Hubble XDF update
Discussion
One suggestion I read in some random physics book (can remmember which one), was that the expansion is like a sine wave. Maybe the universe contracted from something else, to a sigularity, then kept expanding to what we have now. The singularity in this suggestion is like the point at which the sinewave goes through 0.
It's probably been discredited now, but I quite like this idea.
It's probably been discredited now, but I quite like this idea.
Eric Mc said:
It never want bang. Bang is the wrong word to use. It just began expanding from a singularity at a fixed point in the past - and has continued to do so ever since.
And it's not expanding into anything - at least nothing that we could understand in out three/four dimensional appreciation of space and time.
See, this just kills me. I have this perception of black space racing around filling up gaps, that are currently filled with something else. Makes no sense!And it's not expanding into anything - at least nothing that we could understand in out three/four dimensional appreciation of space and time.
Once again I was watching some universe programme on discovery, and these guys were telling me that the universe went from nothing to the size of...I forget now, but it was really big, in a fraction of a second. Ming-Boggling stats.
DonnyMac said:
My brain 'urts and thus I must be dumb...
I read the BBC article where they believe they have 'pictured' the newest (found) galaxy at around 600m years old, presumably this is worked out by them calculating that the light has taken 13.1bn years to get to us - assuming the universe is 13.7bn years old - I get this, I think.
They look forward to hubble2 whereby they'll be able to see even younger galaxies, and on it goes until eventually we will have an image of a galaxy that has just been created moments after the bigbang.
Presumably, we will be able to achieve this as these objects are constant light (wavelength) emitters/reflectors and always have been up to that point - 13.7bn years and 1 day.
However, I seem to remember that if we continue to improve our telescope technology we will witness the bigbang; how, if it was an event which was fleeting, not constant, happened 13.7bn years ago and we're seemingly 13.7bn years from it (but we're not on the edge of the known universe)...
So what will we see? A flash?
In what direction? Or from every direction but at different distances?
...and finally, what will the telescope see beyond 13.7bn light years?
As I said my brain hurts, I thought I had it, then lost it as I typed this out on a mobile phone.
Help.
Eta - is the age of the universe relative to where you are in it?
I'll stop now
We CAN see the light from the Big Bang (well, around the time of the big bang...) - it's the cosmic microwave background radiation.I read the BBC article where they believe they have 'pictured' the newest (found) galaxy at around 600m years old, presumably this is worked out by them calculating that the light has taken 13.1bn years to get to us - assuming the universe is 13.7bn years old - I get this, I think.
They look forward to hubble2 whereby they'll be able to see even younger galaxies, and on it goes until eventually we will have an image of a galaxy that has just been created moments after the bigbang.
Presumably, we will be able to achieve this as these objects are constant light (wavelength) emitters/reflectors and always have been up to that point - 13.7bn years and 1 day.
However, I seem to remember that if we continue to improve our telescope technology we will witness the bigbang; how, if it was an event which was fleeting, not constant, happened 13.7bn years ago and we're seemingly 13.7bn years from it (but we're not on the edge of the known universe)...
So what will we see? A flash?
In what direction? Or from every direction but at different distances?
...and finally, what will the telescope see beyond 13.7bn light years?
As I said my brain hurts, I thought I had it, then lost it as I typed this out on a mobile phone.
Help.
Eta - is the age of the universe relative to where you are in it?
I'll stop now
Unfortunately, (here comes the science bit...) its a bit dim, and the wavelength is all stretched out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_back...
DonnyMac said:
My brain 'urts and thus I must be dumb...
I read the BBC article where they believe they have 'pictured' the newest (found) galaxy at around 600m years old, presumably this is worked out by them calculating that the light has taken 13.1bn years to get to us - assuming the universe is 13.7bn years old - I get this, I think.
They look forward to hubble2 whereby they'll be able to see even younger galaxies, and on it goes until eventually we will have an image of a galaxy that has just been created moments after the bigbang.
Presumably, we will be able to achieve this as these objects are constant light (wavelength) emitters/reflectors and always have been up to that point - 13.7bn years and 1 day.
