On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 2:57 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 7:10:57 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 5:30:06 PM UTC-6 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 2:01 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2024 at 4:20:31 PM UTC-6 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 2:40 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2024 at 10:12:53 AM UTC-6 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 7:41 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 16, 2024 at 12:17:45 PM UTC-6 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > The Scientific American article "Misconceptions About The Big Bang" by > Charles Lineweaver and Tamara Davis at > https://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf > (distilled from their more technical review 'Expanding Confusion' at > https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 ) covers this question on p. > 42-43, along with other common misconceptions: > > "Running to Stay Still > the idea of seeing faster-than-light galaxies may sound mystical, but it > is made possible by changes in the expansion rate. Imagine a light beam > that is farther than the Hubble distance of 14 billion light-years and > trying to travel in our direction. It is moving toward us at the speed of > light with respect to its local space, but its local space is receding from > us faster than the speed of light. Although the light beam is traveling > toward us at the maximum speed possible, it cannot keep up with the > stretching of space. It is a bit like a child trying to run the wrong way > on a moving sidewalk. Photons at the Hubble distance are like the Red Queen > and Alice, running as fast as they can just to stay in the same place. > > One might conclude that the light beyond the Hubble distance would never > reach us and that its source would be forever undetectable. But the Hubble > distance is not fixed, because the Hubble constant, on which it depends, > changes with time. In particular, the constant is proportional to the rate > of increase in the distance between two galaxies, divided by that distance. > (Any two galaxies can be used for this calculation.) In models of the > universe that fit the observational data, the > denominator increases faster than the numerator, so the Hubble constant > decreases. In this way, the Hubble distance gets larger. As it does, light > that was initially just outside the Hubble distance and receding from us > can come within the Hubble distance. The photons then find themselves in a > region of space that is receding slower than the speed of light. Thereafter > they can approach us. > > The galaxy they came from, though, may continue to recede superluminally. > Thus, we can observe light from galaxies that have always been and will > always be receding faster than the speed of light. Another way to put it is > that the Hubble distance is not fixed and does not mark the edge of the > observable universe. > > > *I don't think this is the consensus view, which is that the Hubble > constant IS constant, and galaxies beyond our event horizon will never be > seen, if the universe in their region is expanding faster than c. AG * > > > Davis and Lineweaver are just reviewing the current consensus view in that > article and paper, not suggesting any new physics. In general relativity's > cosmological solutions there is a time-dependent "Hubble parameter" whose > value at any given cosmological time is called the "Hubble constant" at > that time, but which can change over the long term (see the first paragraph > of https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/graphic_history/hubb_const.html > for example). Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel mentions in an article at > https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/hubble-constant-changes-time/ > that even in models that don't have accelerating expansion due to the > cosmological constant, the Hubble constant still need not be constant in > time. He explains this by looking at the first Friedmann equation governing > an expanding universe, where a term equivalent to the definition of the > Hubble constant is on the left side of the equality and the right side has > terms for energy density, global curvature of space, and the cosmological > constant. So, in an expanding universe that's spatially flat and has zero > cosmological constant, if the energy density is changing as matter/energy > becomes more spread out, the term equivalent to the Hubble constant must be > changing as well. From the article: > > "Even if you had a flat Universe (which means you can eliminate the second > term on the right-hand side) and a Universe without a cosmological constant > (which would mean eliminating the third term on the right-hand side, too), > you’d understand immediately that the Hubble “constant” cannot be a > constant in time. > ... > In all cases except for a cosmological constant (i.e., dark energy, to the > best of our understanding), the energy density changes as the Universe > expands. > If the energy density changes, that means the expansion rate changes, too. > The Hubble constant is only a constant everywhere in space, as we measure > it right now. It’s not a constant in the sense that it changes over time." > > Siegel has another article covering a lot of the same issues at > https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/06/29/surprise-the-hubble-constant-changes-over-time/ > where he also mentions that it got the name "Hubble constant" because "for > generations, the only distances we could measure were close enough that H > appeared to be constant, and we've never updated this". > > > > > What does mark the edge of observable space? Here again there has been > confusion. If space were not expanding, the most distant object we could > see would now be about 14 billion light-years away from us, the distance > light could have traveled in the 14 billion years since the big bang. But > because the universe is expanding, the space traversed by a photon expands > behind it during the voyage. Consequently, the current distance to the most > distant object we can see is about three times farther, or 46 billion > light-years." > > > *But within the observable universe, space is expanding at a rate less > than c. Correct? So the 46 BLY distance doesn't seem right. AG* > > > Galaxies within the observable universe can be receding faster than c, as > mentioned in that Davis/Lineweaver quote earlier, and in their review paper > at https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808 in section 3.3. If this seems > like an intuitive contradiction it may help to be more precise about how > cosmologists define the term "observable universe": the radius of the > observable universe is defined in terms of the *current* proper distance > (see > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_and_proper_distances#Uses_of_the_proper_distance > on the meaning of 'proper distance' in cosmology) of the most distant > objects (at rest relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation) > such that if they emitted light towards us at some