the first light could be seen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyes, we are experiencing the steady state universe. and, we are incredibly small.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe curiosity here is really nice to see, but the knowledge side is kind of lacking. Take a couple of courses in modern physics, astronomy and/or cosmology. While there is a lot we still don't know, there is also a huge amount that we do know, and the questions here are missing what we do know. Scientific American periodically has some really good articles, and/or tries to market some really good books that shed a lot of light on these topics. It's a good place to start. A blog like this can't possibly address a big fat book full of material.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe.: Gravity is a Push
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn regards to the failure of Newtonian Inverse Squares Law to correctly predict actual velocities, I suggest it is more a result of improper application than failure of the force concept. If you carefully examine the specification of gravitation in Classical Mechanics, the inverse square applies only to two point masses. A point mass can represent either a sufficiently spherically symmetrical mass or sufficiently distant objects such that their spacial distribution of mass is not significant in relation to their separation distance. All other mass configurations require that ALL attraction vectors between the two objects of mass be determined and that vector summation be applied to them for summarization, as they have varying attraction directions. Also note that this specification of gravitation is intended only for discrete objects of mass, not disperse aggregations of massive objects.
I am neither a physicist nor mathematician, but I strongly suspect that the identified inverse square law prediction failures could be corrected with more complete application of its specification. I also suspect that this spherical symmetry violation applies equally to the specification of gravitation in General Relativity, but it is rarely used because of the difficulty of equation solution.
I generally agree with your explanations of gravity, but I believe it represents the inherent universal force of velocity or pressure found in the ‘vacuum’ of space that has been identified in quantum physics. It may be contracted by the potential velocity of quantum mass, just as relativistic velocity locally contracts spacetime in Special Relativity.
I suspect the two specifications of gravitation could be integrated by approaching Classical Mechanics’ attractive force as the net effect of the interaction of local regions of contracted spacetime, each producing a force of velocity directed towards their respective object of mass. But then, I’m not a scientist…
Re.: Gravity is a Push
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding your discussion of photon mass, I’ve never read any textbooks, but I understood that the zero mass characteristic property of photons applied only to their rest mass and that photons in motion do have effective mass. It also occurs to me that particles are only detected in their rest state: ‘particles’ in motion behave solely as energy waves. It also occurs to me that the property of mass seems to be inversely related to characteristic motion of each class of fundamental particles, and that quantum mass may be unexpressed emission velocity. This potential velocity of mass seems to have the inverse affects of velocity expressed as motion. This suggests to me that the Strong Force, Mass and Gravitation may all be scalar manifestations of the same fundamental physical force.
Sorry, but I’m incapable of comprehending undergraduate level equations beyond elementary arithmetic, so I can’t comment on your basic assertion, but I seem to have some fundamental agreement with your conceptions.
A friend of mine put it this way. The elements that make up our solar system and earth were on the opposite side of the universe when this occurred. We were separated by about 1.2 billion light years. (like a ripple in a pond at 600 space second from center, at that very moment the opposing poles are a distance of 1200 space seconds from each other) Keep in mind that once the gamma ray generated the light, regardless of the expansion of the universe in opposite directions the intergalactic chase was already on. The light does not get any more distant once it started in our direction from the fixed point 1.2 billion light years away. During the early expanse of the universe matter was moving at or near light speed (I think) and during the formative years of our solar system that expanse slowed, a litte more during the formation of the planets and then more. I don't know what the formula is, but you don't really need one to grasp the concept. If you think about it, it all makes perfect sense. The 1.2 billion year gap closed some as the expansion of the universe slowed and some 13 billion years later the chase ended instead of 14 billion years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, just because the light of the event has reached us after 13 billion years doesn't mean the event happened 13 billion years ago. The universe is expanding, as if the light is traveling on a treadmill. This event may have happened much more sooner and we are just now seeing it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom what I've read stars did not form so quickly, not within 600 million years. Our sun is thought to be only a second generation star.
There is no center of the universe, the big bang did not explode from a central point and then expand out. I prefer to call the big bang the "Big Wink", it simply "winked" into existance in an inflationary stage. Thus no center.
Well, just because the light of the event has reached us after 13 billion years doesn't mean the event happened 13 billion years ago. The universe is expanding, as if the light is traveling on a treadmill. This event may have happened much more sooner and we are just now seeing it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom what I've read stars did not form so quickly, not within 600 million years. Our sun is thought to be only a second generation star.
There is no center of the universe, the big bang did not explode from a central point and then expand out. I prefer to call the big bang the "Big Wink", it simply "winked" into existance in an inflationary state. Thus no center.
I like someone asking the question about whether the location of the exact center of the Big Bang can be located? Astrophysicists typically say that it can't be, because they presume that the universe which sprang from the BB is much bigger than what we can actually see.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf they didn't assume this, they would be in the embarassing philosophical position of having to assume that our dear old planet is the dead center of the universe. However, such a strong belief in something you can't actually see is not exactly empiricism. In fact, a belief in things unseen is more like religion.
Nevertheless, most astronomers go along with the idea that space itself expanded so rapidly (which actually is equivalent to a massive scale change, since they assume that the BB occured in nothing at all and therefore there was nothing outside the BB sphere of expansion that could in any way serve as a reference) so really the term "expansion" is arbitrary and meaningless and what we are really talking about are changes in internal physical parameters over scales that are assumed to still be expanding.
The situation gets even worse for empirical science because we know that in the far future the accelerating rate of expansion of the universe will result in our own galaxy (which is by then a merger of Milky Way and Andromeda) being all that future astronomers will be able to see. They will know nothing about all the billions of galaxies which have flown out of sight. History records will be so ancient as to be suspect of being mere myths and doctored photos.
I only believe in what I do see, so I assume that the Earth is the center of creation or pretty close to it. The LHC is kind of an exciting experiment because maybe creating a Black Hole close to the historical origin of the BB would be a kind of cosmological tipping point or trigger. Maybe humans were designed and installed at this precise location in the universe in order that we would build the LHC and get it up to full energy just in time to produce a BB by the Winter Solstice, 2012, in accordance with Mayan thinking.
The questions regarding the structure of the universe and the now presumed acceleration of its expansion are very interesting. Keep in mind that astronomers must view the sky spatially in order to locate objects for observation. This spatial orientation seems to form the basis for their conception of the universe. While they claim to understand our relativistic perspective of the universe, there are apparent contradictions. It is amazing to me that the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z team, upon determining that light from more distant galaxies indicated greater expansion than light from nearer galaxies, leapt to the conclusion that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, requiring some unidentified Dark Energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo be more precise, what they actually determined was that the more distant galaxies were further away, calibrated by observed type Ia supernovae peak luminosity, than standard cosmological models predicted, based on the redshift of their galaxy’s light. They apparently presumed that this indicated increased expansion near the periphery of the observed universe. I believe this was an elementary misinterpretation of their data, and offer an alternative.
Expanded Universe Perspective
The perception of an accelerating universe may have arisen from our limited observational perspective. While light from distant galaxies may seem to represent current conditions near the spatial periphery of the observed universe, it actually represents the more ancient conditions of the developing universe. Since light emitted 10B years ago indicates greater expansion than light emitted 5B years ago, it must be concluded that universal expansion actually decelerated. Only this temporal interpretation produces results consistent with fundamental laws of physics.