However, I seem to remember that if we continue to improve our telescope technology we will witness the bigbang; how, if it was an event which was fleeting, not constant, happened 13.7bn years ago and we're seemingly 13.7bn years from it (but we're not on the edge of the known universe)...
So what will we see? A flash?
In what direction? Or from every direction but at different distances?
...and finally, what will the telescope see beyond 13.7bn light years?
As I said my brain hurts, I thought I had it, then lost it as I typed this out on a mobile phone.
Help.
Eta - is the age of the universe relative to where you are in it?
I'll stop now
Go here... accurate timelime that might help you...I read the BBC article where they believe they have 'pictured' the newest (found) galaxy at around 600m years old, presumably this is worked out by them calculating that the light has taken 13.1bn years to get to us - assuming the universe is 13.7bn years old - I get this, I think.
They look forward to hubble2 whereby they'll be able to see even younger galaxies, and on it goes until eventually we will have an image of a galaxy that has just been created moments after the bigbang.
Presumably, we will be able to achieve this as these objects are constant light (wavelength) emitters/reflectors and always have been up to that point - 13.7bn years and 1 day.
However, I seem to remember that if we continue to improve our telescope technology we will witness the bigbang; how, if it was an event which was fleeting, not constant, happened 13.7bn years ago and we're seemingly 13.7bn years from it (but we're not on the edge of the known universe)...
So what will we see? A flash?
In what direction? Or from every direction but at different distances?
...and finally, what will the telescope see beyond 13.7bn light years?
As I said my brain hurts, I thought I had it, then lost it as I typed this out on a mobile phone.
Help.
Eta - is the age of the universe relative to where you are in it?
I'll stop now
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
My second post.
My understanding is that we'll never "see" the light from the Big Bang because there wasn't any, as the primordial state saw everything bound together in an opaque "soup" of stuff and forces. It was only once that state had cooled down that the various forces crystalised, matter formed and photons were released, so the first light is something like 500,000 years after the initial event. Think that's more or less correct? Sure Gene will pick any holes in that
hornet said:
My understanding is that we'll never "see" the light from the Big Bang because there wasn't any, as the primordial state saw everything bound together in an opaque "soup" of stuff and forces. It was only once that state had cooled down that the various forces crystalised, matter formed and photons were released, so the first light is something like 500,000 years after the initial event. Think that's more or less correct? Sure Gene will pick any holes in that
I don't 'pick holes', you're not a Scientist and you are attempting to grasp something quite a distance from your comfort zone.Bits get left off the end etc... so I just add them back on.
So, all the Cosmos photons were released as the Cosmos cooled in a 30,000 year period but they had nothing much with regard to information to convey, so that was only really a sort of dim glimmer and it stayed in that almost pitch black state for another 150 million years.
The next 850 million years was spent forming more and more stars and galaxies and finally clusters and filaments of clusters. (the Cosmos is now 1bn years old)
All the while getting brighter and it continued to get brighter for another 7.5 bn years... since then it has become slightly dimmer but that dimming is vanishingly small.
The M-Theory Hypothesis (it is NOT a theory in actual fact) is fairly worthless, it's great maths but it is an example of maths for the sake of it.
The test of any theory is prediction or at the very least reinforcement of knowledge.
M-Theory Hypothesis has failed to provide either, in fact it's worse than that the great prediction was SUperGRAvity (SUGRA) and that has been the most high-profile failure of modern science.
It adds nothing to our knowledge but does add a layer of (unnecessary) complication to an already fiendishly difficult subject.
I did hope that at some point this 'M' excursion might give us all an insight into understanding the greatest of all the mysteries that vex us all, the fine-structure constant and its relationship to the primary alpha particle of interaction (not the radiation particle, different alpha) but that also seems more and more remote.
Ignore 'M - anything' and jump straight to QFT, you'll save yourself a headache.
QFT is the best bet for a resolution of the primary questions that remain to be answered.
The test of any theory is prediction or at the very least reinforcement of knowledge.