point in the *past*, the > light would have been able to reach us by now. This doesn't necessarily > mean that if a galaxy in the observable universe emits light *today* that > the light will ever be able to reach us. > > One way of visualizing this definition more easily is using the "comoving > distance", which is equal to the proper distance at the current time but > which is adjusted so that the comoving distance of all objects at rest > relative to the CMBR is fixed, i.e. if a galaxy has a proper distance of 9 > billion light years today then it had a comoving distance of 9 billion > light years in the distant past, say a billion years after the Big Bang, > even though its proper distance at that time was much smaller (the 'scale > factor' in cosmological equations gives the proportionality between the > proper distance to the comoving distance). If you have a graph of various > galaxies plotted in terms of the comoving distance, then the size of the > observable universe is just the maximum size of our past light cone on this > graph--see the last two of the three graphs Fig. 1 on p. 3 of that > Davis/Lineweaver paper at https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808 where > the lines labeled "light cone" show our current past light cone which > defines the size of the observable universe (the third graph is visually > simplest because they use a "conformal" time coordinate which has a varying > relation to ordinary proper time, in such a way that all light ray > worldlines are 45 degree angles just like in special relativity graphs--on > that third graph the left axis shows the conformal time, the right axis > shows the proper time). The two graphs with comoving distance also show > that the maximum size of our past light cone is identical to the *current* > size of our "particle horizon", which is just the future light cone of our > location at a point arbitrarily near the Big Bang. So the observable > universe can also be defined in terms of the particle horizon (i.e. the > current distance to the furthest galaxy that could receive a light signal > from our location emitted at some point in the past). > > And like I said above, one consequence of these definitions is that just > because a galaxy is currently within the observable universe, that does not > rule out the possibility that light emitted from the galaxy *today* will > never be able to reach us. This is shown by the third conformal graph in > Fig. 1, where the definition of conformal time is such that an infinite > future proper time is only a finite interval of the conformal time, so the > top of the graph shows the maximum distance any given light ray will reach > at a proper time of infinity. This means we will never see any events > outside our past light cone at infinity, which is labeled our "event > horizon" on the graph. If you think of the vertical dotted lines on the > graph as worldlines of particular galaxies, you can see there that some of > them were at one point within our past "light cone" which has an apex at > the current time, but their current location in spacetime (where their > worldlines intersect with the horizontal 'now' line) is outside the "event > horizon", our past light cone whose apex is at infinite future proper time. > So, we will never receive light from those galaxies as they are today, but > since we can receive light from them that they emitted in the distant past, > their current location is considered part of the "observable universe". > > Jesse > > I don't get it, but I'll keep trying. The claim seems to be that a star > can be receding from an observer at velocity greater than c, and still be > in his observable universe, and this is intelligible by changing the > definition of observable universe and Hubble's constant. Is this the claim? > TY, AG > > > One could say the definition of Hubble's constant changed, since they > initially did think it was constant but then theoretical modeling in > general relativity and more distant observations favored the idea of a > parameter that could change with time. But I don't think the definition of > "observable universe" has changed, I think it always referred to any region > of the universe that we can see today, even if we're seeing light that was > emitted in the distant past when the proper distance was smaller. Do you > just mean it doesn't match the intuitive meaning you would attach to the > term? And if so, do you have an alternate preferred definition, like those > regions where if a light beam was emitted today we'd be able to see it > eventually, even if not for billions of years in the future? > > Jesse > > > I'm satisfied leaving the definition of Observable Universe fixed, but I > can't see how anything can recede at velocity > c and remain within our > Observable Universe. And the measured radius of 46 BLY seems too large if > the velocity of recession is < c. I will look at your links. AG > > > But according to that definition, if some object at rest relative in > comoving coordinates (i.e. its motion away from us is purely due to > expansion of space, so it's at rest in the local CMBR frame), then if it > was ever observable at any point in the past, it will be considered part of > the "observable universe" forever, even if there is some time after which > we can no longer observe any more light from it. Again, "observable > universe" just means regions that can be observed by us at *some* time in > their history. > > Jesse > > > I think observable universe means what we can observe *now*, which > according to theory will *decrease* in the future. But your definition > suggests any galaxy that might have been observed in the past, will > continue to be part of the observable universe even if it goes out of view. > I don't think this is correct. AG > > > While it's true that some galaxies we can now view, have already passed > beyond our horizon, these will wink out, and the remainder will remain > within our event horizon until they also eventually wink out, as long as > the universe expands. AG > Do you mean our "event horizon" in the sense I talked about earlier of our past light cone at a time of +infinity, as opposed to our past light cone today? Either way, if part of a galaxy's worldline is within our past light cone at a given time, in relativistic terms we could still be getting some kind of causal signal from it, even if in practice the light (or other causal signals moving at the speed of light like gravitational waves) from sufficiently distant galaxies may be too redshifted to detect with current instruments. Redshift approaches infinity as you approach the Big Bang in terms of when a given signal was emitted, but in the distant future even signals emitted long after the Big Bang will have very large but finite redshifts, so you'd need to be able to detect very long radio waves to "see" them, and if you can't the galaxy has effectively winked out of view. Jesse > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc86525f-9215-43bc-8a4f-b09ae6534532n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc86525f-9215-43bc-8a4f-b09ae6534532n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3JPKOOYgN2m7eDQW0he0OfL6NqwiUd3EV14VxJdb9K_6A%40mail.gmail.com.