From this perspective, distant galaxies did not begin to more rapidly recede away from our own galaxy about 5B years ago, but rather, in the earlier universe all galaxies more rapidly receded away from all other galaxies. Observed more distant galaxies are further away than expected because, long ago, our own galaxy very rapidly receded away from their approaching light emissions. More recently, galaxies have less rapidly receded away from these ancient light emissions as well as the more recent emissions of nearer galaxies.
The redshift of distant light indicates the relative velocity of the emitter and receiver, physically imparted to the wavelength of light by the relative velocity of its emitter as it is emitted and the receiver as it is received. The actual distance light traverses is determined by the separation distance of the emitter and receiver at emission and any subsequent relative motion of the receiver throughout the observed light's transit. The receiver's actual relative velocities, varying throughout the transit of observed light, are not reflected in its redshift but are reflected in its traversal distance, as indicated by diminishment of its observed luminosity. The discrepancy between redshift and distance is produced by temporal variation in the velocity of the receiver.
Events producing the observed characteristics of light from other galaxies:
1. As all galaxies receded away from each other in the earlier universe, their emitted light was redshifted by the relative velocity of the then current rate of spacetime expansion.
2. As light emitted from other galaxies in the direction of our own galaxy independently traversed expanding spacetime, our galaxy continued its recession, initially at the relative velocity indicated by the emission redshift but varying over time.
3. When the light from other galaxies is eventually received it is again redshifted by the now current recession velocity.
4. Distant light's actual traversal distance, derived from type Ia supernovae observed peak luminosity, disagrees with the relative velocity indicated by observed redshift. This discrepancy is proportionate to the variance of our own galaxy's recession velocity from emission to reception. This process produces the observed distant light characteristics.
In a decelerating universe, the receiver has moved farther during the observed light's transit than is indicated by its relative velocity at reception. This is consistent with observations, as more distant galaxies have been determined to be more distant than expected based solely on redshift.
The apparent universe consisting of innumerable galaxies surrounding our own, now rapidly receding away from us, is an illusion of our own relativistic motion. It is our own galaxy that has rapidly receded away from the ancient light emissions of all observed distant galaxies. While all distant galaxies recede away from each other, we directly observe only their ancient light emissions. Observation results originally understood to indicate an accelerating universe actually indicated a decelerating universe, complying with the second law of thermodynamics.
Thank you, jtdwyer, interesting theory. May I add that any light escaping from the much more compact universe of 13 billion years ago is also escaping from a much denser and deeper gravity well, which would red shift it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo me, cosmology is mostly recreational science, not much more meaningful than counting angels on the head of a pin. It's based on long chains of assumptions and the reality is probably beyond our abilities to understand. "Universal" implies "everything". In this sense, there are no other universes, or time lines, though there might be 'bubbles' which we can't observe beyond. Really useful astronomy would include looking for asteroids on collision courses and studying the sun to see how it might effect our future. If a local star is going to explode and spray us with gamma rays, there's not much point in knowing about it unless we have FTL spaceships ready for long journeys.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks you, Michael. I tend to examine all possibilities, even for established paradigms that are not well founded. The discrepancy between distance and redshift, the actual basis for the proposed accelerating universe hypothesis, has to my knowledge not been investigated, much less explained. It seems that once an interpretation has been published and survived initial peer review, any alternative interpretation must provide evidence well beyond that provided by the original, no matter how loosely based, to receive any serious consideration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding your point about gravity: I’m no physicist, but as I understand, since the redshift of light indicates the relative velocities of emitter and receiver, gravitational affects in the dense early universe would have been more than offset by the then current expansion, since the universe has expanded rather than contracted. Regardless of any influences actually imparting or impeding velocity, it is the net effect that seems to be recorded in the wavelength of light.
I think the crux of the matter is whether intergalactic light is redshifted by the velocities of the emitter and receiver relative to the speed of light in an effective vacuum, as implied by my proposal, or by an intervening medium of expanding spacetime. While redshift is calculated based on the former, I believe that most astrophysicists presume the latter. However, is appears that only the former can explain the observed discrepancy between distance and redshift.
I believe the motion of our own galaxy during the transit of observed distant light is a critical factor that has gone completely unrecognized due to the tradition based perspective of astronomers. Here in the real world, we correctly assume that no actual motion occurs during the transit of light, but this is not correct at universal scales of time and distance.
In a letter to a friend in 1954, the year before he died, Einstein doubted that physics could be based on the continuous field concept, in which case, quote: &Then nothing remains of my entire castle in the sky, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of modern physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only alternative is a discontinuous universe where a universal methodology presents itself that complements traditional approaches to the empirical evidence. Space and time are implicitly defined a posteriori by the synchronous projection of atoms as structurally distinct space frames alternating with timeless quantum frames that constitute a boundless quantum energy field that is orthogonal to the integrated fabric of space-time as we know it. Light comes to us as a series of pulses in each space frame consistent with the Planck constant. External linear space is defined by light emission with respect to the internal spherical space of each atom. There is no other universal measuring rod out there. That is why light speed is universal. Where there is no light there is a black hole. Atoms are waves and particles at the same time because each oscillation defines a primary interval of time in the synchronous projection of the physical universe. All relative particulate motion occurs as relative quantum jumps between space frames, so position and momentum can not possibly be known at the same time. The integrated fabric of space time becomes warped by relative motions since they introduce relative space-frame skipping consistent with relativity effects and also with the foundations of quantum theory and wave mechanics.
The Lorentz Transformations derive directly from a unique system of historic coordinates associated with the universal methodology. See the website article GRAVITY, QUANTUM RELATIVITY & SYSTEM 3 at www.cosmic-mindreach.com.
Big Bang cosmology is founded on the red shift of light from distant galaxies and the assumption that this is associated ONLY with recessional velocity in a presumed spacetime continuum. However in a discontinuous universe the relative cyclic motions of galaxies must introduce relative space-frame skipping which must introduce a red shift in our observation of light over increasingly vast distances and time it takes to reach us. There is also direct X-ray and Infra-red evidence of old stars being drawn into a black hole accretion disc at the center of our Milky Way galaxy and also evidence of periodic ejections of massive hydrogen clouds that expand outward like giant smoke rings into the galactic disc with hot young star formation in them. The heavens are also sprinkled with starburst galaxies that have periodic rates of star formation sufficient to regenerate their entire stellar populations in less than a billion years if sustained. There is thus considerable evidence accumulating that galaxies are cells creatively regenerating their stellar populations. They can migrate and evolve but migration rates are limited by the need for synchronicity in the primary projection of the universe as a whole. This is evidenced by Foucaults pendulum and the gyro compass that confirms that inertial velocity is distinct from gravity. The cyclic motions of the heavens are not at the beck and call of gravity. There is no missing mass. The universe need not expand to prevent gravitational collapse. A spinning top does not fall over. There never was a Big Bang. See the article COSMOLOGY AND SYSTEM 3 at www.cosmic-mindreach.com.
So THAT's why I can't swim very fast: the frequency of light wave oscillation and therefore the progression of time is so much slower in water!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuote: So THAT's why I can't swim very fast: the frequency of light wave oscillation and therefore the progression of time is so much slower in water!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have misread my post. The primary interval of time is distinct from the frequency and wavelength of light in any given medium. It is fixed by the requirement for zero orbital angular momentum in the first hydrogen orbit.