M-Theory Hypothesis has failed to provide either, in fact it's worse than that the great prediction was SUperGRAvity (SUGRA) and that has been the most high-profile failure of modern science.
It adds nothing to our knowledge but does add a layer of (unnecessary) complication to an already fiendishly difficult subject.
I did hope that at some point this 'M' excursion might give us all an insight into understanding the greatest of all the mysteries that vex us all, the fine-structure constant and its relationship to the primary alpha particle of interaction (not the radiation particle, different alpha) but that also seems more and more remote.
Ignore 'M - anything' and jump straight to QFT, you'll save yourself a headache.
QFT is the best bet for a resolution of the primary questions that remain to be answered.
Edited by Gene Vincent on Tuesday 2nd October 16:05
M-Theory does a slightly better job of explaining the weakness of gravity than quantum field theory though doesn't it GV?
I'm reading 'The Hidden Reality' and all the different theories and hypotheses on multiverses (in parallel) are tying my head up in knots. It has created more questions than it's answered and so far I'm finding it really unsatisfying. The Elegant Universe, which I read when it first came out in 2000, was a fantastic book that really helped me understand the principles of the latest theories (and the old ones). This one is liking having to swallow broken glass with not much beer to wash it down. It's making me question what it is I'm trying to learn about in the first place.
I guess I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that theorists are building models of things that we will never be able to physically observe or measure. If I want to have blind faith in the origins of the Universe I'll go to Church. What I want are sound theories verified by experimental observation.
I'm hoping that one day, GV, you'll just create a really long post that answers everything in a way that I can understand and tell me not to worry about infinite expanses of quilted brane worlds that we will never see. I'm feeling generous so I'll give you a month.
Is this a good book on QFT? If not can you recommend one?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Field-Theory-Nutsh...
I'm reading 'The Hidden Reality' and all the different theories and hypotheses on multiverses (in parallel) are tying my head up in knots. It has created more questions than it's answered and so far I'm finding it really unsatisfying. The Elegant Universe, which I read when it first came out in 2000, was a fantastic book that really helped me understand the principles of the latest theories (and the old ones). This one is liking having to swallow broken glass with not much beer to wash it down. It's making me question what it is I'm trying to learn about in the first place.
I guess I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that theorists are building models of things that we will never be able to physically observe or measure. If I want to have blind faith in the origins of the Universe I'll go to Church. What I want are sound theories verified by experimental observation.
I'm hoping that one day, GV, you'll just create a really long post that answers everything in a way that I can understand and tell me not to worry about infinite expanses of quilted brane worlds that we will never see. I'm feeling generous so I'll give you a month.
Is this a good book on QFT? If not can you recommend one?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Field-Theory-Nutsh...
Edited by MiseryStreak on Tuesday 2nd October 17:10
QFT is expanding daily, it is hard to keep up!
By the time you buy any book it will be far out of date. 2 years is a good minimum, but usually nearer 5.
That is, I suspect, the reason some here find what I write difficult to accept, I'm in day to day contact with others in my field and I post contemporaneously.
If you look at the dates of my posts, that is where I am on that day minus pure speculation.
QFT has a far far better handle on gravity than any other theory I have ever seen.
It's a bit ragg-ed in parts but is providing some insight and testable elements of which more than half succeed.
Explaining it though is difficult, I tried in another thread, but encountered too much resistance to even the basic premise (a necessary mindset required), I'll return to it within the month, which is about as close as I can get to your deadline.
By the time you buy any book it will be far out of date. 2 years is a good minimum, but usually nearer 5.
That is, I suspect, the reason some here find what I write difficult to accept, I'm in day to day contact with others in my field and I post contemporaneously.
If you look at the dates of my posts, that is where I am on that day minus pure speculation.
QFT has a far far better handle on gravity than any other theory I have ever seen.
It's a bit ragg-ed in parts but is providing some insight and testable elements of which more than half succeed.
Explaining it though is difficult, I tried in another thread, but encountered too much resistance to even the basic premise (a necessary mindset required), I'll return to it within the month, which is about as close as I can get to your deadline.
Gene Vincent said:
Explaining it though is difficult, I tried in another thread, but encountered too much resistance to even the basic premise (a necessary mindset required), I'll return to it within the month, which is about as close as I can get to your deadline.
Thanks GV, I'm looking forward to it. I promise to keep an open mind, I think I got the stuff you explained with the wire and then probability matrix but as you say, the thread got killed by numpties (What a shame there isn't an ignore feature on PH - I'd stick mattnunn on there three times just to be sure).In the mean time, if you absolutely had to describe gravity through QFT in a paragraph, what would that be?
Aren't simplest questions the hardest!
OK, from where I am at the moment...
Gravity is an effect of Gravitation. Gravitation appears to be yet another accounting process that is always increasingly positive across your time/reference frame, this positive only account is the reason that GR fails at the micro-scale as we have failed to date to understand how the maths for the account are totalled/reconciled. This fits beautifully with the concept of Gravitation compacting probabilities within the Quantum Fields, see what I mean below...
0...0...0...1...3...5...7...9...7...5...3...1...0...0...0
The above is probability for a particle, without gravitation, or as you perceive it in your own time/reference frame.
0...0...0...1..3..5.797.5..3..1...0...0...0
The above is the compaction of probabilities within a field with gravitation, or as others see your fall.
Note the difference between the two '1s' in the top line and the lower one, the fore-shortening can be seen as kinetic energy, the compaction 'stealing' the energy from other fields.
It is a very crude way of explaining what is a really difficult thing to even conceive, a form of positive only attraction that allows zero apparent acceleration when falling, this does... I think.
Another way to see this is that we are always within our own personal time/reference frame in all the other fields, but in the gravitational field we are only in our frame if we don't move... we keep all of those 3 dots between our probabilities, but when we move, we start to compact them up and when we stop they spread out again, that can be inertia or if we fall the energy of that spreading back out of probabilities (energy return) causes our bones to break or we go through a windscreen.
OK, from where I am at the moment...
Gravity is an effect of Gravitation. Gravitation appears to be yet another accounting process that is always increasingly positive across your time/reference frame, this positive only account is the reason that GR fails at the micro-scale as we have failed to date to understand how the maths for the account are totalled/reconciled. This fits beautifully with the concept of Gravitation compacting probabilities within the Quantum Fields, see what I mean below...
0...0...0...1...3...5...7...9...7...5...3...1...0...0...0
The above is probability for a particle, without gravitation, or as you perceive it in your own time/reference frame.
0...0...0...1..3..5.797.5..3..1...0...0...0
The above is the compaction of probabilities within a field with gravitation, or as others see your fall.
Note the difference between the two '1s' in the top line and the lower one, the fore-shortening can be seen as kinetic energy, the compaction 'stealing' the energy from other fields.
It is a very crude way of explaining what is a really difficult thing to even conceive, a form of positive only attraction that allows zero apparent acceleration when falling, this does... I think.
Another way to see this is that we are always within our own personal time/reference frame in all the other fields, but in the gravitational field we are only in our frame if we don't move... we keep all of those 3 dots between our probabilities, but when we move, we start to compact them up and when we stop they spread out again, that can be inertia or if we fall the energy of that spreading back out of probabilities (energy return) causes our bones to break or we go through a windscreen.
Edited by Gene Vincent on Wednesday 3rd October 18:03
OK, I think I get it, this is very interesting.
Forgetting gravitation for a minute, I had a thought the other day that maybe nothing really moves at all. It depends on the point of view, or more the scale of view, but you could describe a particle moving through space as just the probabilities of the particle's existence changing in neighbouring discrete regions of space at a certain time interval.
On a larger scale, as a person walks around a room, they are simply riding a wave of probabilities through space, none of their constituent particles are the 'same' particles moving through space. It's the probabilities that are moving and essentially cloning the person (and the air that precedes and follows them) endlessly at these indivisible planck length dimensions. One moment a region is acting as part of an air molecule, the next moment as part of a skin cell, blood cell, muscle, bone etc...