I apologize for my inappropriate post. I’m a simple person, an old, uneducated information systems analyst, incapable of comprehending your epiphany. I can comprehend the universe only as simple mechanical processes. I do agree that there is no missing mass, but I can attribute this only to improper procedures in gravitational estimations: the indiscriminate application of simple equations intended only for discrete spherically symmetrical objects of mass. Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, no one disputes that if we look in the right place, we can see back in time due to the 'curvature' of space-time? And there CAN NOT be any straight distance of visual ranging, Don't try to dumb down the principles for this crowd. And according to Heisenberg, now that we have seen this distant object, i.e. observed it and recorded it's position, it no longer has a velocity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.I tried reading Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" in Braille but that little hole he used to represent singularities sucked me right in and, like Schroedinger's cat , I breathed the radioactive gas and died 13.5 billion years ago. It is only the wonder of modern astronomy that allows you to here my red shifted baratone voice now.
.Two speed boats are towing skiers behind them. The skiers like to drink beer. Skier #1 has run out and shouts to skier #2 to toss him a brewski.If #1 tosses straight to #2, the beer flies woefully behind #1 He must lead #2 with his throw. Now they could toss them cans back and forth all day knowing this but there is a scheduled turn of the boats coming up. The craft are to head away from each other by taking a left turn and the other a right turn. Now the skiers are headed away from each other and to supply each other with refreshments, the lead is a real long throwwhen #1 tosses the can over #2's head, it eventually drops into #2's hand. So the important figures to know in this problem are, the positions in amount of separation of the two skiers, the rate at which they are moving apart, the velocity that #1 can throw at and whether #2 is watching for the can.When #2 atches the beer and looks back, he can see from where #1 threw the beer as the effort made his trunks fall off. #2 can see that #1 is no longer in that spot but that is where he threw the light from.
>SO, I accept that approximately 13 billion yrs ago, that light started its long toss over our head. We have just now seen it. But the source is also 13 billion light years removed from where it was when it threw the beer.The distance apart is equal to the addition of the three factors involved in the question: the d apart at throw plus how far skier#1 has moved plus how far skier 2 has moved. If skier #1 is moving directly away from skier #2 he is 13 billion years awy plus how far they've separated in that time which (maximun)(but it can't be ) at the fastest would be each moving at 1/2 c apart, the separation now might be 26 billion years,
.That does not mean the universe is that old. It means that the universe is that wide. Dang verbage limit. be back
One of my pieces of sheepskin is in Metrology. So, Bostonprof, go read that book and then we'll talk. Seeinz you've declined my efforts to converse previously.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this. When the lightyear was adopted as a length term, well... What was wrong with parsec?
.For all you no bangers out there Boo!
OK! Well, I’m dumb enough that I can’t do the math and don’t really know what a parsec is, but I have had a few beers in my time. I seem to remember a story like this, but it was sailboats with a prevailing wind. Ignoring that, as I remember the receiver can only figure the throw distance from the amount of foam produced when he opens the light beer, or how much it has warmed up. Also, he can’t see where the thrower is when he catches it: he only remembers where the thrower was at when he threw it as they parted. So when the light beer falls into his free hand, he opens it with his teeth, sees the foam, and raises the beer in the direction he remembers the thrower was at and figures he’s 13B light beer years away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThings get more complicated when the receiver is continuing straight ahead as two throwers turn at 90 degrees from him in opposite directions. This is where the 26B light beer years come in. At least, that’s the way I remember the story, but then I think I was in a beer tent in Munchen drinking heavy Oktoberfest beer when I heard it…
Now I remember: it was guys in sailboats tossing beers when this inverted tornado pops up. You may not have heard of those, but this was in a little bar in Oklahoma and you know how us Irish-Cherokee cowboys get to talkin’…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving given your ‘Two speedboats’ storybook problem further consideration, I have say that it does not actually describe the issue identified in my 10/31 posting under the subheading ‘Expanded Universe Perspective’.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou describe actually a somewhat separate, quite valid, perceptive issue with observations of the expanded universe, a geometrical issue created by the separation of the physical path of ancient light emissions from distant galaxies and the subsequent path of the observed galaxy, leading to misperception of galaxies’ apparent location versus their likely contemporary relative location.
There were two issues I attempted to describe which are, I believe, directly involved in the erroneous interpretation of observational evidence, in studies calibrating galactic distances by type Ia supernovae observations to assess universal expansion, which produced the conclusion that universal expansion is accelerating.
1. Apparently, more distant observations indicating increased expansion were interpreted to imply that expansion at the periphery of the universe, viewed as a physical configuration of contemporaneously observable galaxies, was accelerating. This is speculation on my part, as the original studies did not fully explain how they arrived at this accelerating universe conclusion.
2. Those original studies actually identified only that the more distant galaxies observed were further away than expected, based on standard cosmological models. The original observational studies did not explain how this was result was interpreted to indicate an expansion state. I offered an explanation for this discrepancy primarily based on the assertion that the redshift of distant light reflects the velocities of its emitting and receiving galaxies relative to the speed of light in a vacuum, rather than being physically imparted by the expansion of spacetime as it is being traversed. This distinction is critical, since in the former case variation of the rate of expansion during the transit of distant light is not recorded as redshift, producing the discrepancy between the actual distance of light traversal and its redshift.
This interpretation of observational evidence supports the previously expected deceleration of universal expansion.
I did not attempt to identify all types of potential misinterpretation of expanding universe observations, as there are many, but only those critical to the now common conception of an accelerating universe.
How can people make flat statements about the universe like the universe was only 5% of it's current age when that stellar occurrence took place. The universe is infinite in size and there must be parts of it that will never be able to see because of this great distance. Maybe the "Big Bang" and this stellar explosion were strictly local events.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay, jtdwyer, you seem to be grounded in reality and will possibly heed the following I offer as 'enlightenment'. These are things nostradamus won't have a clue about and sought an alchemist to treat, but the great Albert would, I think, appreciate:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisc is not just the 'speed of light' and for academics to continue to use century old nomenclature only confuses the student where faced with the real world. c is the maximun value that wavefront propagation can attain. (The limit is related to the plank constant but that's not needed to air here) Nothing more, nothing less. Of course in a vacuum, it goes fastest there being nothing to attenuate or alter its influence on adjacent particles (virtual or real). But there are concievable situations where that velocity may exceed the vacuum velocity. Radio waves, microwaves x-rays, light gamma, alpha and beta radiations, electrons from molecular shell to molecular shell go no faster than 186,000 miles/second. Continuing to limit it to the speed of light does a disservice to knowledge and those who teach it that way are info bigots, there I said it. Start calling the spade what it is : Max wavefront propogation.
Einstein couldn't get his grand unification theory to make sense to himself because he didn't have all the facts. Now we know that at great distances, time ticks elsewise than it ticks here. So, Albert, there was a fifth force of which you were unaware in your thought experiments. You dealt with local space. The fifth force is that which regulates the passage of time. It is inluenced by the others. The others inluence it. It is in that manner of influencing that they get related to each other. They break down as being directly proportional or inversely prportional depending on whether you are steady-state, moving from high gravitation fluxes to low and vica versa. I think of it as the stoking factor. You have a log and plan to combust it. light a match and let it go on its own it lasts so long. Add a source to increase air flow and you get the same reactions occuring, only quicker.
..So, light from that far gets to us curved and along a wavefront which can go maximum or be attenuated as to intensity but never increased in energy level or decreased in energy level then recover on exiting/going through a galaxy as was here stated earlier! Jeezuz, where does that shite come from?
. Again to those who dislike the big bang, BOOM!
Thanks, Michael – this is much more my speed. I’ve always refused being taught anything, but external information must be assimilated to figure things out for oneself. So, I have to confirm what I think I understood you to say:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Energy waves propagate between molecules at > c.
2. There is an as yet unidentified fundamental force that, along with the others, affects the procession of time.
3. Light traversing expanding intergalactic spacetime is curved by a universal wave of energy.
4. Intergalactic light entering a galaxy is refocused by the curvature of local galactic spacetime.
I may have taken some liberties with points 3 & 4, as these are actually my own current thoughts, which seem to be aligned with yours, if I understood correctly.
I was unaware of point 1, and don’t yet agree with point 2.
Out of necessity, I approach a wide variety of very difficult problems not by attempting to understand everything but by pragmatically focusing on critical factors and essential processes.
In my current thinking, it is what I consider velocity, or the progression of energy in space, that is the essence of everything else. Perhaps more information would be of use at bellsouth.net.
So,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOdd question: In special relativity the speed of light is constant. When the explosion took place the universe was much more tightly packed and we were, in some sense, nearer than we are today. Let us say, 600 million light years, if the expansion were moving close to the speed of light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy did the light not take 600 MY to reach us rather than the 13 BY that we now see?
Oh, I get it, time has expanded so that 600 MY there looks like 13BY here because they are moving away so close to the speed of light. Duh.
186,000 mpsec is the maximum value of wavefront propagation in a vacuum. E=mc**2 can be manipulated mathematically two ways to arrive at this limit (it's in the calculus with dv/dt)(and the dt is key to my stoking theory). One manipulation of the equation gives a result that to travel at the speed of c (not light, wavefront propagation) an infinite amount of foce is required to achieve the next little 'delta x'(change in position) The other calculation manipulation takes a velocity of >c and plugs it into the equation and comes up that you have to overcome a factor of the square root of a negative one (termed an imaginary number, though it is considered to be quite real just not available to us)It is in that sense that I said that wavefront propogation may be found or forced somehow someday to fake out the math and apparently exceed c. That's all I meant. Ihold it as a current inviolable limit. This, jtdwyer, should answer your #1 above.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that if you measure the mass of a particle, you cannot know its velocity. Conversely, if you measure the velocity of a particle, you cannot know the mass. They are mutually exclusive measurement aspects of the same phenomina. Wave or matter take your pick, either way the math does work. It's relative. Now the great Albert, moved his thoughts back and forth between those two states and was able to keep his sanity. All his observations though, were based on Earth only observations.(REM: he never even got to see us do zero g experiments) But his mind revealed to him that time is indeed a relative idea, concept. His intuition allowed him to realize that in a g well, time would pass more slowly than in a distant no g area. He expanded on this idea and even developed General Relativity from the principle. However let us return to that bit of math I mentioned above: dv/dt. All Calculus since Newton, Isaac the next to greatest, created it. that litle part in the denominator is always considered to be a constant, that one hour of the clock is equal to 60 minutes of the clock. What I expressed in my burning log example that eighteen million combustion reactions take place whether it happens in ten minutes or ten hours. And to the clock analogy, yes each hour has sixty minutes but that some minutes take fifty seconds to transpire while others take90 seconds for the same minute. In one place in the universe it could take three hours to cook a two minute egg. To that distant person, his egg took three minutes, just as ours does. But if you compare ... (cont)
...(back) (see time dilations and echoes) His egg may have taken 300 heartbeats to cook while ours took 305. This difference does have many ramifications. One is that all our Calculus mountain of solving needs resolving encorporating a variable fot t in dt. It also means that g may present other acceleration constants in different 'well' situations. We cant judge what the equations should calc out to here versus what the result would be with the same equation around a neutron star. The 'bending of c (wavefront propagation routes) through gg 'wells' will be different bending around stars than it will be bending around galaxies. Because? The time figure is a different "constant" in each situation. That should address your number two (Hee Hee, he said number two, Beavis and Butthead circa 1990) posit jtdwyer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.On your #3 point, I never said anything like that. Wavefronts do "get bent" around gravity wells.
.#4, didn't say that either. The next to greatest got that 2nd law of thermodynamics right. Entropy it a fact. You don't come out of a galaxy with more than you went in with. And from whence does this idea even spring forth? Attenuation (it happens to waves) and redirection do take place in the crossing of existential minefields.
.The future may see particle physicists beholding the wonder of an existence where >c is a fact but it's at that scale not macro that it can happen. The door to the switchig of physical law may be at the door to Planck's Tomb.
Sorry, Michael, that I’ve misinterpreted again. For my point 4, perhaps I should have said that light entering a galaxy would be curved by its gravity well. I’m just guessing that light that enters the Milky Way to be detected by someone on Earth may have been curved just as light obliquely traversing the Milky Way’s periphery to be observed elsewhere may be curved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point 3 springs forth from the strange idea that if light can be curved by a gravity well, contracting local spacetime, perhaps the expansion of the universe creates a negative gravity well, or a gravity spring. In this case just, as light can be locally curved when obliquely traversing spacetime locally contracted by a gravity well, perhaps light can also be curved when obliquely traversing spacetime universally expanded by a ‘gravity spring’. Of course, Albert did not consider an expanding universe when developing his theories of relativity.
I probably can’t be certain of your point(s) unless you summarize them concisely in addition to describing the mathematical reasoning. I’m now guessing that you’re trying to explain to me something like: in the early universe, a dense gravity well, time progressed more slowly, so light took longer to get from its emission location to its reception location. Or is it that light spent a lot of time weaving around the dense gravity well minefield of the early universe? Please, please, tell in a single sentence what point(s) you’re explaining. Sorry for being so dense. Thank you for your patience and consideration.
There have been several postings questioning how light emitted when the universe was only 600M years old could reach us when the universe is 13.7B years old. In a universe expanded from a virtual singularity, this would seem to require that the rate of expansion average very near the speed of light for the entire history of the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has been suggested that the time dilation in the early universe may allow light to exceed the established speed limit. However, this would obviously be considered by most to be a violation.
Increased gravitational lensing in the early universe due to increased galactic density and/or a universal curvature resulting from spacetime expansion may increase the traversal distance of intergalactic light. This would delay its arrival, allowing our own galaxy to recede into position to receive it. I believe these suggestions would be considered highly speculative by most.
Well, being truly ignorant, as opposed to being falsely knowledgeable, I’m also free to speculate. There is one moderately well established hypothesis that may facilitate solution to this apparent conundrum. It the proposed solution to the Horizon Problem and several others, referred to as Cosmic Inflation. Put simply, it proposes that in the very early universe the expansion rate briefly exceeded the speed of light. In this case, by 600M years the initial separation distance between the observed 13B year old gamma ray burst and our own galaxy, along with the subsequent recession of our galaxy, may have been sufficient to allow the observed gamma rays to reach us some 13B years later while still allowing for deceleration due to entropy.
I unfortunately must also mention the established Accelerating Universe hypothesis, which requires the (dreaded) unidentified Dark Energy, which is supposed to overcome entropy.
Of course, any of these suggestions may be combined to decrease the expansion rate required to enable recent reception of the observed gamma rays.
In addition, it must be pointed out that the estimated distance to this object was almost certainly based on the redshift of its afterglow, and observations more precisely calibrated by the consistent peak emission luminosity of type Ia supernovae have indicated that more distant galaxies are actually further away than their redshift indicates. Also, while the currently estimated age of the universe was based on very careful observations, it may also be primarily based on the redshift of distant objects. At any rate, while these types of estimates have been widely accepted by astrophysicists, they are always subject to future enhancement.
Time went passed so slowly at the start due to the intense g well that the sun could have existed hundreds of times. Sentence two (sorry) wqavefront propagation progressed (like in syrup not vacuum) so slowly that it would have taken a year to go an inch. (but if you were there, you'd swear it went two inches).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.Have you seen the frog that was floated in the super intense magnetic field? I beleive that happened because the relationship of gravity and time was influenced by the mag field. He didn't so much float as he was moving before gravity could grab him.That's confusing but it should lead to understanding. Just why the hell did the frog float? where did gravity go? We can't ask the frog how he felt but with miniaturization of all sorts of electronics a probe package could be inserted.... naw, the High Mag force kills the emf force and our tools won't work. Someone figure a probe type to record those events please.
Thanks very much, Michael this is finally clear to me. Actually, I did finally figure out that I had likely inversely misrepresented your point in my posting at 12:48 AM on 11/05/09. I think Id still have to characterize this suggestion as a violation of the current consensus if not the reality of physics, correct?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI cant say I agree with your interpretation of the example though, as I would (very simply) presume that the force of the magnetic field exceeds the force of Earths gravity, producing the floating frog.
You see, I have this deviant conception of gravitation not as a curvature of spacetime but (for spherically symmetrical masses) the radial contraction of spacetime, or external vacuum energy, produced by the potential velocity of mass. Just as linear acceleration produces the linear contraction of spacetime (correct, Albert!), the collective potential velocity of a massive object (resulting from encapsulating internally directed particle emission velocity in the initial density of unified energy) produces this radial contraction of the local energy of external spacetime. It is this indirect force of spacetime that we experience as gravity, thus its weakness relative to other forces.
Alberts spacetime curvature effectively describes the affect of mass contracted spacetime on the independent velocity of external objects, but it actually results from the additional velocity imparted by the locally contracted external energy of spacetime. His described curvature represents the actual interaction of contractions, produced by the intersection of an external objects own locally contracted spacetime and their relative linear velocity. Im sure this is perfectly clear now, but that no one trained in a classroom can possibly agree with me.
So, my conception of spacetime expansion is the eventual release of residual unified energy in the very early universe to produce an inverted gravitational effect, produced by a massive (sorry) energy pulse. Its progression universally produces space and time in its wake. Surely, Ive now convinced you! Thanks for all your help.
How has this happened? This is a blog site about the article detailing points about the most distant (and by inference, the most earliest in time) stellar event observed to date.Can we stay on topic please? No bullshit about inertial radial collapse inversion by existential ghost enetities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are some issues about the claims which need have tolerences (+/-) attached to them. I mentioned that the light may have followed a curved path to get here so straight line time is an erroneous measure. If Astronomers want to refer to straight time okay but state that that measure is a minimum value as any curving inherent in the distance makes it longer. The writer was misled by the scientists when they told him "some 13 billion years ago" that statement means 13 billion plus or minus an amount of uncertainty. If they are talking straight distance (and therefore , straight time), they should have said, "at least 13 billion years ago".
.Okay, between now and 13 billion years ago, those photons must have been bent in their straight path by gravity wells or even more by lenses.I would venture to guess that every million years, that light did come close enough to a galaxy to get bent, That would imply13,000 bendings in the photons lifetime. Even in milliseconds of arc degrees 13,000 add up to 1.3 seconds of total bend. Okay, some bent it back on path so a half second of degrees in our sky's apparrent position from the true position?
.At 13 billion years x 186,000 Miles per second, we get 13,000,000,000yr * 365 days /yr * 24 hr/day * 60 min/hr * 60 sec/min * 186,000 miles /sec =
. 76,254,048,000,000,000,000,000 miles away from the point where (or when) the photons were first emitted (at a minimum).
.Now they tell us nothing about the red shift in the energy of each photon, which if supplied could give us a measure of how fast the object at that time was moving away from us. Since no data on that issue is given, we cannot make assumptions as to where it has moved to in this time. We can ask however why this data was not provided as it should have been a major component to establish the observation itself.
Certainly the idea that a universal curvature is applied to distant light is highly unconventional and is not supported by any observational evidence that I’m aware of. However, this admittedly remote possibility is pertinent; as if it does occur it could have a very significant affect on the actual traversal distance of observed distant light, and could be undetectable if this curvature occurs nearly uniformly in all observed distant light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConversely, there seems to be some observational evidence that the affect of local curvature of distant light is not likely a significant factor in its traversal distance. Examining an image of a galaxy whose light had passed near enough another galaxy to be significantly curved should reveal the presence of that other apparently nearby galaxy and also exhibit some distortion produced by that local curvature. The general absence of this evidence seems to indicate that local curvature is not generally a significant factor in the traversal distance of observed intergalactic light.
Your math does seem convincing, though, somewhat like that calculation estimating the probability of intelligent life throughout the universe. Watch your step!
jtdwyer, let me chop these words up so that you'll have no need to mince them when they get to you. I said nothing about a "universal curvature". Electromagnetic wavefronts follow the bending in space caused by the masses they pass near to. If a million years goes by and no mass is encountered, no bending occurs. If a mass is encountered though, it does get bent by the depth into which is flows through the g well The deeper into the well, the greater the bend. And, as I said, sometimes the photon dresses to the left and sometimes it dresses to the right (if you understand those terms). Since no photon gets to us with a shipping label so we'd know which bends it took to get here, a statement saying it is straight line distance is absurd and not even a child would make such a mistake. The bending means that what is observed has to be a minimum value.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.Another of my points came specifically from my metrology education, training, experience and love. Any measurement has an amount of uncertainty inherrent in it. The amount is attributable to the instrumentation used for the measurement. Whenever test or observation results are stated they should be accompanied with one of three caveats: This amount, plus or minus some small amount; this amount as a minimum, it could be larger by a factor of some small amount; or, lastly, this is the maximum it could be, but it could be less by some small amount.
And thanks for the math kudo. I'd like to know how big that number raks in real world numbers that have been calculated. Maybe Martin Gardner knows?? I'll ask him.
Thanks, Michael. No, universal curvature is my own idea, although I had thought you were also suggesting the same in one of your earliest comments. I thought I had already taken clear responsibility for that idea, and I still stand by it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciate correct measurements, but as an ignorant old, retired Technical Fellow, understanding the significance of contributing factors in determining the outcome of events is at least as critical as the veracity of measurement data. If I recall, the standard calculation for determining the probability of finding other intelligent life in the universe is based on finding right sized planets at the right distance from their stars. However, if I recall correctly, it does not consider the fact that we have only been processing remote EM signal data for maybe 150 years, a contributing factor perhaps as significant as 150/13.7B, depending on signal distance and some level of confidence. Thanks for your help.
Micheal and Jtdwyer-I believe gravitation lensing would be an example of light going both left and right and up and down.and I think I grasp the concept of a light cone it is that we can see only a small portion of the universe .Doesn't the light path curve backward in time within the cone as well?This is probably a stupid question but,isn't there a direction or plane where we are looking directly in front or behind us in the time line? If we are looking in front of us, the direction that the universe is expanding shouldn't we see an edge where we can only see for a short ways out?Regarding the 150 year limit,I have suggested that we could use the 2 slit light experiment on star light,looking for the wave function drop caused by someone else in another solar system that is same distance away from a star that we are both looking at.Since the light we are both looking at is from the same source it is entangled, when we look they ,see us looking and vice versa.Of course the drops would have to be rapid and non random so we can rule out natural events,this would be happening in real time via spooky action at a distance, it wouldn't matter how long it took the light to get here as long as both end are looking at the same time.What I am talking about is faster than light communication.There may be many species out there doing this.To narrow down the choices we need to be looking for Earth like planets then look for stars that are the same distance from it and us.It could be that someone out there has already found us and is waiting for us to do the same thing,but we would have to careful that a signal we think is from someone else isn't coming from someone on Earth.The only way we could be sure would be to place a satellite around the moon to block anyone on Earth from doing this,and or receive information about a problem we haven't solved yet.Well I think I wasted enough of your time,I will be awaiting yours or others rebuttals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo many sites. So many twists of similar concepts. I thought I'd asked it here. Maybe it was elswhere, elsewhen. I can see no better solution than to repeat a Question I have here(Science is the striving to provide answers to questions. and it seems all anyone offers these days are answers[Myself included]). Now here's my poser;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf energy and matter are different manifistations of the same fact of time-space, why does energy in waves pass through other waves without effect? Why when dealing with matter does it always bounce off other matter? And, when the two, energy and matter, meet, sometimes there's no reaction. sometimes there's a bounce and somtimes there's a combination of effects?
In a Universe where the reverse held sway, one could never transmit radio. In that Universe matter would pass through other matter and life could not exist. So whatever the answer to my question, we be fortunate it is the way it is.
jtdwyer: that equation you reference, made known by C. Sagan, is the Frank Drake probability of the existence of intelligent life equation. I've tried to contact him to ask if there might not be another probability factor which was omitted from the equation. That being the possibility that some local intra-galactic events might wipe out life and knock the probability in that area back to zilch. I outlined that such a factor when added to the equation and integrated with respect to time and the result plotted, a sawtooth waveform results. Meaning there is an increasing probability of other life until a nearby star blows up and then it'd take a million years for the probability to rise to a 'possible' value again. We may just be one of the first in our region of space to be recovering from such an event and are calling to a wilderness populated as yet with beasts. Someday they may catch up.
Michael-Go to wikipedia and look up leptons and bosons ,because I don't fully understand the subject,but who does?It would be a matter of spin.The standard model through experiment has found almost everything regarding these particles,but they are still looking for the Higgs field at the LHC .It would appear that they are about to answer some of your questions,if they don't take forever to do the analysis of the data,Hope the guys at Nasa, doing the work on the moon collision data are not involved,or some bird doesn't poop on their parade,or they create something bad,and on and on and on.Could it be that they don't want the answers,there would be nothing more to look for,thus like you said, no more funding ,I believe this is why no one has defined what space-time is made of,could it be the higgs field that they are looking for?Perhapts Drakes equation needs several more varibles included.I can see your point about nearby supernovas having an effect,but maybe the radiation from them spurs evolution.All I am left with with is alot of questions.It seems that once you open a door ,you find many other doors behind it.Thats why some of the things I suggest,are in fact questions that I am seeking answers for,what if this or what if that,because I sure a hell don't have the math skills to solve the many problems I run in to,but I am still studying so I can keep up and follow others who do have said skills.Wish I was alot smarter,and by the way I am male,if that makes any difference,I don't know if being female would change the way I ask questions or listen to the answers,what the hell I just asked question about a question?That is the question about the question that I was asking about.Huh, think I better quit for now I am getting confused.Good luck I hope you find the answers to the questions you were asking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA couple more questions,What if the reason light can't go any faster is because space-time won't let it,and this is the cause for redshift,as space-time gathers energy from photons over time?Thus with this data.Can't we figure out what the density of space-time is?Can't we measure the start of micowave background radiation,the end of the dark ages to the redshifted photons from this supernova and then measure the amount of time in between?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjack.123, we seem to agree on the involvement of rasiation and evolution. Rads cause mutations. Mutations either survive or go by the wayside. The end result of mutations is us. Abig part of my paper on black holes (Ginfins) colliding is that the wave of rad precedes any matter events. I see it as the Dinosaurs were tanned to death, then came the cometwhich created the K-T thing. the creatures which survived the rad blast mutated. The accepted ancestor of primates was originally a hole dweller. In the hole, the full blast of the rays would have been attenuated. Not enough to kill just enough to cause change. Why suddenly time wise, would cave men... well not here this is an astronomy blog about the modt distant recorded stellar event.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael-Now all we need to do is find the star that did the damage,it would need to be the right number of years ago in the past that the nova happened,at least 65 million years ago, plus the number of years that it took the radiation to to get here.Good luck on your hunt.If its out there I am certain you will find it.You mention your paper-Ginfins.Where might I find it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere to find the Ginfin paper? most of it is to be found posted at the site here for "black stars, not black holes) I left out the Gravitational infinities part because it seems presumtious to be going around putting new names on things ('tho BH's were originally termed Singularities!and some one changed that) That same blog postings detail or lead you to go look at the Homunculus nebula of eta Carina , which, if you look at the shells of erupted nebulae encasing it seems to have a collision history which may match all the extinction events in the Earth's past. And now we recorded a "flashing" which happened 125 yrs ago(3 generations of mutations agofor humans , many more for plants and smaller organisms(viruses) (in fact the timing of the first 'Pandemic 100 yrs ago would agree with a 25 yrs of viral mutation cycle to arrive at a lethal one))
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.Iasked a California University which watches e. Carina to send me data on the "skirt" growth over a month ago. Either ihit a dead end there or hit a that's stupid attitude or send me a check/give me a grant attitude or the data doesn't exist yet. If it's the last, at least they could have replied to my email.
At the black star site you will see I address the outcome of a separation of virtual particle pairs. Those pairs, in losing one to the event horizon lead to the possibility of Hawking radiation and the evaporation of the black hole. How can one of the pair drop into the black hole and the other be free to rasiate away? At the event horizon you have three possible pathe in front of you (and Hawking's time cones would show this nicely) to the left=the hole, to the right=away and straight ahead in a stable orbit around the horizon, gaining relative mass as its velocity continued to increase approaching the speed of maximum wavefront propogation, c, and itself becoming Black hole-ish . This idea I think I can lay claim to naming and I call it the "Third Path".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael-Yes it is quite prettyto look at.Don't know if there's a way to measure the radiation it may have released in the past ,but the amount being released now might be a clue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you read the eplanation I give to the shapes/stuctures I outline for various numbers of objects involved in the collisions, you'll note that I mention a very rare one which can occur if four BH's are in the same plane when they collide. The result: Crossed planes of matter in a plus sign shape from directly above and perpendicular vantage point Guess what? They just found one!!!!!!!!! It's not the intersection of two spiral galaxies (which it would resemble) but a galaxy shaped like a plus sign that has thousands of light years of depth to it!!1 The observational proof just keeps on rolling in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael, you may be able to clarify some of this pedestrians confusion about black holes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand, Hawking radiation results from a BH ingesting the anti-mass of anti-matter. It seems counterintuitive that antimatter has an antimass characteristic, as particles and anti-particles should then repel each other. While I understand that lots of radiation (X-rays) is emitted from close proximity to BHs, is there any definitive evidence that Hawking radiation exists?
BHs are commonly referred to as having enormous mass (supermassive, etc.), but I have seen at least one expert explain that they are actually only extreme distortions of spacetime and contain no actual mass or matter. It seems likely to me that matter ingested into a BH is completely dismantled and ejected, its mass effects remaining as the artifact of contracted spacetime.
Wonderful jtdwyer! I would rather enjoy epistlizing on any aspect of black holes (But if you wanna get on my good side pleasr refer to them as Ginfins)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, what is entailed in Hawking radiation is based in the quantum understanding of what the vacuum of space-time is. It goes to the question of: "If space is void of matter, how are E-M wavefronts propogated?" The now widely accepted belief is that at every possible point in space, at a quantum level subatomic level, particles come into existence with their complimentary particle called virtual pairs (not anti-matter or ant-anti-matter, although who knows? but it's not what the radiation is about)(Think more like positrons and electrons). While they exist momentarily apart from each other, they react to the energies of space around them, thus allowing waves to pass from one 'x,y,z' co-ordinate' to another, that other depending upon the amount of 'dx,dy,dz" inparted by that energy
Follow so far? I hope so, because now we venture where no man will ever go: The Event Horizon. (I prefer to not only refer to this last barrier level but to all the other shells outside and around it as the Openheimer Barrier, but that's a different lecture).
Hawking postulated that when one of these virtual pairs comes into existence, one half (either one) could be so close to the 'horizon' that, like light, it would not escape to return and self annihilate with its twin. This possibility means that one half a virtual pair is now in existence and has not mutually destructive companion to halt its existence. He speculated that after many eons of time, that particle would eventually radiate itself away from the Ginfin and express its energy as a very long infra-red heat type of signature (cont)
(cont) Eventually, This radiation (read energy) carrying away equivalent mass would eventually eat away (evaporate) the black hole. This contention is quite brilliantly arrived at by considering theat the pair is actually from the inside of the event horizon (and therefore part of the Ginfin Mass) and leading one to believe that somehow, something has escaped through the barrier where even light cannot pass. I bring the argument back to this side of reality and this side of the barrier. (my claim against the other posit is that it's just created a new quantum mass just inside the horizon that doesn't escape which means the mass has increased by a factor of one half a virtual pair. That's not evaporation in my book!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo continue with my majestic thought: when a virtual pair pops into life just outside the innermost shell of the oppenheimer barrier, each half has not two potential pathways to follow but, THREE. into the Ginfin, away from the Ginfin or, and here's the beauty, around the Ginfin in a stable orbit. In some cases 1/2 will go away while its twin is orbiting then they come back together. Some cases they both follow an orbit path and annihilate and the third way one 1/2 goes in leaving the twin not going away, That would take some eneergy input to change a stable orbit half into an outward going one. So orbit one it has to be if its twin has been consumed by the Ginfin (Yes I neglected a scenario, that both get consumed over the horizon) My 'left to exist on its own particle, unlike Hawking's eventually wanders away particle, remains in stable orbit, well, no orbit is stable forever. This particle will eventually begin it's fall toward the barrier. As it does so, it will gain speed, velocity until it eventually, in accordance with Einstein has such a velocity that its relative mass approaches infinity.
Here I need to begin mixing in a bit of the second quandry which you expressed jtdwyer, the nature of a singularity. It really has nothing to do with mass!!! It is entirely a function of DENSITY. You could have half the matter in the universe gathered near itsel and not have Ginfin conditions. Not until that mass is collapsed upon itself does a gravitational infinity situation arise. That possibility goes down to small particles too! That is why some theorize that small BH's (Ooops Ginfins) they popinto existence just like the virtual pairs with most extinguishing immediately. But go back to my 1/2 pair at the Ginfin orbit approaching infinite mass. Well that's one particle! Can't get much denser than that. (cont)
(cont, again) where were we?Ah, yes a 1/2 vitual pair particle in a mostly but slowly decaying orbit just outside the innermost shell level of the oppenheimer barrier gaining such velocity in its fall around and in toward the Ginfin, that its Einsteinian relative mass increases to approach infinity, making it apoint in space which is becoming near infinite in density. At such a high travel velocity, and don't doubt that other particles aren't orbiting doing the same thing, it becomes more gravitationally attractive than the Ginfin itself. Now, may speculate that the complete collapse of matter into a singular point could take an infinite amount of time to occur and not many dispute that. What is our situation then?We have a spherically orbiting near infinite density mass which is enclosing anotheer extremely dense volume Which wins the gravity war? I say the matter from inside is drawn out into the shell and a new Ginfin is formed oneplank length squared inarea bigger. All the material of the Ginfin is in that plank length thick shell, infinitely dense. Any future vitual 1/2 pairs involved at that sphere just makes it larger by a near infinitely small amount.. The only way to undo this structure is to disrupt what holds it together Gravity. And that is done by banging another Ginfin into it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMathematically, the sphere has a center of mass and gravity. When two Ginfins touch, that point where they touch experieces equal pull from both Ginfins or in a sense, no gravity is felt there, allowing the particles to take off tangentially with any inherent momentum they may have carried over from when they became pat of the structure. Well, you had to ask! One of these days I'll get the telling into one paragraph and maybe fewer than twenty words (NOT!)
And the Big Bang was the collision of two half universe sized black holes!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks, Michael. That was very enlightening. While I think I got the gist of it, being forever unfamiliar with the math and many details I’m sure there are some aspects I cannot grasp. I focus on the big picture, in crayons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I probably should have asked whether there is any concrete evidence that an anti-mass elementary particle characteristic actually exists. I have this sneaking suspicion that, for example, positrons and electrons both have positive mass, and that the anti-states of particle characteristics exist only for their spin and charge properties. That could indicate that only they are strictly properties of material energy, and mass is a condition of material energy’s external emission energy.
As such, while it may not fit with the mathematical foundations of GR, the singularity may represent the contraction of spacetime produced as material energy is accelerated to sufficient velocity that the potential energy of its mass is stripped away as it is converted to additional spacetime contraction, releasing its material energy as sub-elementary particles. I’m sure I missed a few steps and misrepresented at least some of this, but the general conception may still be close to physical reality… In this case the singularity may simply represent an approximately infinite contraction of spacetime, containing no material energy requiring spatial dimensions. In addition this could explain why the Higgs Boson cannot be found, since mass is not a fundamental property of material energy. Just a thought – no harm done.
About two years ago, this wonderfully informative magazine published an article about all the known and speculated mateerial world pieces including the ellusive Higgs/Boson field equivalent. I have hard copy of it. I'm sure it's in the archives here somewhere if you look. Once you have a handle on those quantum structures, ... Well I don't at all follow you're constricted radial collapse devoid of potential material energy theorem. It took me three postings to get my ginfin posit out. Please these electrons are virtually free so take your time and develop the hypothesis from square one for me. I am always pleased to see things with my limited vision in a new light. They're prettier that way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael, I understand your advice, but all my hardcopies are dated from the early 1980s through the early 90s, and you didn’t mention the article name. I will simply attempt to explain my line of reasoning as best I can now. I apologize for elementary/improper terminology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. In the initiation of this universe, likely by an event converting a radial contraction of spacetime into dense fundamental energy.
2. As this initial fundamental energy expanded into preexisting external space, quantum internal bubbles formed within, as emissions of material energy, considered to be quark particles. These were manifestations of fundamental energy, spinning within a quantum bubble of reduced density.
3. As the density of universal energy was too great to allow motion or reabsorption, their linearly directed emission energy encapsulated the quarks, still directed towards the quark. This is the potential velocity we identify as mass, in this case quantum mass. This inwardly directed motive force is self opposed, permanently constricting quark motion to a periodic resonance as it is continuously absorbed and redirected. The quark is effectively bounced around within its encapsulating shell of inwardly directed emission energy. This mass configuration not only limits motion resulting from its emission energy, but it opposes and partially absorbs any externally applied motive force, increasing effective mass (resistance to motion). Its potential velocity also creates an internal configuration of spacetime, allowing extended persistence of otherwise unstable particles.
4. As the density of universal energy reduced further, some limited motion became possible, producing electrons.
5. Eventually additional motion and absorption and reemission became possible, producing photons.
I don’t attempt to understand everything else, only the physical characteristics of mass.
- I describe here only the first generation of fermions, the principal ‘particles’ of matter detected in the lower velocity collisions of atoms.
- I believe the perceived second and third generations of fermions are the experimental artifacts of detection procedures. They appeared to have higher mass simply because they are detected only in the higher velocity collisions of sub atomic particles, influencing estimations of their apparent mass. The significantly higher velocity collisions of the LHC are likely to ‘discover’ additional generations of fermions.
- The encapsulating energy of mass cannot be directly detected in particle accelerator experiments, because they only detect particles. Following collision, decomposed mass only contributed to the motion of all released particles.
- In this proposal, if the diminishing density of universal energy that determines how much mass particles acquire. This is the required particle selection function performed by the hypothesized Higgs Field.
Perhaps this at least better explains what I’m suggesting. I really have no expectation of convincing anyone. Thanks.
So sloppy - here's a couple of corrections:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. In the initiation of this universe, some event converted a radial contraction of spacetime into dense fundamental energy (not relevant).
- In this proposal, it is the diminishing density of universal energy that determines the amount of mass particles acquire. This is the required particle selection function performed by the hypothesized Higgs Field.
Right at the beginning I'm lost. "Dense fundamental Energy? What means this term? Am at library my pc broke will be back
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael, I believe that particle physicists and cosmologists generally agree that the energy density of the early universe was exceedingly greater than in the current epoch. I’m sorry I can’t offer any further instruction if you cannot grasp the concept of energy density.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm back!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDensity is a property associated with matter. Specifically it is the amount of mass per unit volume. Any "scientist" who tells you about energy density has been mis-trained and has passed that erroneous idea on to you. Sorry, jtdwyer.
Energy cannot be 'compressed'. energy follows well established rules of chemistry, kinetics, potentiality and thermo-dynamics (heat). Nono of those exist in any form that can be volume ghanded.
changed
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo need to apologize, but if this is a competition, I concede, already.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut before you announce your victory, you might want to refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
and find on page: ‘density’ or ‘energy density’. I hope that helps.
Michael - I’m not very good at explaining things, but it’s expected that, when matter first appeared in the very early universe, its thermal density was beyond what can be found in the universe today. Since this initial matter was converted from energy per the principal of mass-energy conversion, prior to its conversion the energy itself was exceedingly dense, in that it occupied a near infinitely small dimension of space, which actually hadn’t yet appeared. At least, that’s how I envision it. You could imagine that everything in the universe, all matter and energy, was contained within an area the size of a pin head in the form of fundamental energy. Our regular notions of matter, space, time, electromagnetic and gravitational forces, et al, were not yet in effect. This in itself is almost impossible to grasp completely: the explanation of my ideas about mass and gravitation outlined earlier presume a much different formative environment than can be observed anywhere in the universe. But I’m just guessing…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer, I take no pot shots at you but at that pin-head (Ha Ha!) idea of the universe's beginning. I've had to listen to it for forty years and it is all wrong. You are not wrong, that theory is wrong. The state of the universe just prior to the BANG event was the same space-time we have now. Then something happened to start filling the space with matter and energy (The matter could have been compressed but not the energy). My theory is that two 1/2 universe sized Ginfins collided and spewed out the stuff of us all into a tangent plane and subsequently the movements of matter through space and the warping it causes has distributed those things into a less recognizable shape. The whole point of the article this blog rides under is that astronomers were astonished that the stellar event they saw that far back in time was so similar to what they see today. It was expected that as you got closer to the initial star making phase of our universe, much bigger objects would have been formed and with different end of life scenarios. But it's the same as today's scenarios. Which means:1) The begin time is wrong and should be much further back; 2) The "physics" of the universe was different then (which I doubt); or, 3) Things then were much as they are today and all our elemental constituents were released into the universe right from the beginning. I will grant that the collision point of the Ginfins, being a type of accelerator machine, would have given rise to extreme tems and other conditions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael – Sorry, I forgot who you were, for a minute. Yes, the idea of an originating singularity has always stuck in my craw, knowing it’s simply a mathematical interpellation of the apparent universal expansion. The spatial dimensionality of the initial universe is not actually a reasonable question, as at least internal universal space and matter presumedly did not initially exist. Since the formation of all hydrogen and most helium cannot be otherwise explained, some form of initial conversion of energy into H & He seems necessary, requiring those extreme thermal densities. That’s all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou do have some interesting insights and ideas. I’m not sure what reasoning physicists have for concluding that no elements heavier than helium were formed prior to star formation, except that those elements are formed in stars. Perhaps some localized conditions akin to stars could have even occurred in the hot, dense universe prior to the expected initial release of EM radiation (presumedly into preexisting space??)
I strongly suspect that there are many conditions affecting distant light that are as yet unknown or misunderstood, leading to the conclusion that expansion is accelerating and quite possibly affecting the currently accepted estimate of universe age. However, while astronomers were surprised by the similar characteristics of distant and nearer stars, as I understand there are significant differences in the characteristics of the most distant galaxies observed compared to nearer ones, arguing against a vastly greater universe age. Frankly, I’m astonished that astrophysicists have such precise expectations for new observations, almost as if they thought they understood everything. Once again, those expectations were simply unfounded. Could be that everything is not yet completely understood. In fact, history indicates that some already dismissed crackpot ideas will be discovered to be correct, later…
I feel that the collision point of two Ginfins, even stellar sized ones, acts much like a linear accelerator or large ring collider. Many big things get broken into smaller things going through the region. Many small things get combined into bigger things, too. The belief that all our heavy elements with non-main sequence type numbers (17, 41, 13, etc.) seems flawed and cannot have been created through just fusion inside a star. Even the small percentage of stars that go BOOM (see this article) cannot account for the apparent qauntity ratios we see of those elements around us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot that I beleive it but, they theorize that only the most basic of quantum entities ( electrons, leptons, mesons, quarks, etc) were brought into existence at the big bang and they over the first billion years gathered themselves into our atoms. Then stars began forming.