So with your description of gravitation, this would manifest itself as the indivisible region's probabilities bunching up and the likelihood of the particle appearing in the next one being greater, so the particle moves in the direction of the field's strength, i.e. toward the bunching.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick, stamped on it a bit and thrown it as far I can into the woods so it's indistinguishable from the trees?
Forgetting gravitation for a minute, I had a thought the other day that maybe nothing really moves at all. It depends on the point of view, or more the scale of view, but you could describe a particle moving through space as just the probabilities of the particle's existence changing in neighbouring discrete regions of space at a certain time interval.
On a larger scale, as a person walks around a room, they are simply riding a wave of probabilities through space, none of their constituent particles are the 'same' particles moving through space. It's the probabilities that are moving and essentially cloning the person (and the air that precedes and follows them) endlessly at these indivisible planck length dimensions. One moment a region is acting as part of an air molecule, the next moment as part of a skin cell, blood cell, muscle, bone etc...
So with your description of gravitation, this would manifest itself as the indivisible region's probabilities bunching up and the likelihood of the particle appearing in the next one being greater, so the particle moves in the direction of the field's strength, i.e. toward the bunching.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick, stamped on it a bit and thrown it as far I can into the woods so it's indistinguishable from the trees?
MiseryStreak said:
OK, I think I get it, this is very interesting.
Forgetting gravitation for a minute, (1) I had a thought the other day that maybe nothing really moves at all. It depends on the point of view, or more the scale of view, but you could describe a particle moving through space as just the probabilities of the particle's existence changing in neighbouring discrete regions of space at a certain time interval.
(2)On a larger scale, as a person walks around a room, they are simply riding a wave of probabilities through space, none of their constituent particles are the 'same' particles moving through space. It's the probabilities that are moving and essentially cloning the person (and the air that precedes and follows them) endlessly at these indivisible planck length dimensions. One moment a region is acting as part of an air molecule, the next moment as part of a skin cell, blood cell, muscle, bone etc...
(3)So with your description of gravitation, this would manifest itself as the indivisible region's probabilities bunching up and the likelihood of the particle appearing in the next one being greater, so the particle moves in the direction of the field's strength, i.e. toward the bunching.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick, stamped on it a bit and thrown it as far I can into the woods so it's indistinguishable from the trees?
1/. The probabilities themselves are just a wave function, it is the interaction of these wave functions that give something permanence.Forgetting gravitation for a minute, (1) I had a thought the other day that maybe nothing really moves at all. It depends on the point of view, or more the scale of view, but you could describe a particle moving through space as just the probabilities of the particle's existence changing in neighbouring discrete regions of space at a certain time interval.
(2)On a larger scale, as a person walks around a room, they are simply riding a wave of probabilities through space, none of their constituent particles are the 'same' particles moving through space. It's the probabilities that are moving and essentially cloning the person (and the air that precedes and follows them) endlessly at these indivisible planck length dimensions. One moment a region is acting as part of an air molecule, the next moment as part of a skin cell, blood cell, muscle, bone etc...
(3)So with your description of gravitation, this would manifest itself as the indivisible region's probabilities bunching up and the likelihood of the particle appearing in the next one being greater, so the particle moves in the direction of the field's strength, i.e. toward the bunching.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick, stamped on it a bit and thrown it as far I can into the woods so it's indistinguishable from the trees?
2/. Permanence gives them other properties additional to those of the surrounding air all of which have levels of permanence themselves, so although we are indeed a mass of wave functions our complexity of interaction is what gives everything mass. but you don't 're-invent' yourself moment to moment.
3/. In essence you have it!.. with the provisos above, gravitation is the effect of the energy account being taken across or through various quantum fields, this beautifully describes and gives us insights into many forms of energy from a single root source and you have the idea right in your mind.
It is as if energy pays a toll to pass across the Quantum Fields. The toll is minute for each interaction but as you amass the interactions they grow relentlessly and in every day life you have to account for that energy at some point.
Good thinking skills mate!
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff