PDA

View Full Version : Hubbels wrong, we are shrinking


budcamp
August 23rd, 2003, 08:22 PM
Being new to astronomy I see things differently than those who have had time to develop a point of view. I have no established values on any one position. An outsider sees things from a different perspective. When I look at “The Expansion of the Universe” , I see a massive dichotomy that no one is talking about.

Everyone basically agrees that the universe is expanding and the galaxies are moving away from each other. The farther away they are, the faster they are moving apart. Every new astronomy student hears the expanding Universe described as being comparable to a balloon or to a cake with raisins stirred into it. As the cake raises, the raisins move apart. If two raisins are half an inch apart and the cake doubles in size they will then be one inch apart. However, if they start at two inches apart and the cake doubles they will be four inches apart. The farther apart they are the faster they recede from each other. But, they always move away from each other at some rate of speed. The raisins are used to symbolize galaxies.


But, in the world of real galaxies everywhere we look, within say a few billion years; everything is coming together into super mega-clusters and walls. All of those billions of galaxies! They are not moving away from each other, they are moving toward each other! In the real universe, the raisins are forming into clumps of clusters, super clusters and walls. The cake explanation does not conform at all to what we see in the Universe. The cake went flat.

A long time ago, galaxies were expanding from each other very rapidly: almost at the speed of light. That was plus or minus fifteen billion years ago. What has happened to that expansion today? We just don’t know! We have absolutely no idea of what is happening fifteen billion light years from us, at this instant. The only things we know about the present, is what we can see within a few light years. Astronomers are historians, not news reporters. Astronomy deals almost exclusively with “old news”.


Cosmologists generally agree that if there is enough matter in the Universe it will expand for awhile and then contract. This is the closed universe model. Gravity will slowly gain control of all matter. When it has, the universe will start to contract. How could we tell if it started to contract? How would we know it was contracting rather than expanding.

Most people tell me the Hubble Constant is the proof it is still expanding. We can see that the farther away we look, the faster space is expanding. The red shift lets us know it is still expanding. The problem with that is; the light that is red shifted left its source fifteen billion years ago. Even I agree it was expanding back then. But that gives us no clue as to what is happening now.

So how would we know if The Universe were contracting?


This contraction would first be noticed in the home galaxy. Then the local group would start to move together. In the beginning of the Local Group’s contraction the cluster would still be expanding, though at a reduced rate.

In another few million years or so, the Cluster would start to move together, but the Super-Cluster would still be expanding, though at a reduced rate. Of course in real time the entire Universe would stop concurrently (or thereabouts), but because of the look back into time we can only observe the contraction within the number of light years since the contraction began. Before that time, it was still expanding.

In other words if the universe came to dead stop say one billion years ago, what would we see now? Well, we should see our own Galaxy perhaps having a slight contraction. Our local group should be generally trending toward blue shift, though the proper motions of the bodies would ameliorate this to some degree. Our cluster would be a trifle into the blue. Our super-cluster would be red shifted but decreasingly so.

These are exactly the conditions we find today. Our home galaxy is stable. In our local group: the Magellanic clouds are in the process of merging into the Milky Way, as are M42, M44, and M45 among a number of others. The Andromeda Galaxy is closing on us, while also merging with M32, M33, and m110 amongst others. The entire local group is moving toward the Virgo Cluster. Which is moving toward the Virgo Super-Cluster.

This meets all of the conditions for contraction of the closed model of the Universe. Why then would we still think that the universe is continuing to expand? It seems to me the reason for this is that it is less than 100 years since we found out there was an expansion. It was quite a discovery since everyone at that time thought the universe was static, even Einstein!

Since we were not around when the Milky Way was expanding, we didn’t notice it stopping. The same applies to the local group! We didn’t see it expanding so we think it was always gravity bound. We have never really dealt with the question of "Why isn’t space expanding between us and the other galaxies in the local cluster?" We just say they are gravity bound and let it go at that. GRAVITY BOUND IS ONE OF THE FIRST CHARACTERISTICS OF A CONTRACTING UNIVERSE!


The Hubble constant says that in the distant past the Universe was expanding very rapidly. The closer we get to the present the slower the Universe is expanding. We generally hear the constant used to describe what happens to light shift based on how far away galaxies are from the Earth. The farther away the galaxies, the faster they are receding and the higher their red-shift. But the constant doesn't really deal with distance; it deals with time.

If we see a galaxy that is red-shifted, is it necessarily moving away from us? Of course not! What is happening to galaxies ten billion light years from us right this second. Galaxies that are in the same time frame as us, not billions of years in our past We have no idea what is happening to those galaxies. We really know nothing about our tine frame.

The blue-shifted light we see from Andromeda left there over two million years ago. All we know is that it was moving toward us two million years ago; not what it is doing today! Hubble deals with what was happening in the past, not with what is happening now.

The farther that we go into the past the faster the universe was expanding and the closer that we get to the present, the slower the universe is expanding. This is not theory; this is what we observe.

Occam’s razor say’s the simplest explanation that fits all of the facts is probably the correct one. The simplest explanation for the data is that the expansion of the universe has stopped.


If you think some of the data or conclusions presented here are incorrect, please contact Bud Camp. The humility might do me some good. If you agree with them also please let me know. I can use the encouragement.

bud.camp@verizon.net

star viewer
August 26th, 2003, 03:26 AM
Hello Bud,

& thanks for the welcome.

First I should tell you, that cosmology is not my favorit subject. On the other hand I cannot say I'm not interessted. There are a lot of logical traps and the best thing is to get together with others to help each other to avoid such traps.

Your post seems a bit monstoreous merely concerning the size.

Yet it has brought up some questions, so if you won't mind I would go through the paragraphs & state my input to you, ok?

The raisins are used to symbolize galaxies.

I' don't know about that. I once heard that the raisins should be objects of much larger scale, like superclustes. As you piont out later on a local scale this isn't true anymore.

In the real universe, the raisins are forming into clumps of clusters, super clusters and walls.

I assume by the real universe you mean the local observable universe.

A long time ago, galaxies were expanding from each other very rapidly: almost at the speed of light. That was plus or minus fifteen billion years ago. What has happened to that expansion today?

Granted. This phase is called the inflation.

We just don’t know! We have absolutely no idea of what is happening fifteen billion light years from us, at this instant. The only things we know about the present, is what we can see within a few light years. Astronomers are historians, not news reporters. Astronomy deals almost exclusively with “old news”.

Again, I'm absolutely with you. Any astronomer thinking about this would probably agree with this, also. Here comes my first question to you: Are you adressing your question correctly? As you state astronomers are more like historians but you would like to know something about the present. Shouldn't you ask a news reporter, maybe physics.

Cosmologists generally agree that if there is enough matter in the Universe it will expand for awhile and then contract. This is the closed universe model. Gravity will slowly gain control of all matter. When it has, the universe will start to contract. How could we tell if it started to contract? How would we know it was contracting rather than expanding.

There's no way to tell by means of astronomy. Why? You want to know something about the global state of this universe (is it expanding, contracting, ...). There is a limit called c, the speed of light, meaning that we either only can percieve events of the far away past if we watch over long distances and get 'the big picture' or only can tell what was happening lately in our local part of the universe - but not BOTH.

It's a little bit like quantum physics, where you can only measure precicly either momentum or the position of a particle.

Most people tell me the Hubble Constant is the proof it is still expanding. We can see that the farther away we look, the faster space is expanding.

Well, it isn't a constant after all. At least not in the sense as the speed of light is a constant, which is always the same, no matter where I go and measure it.

The Hubble constant is a statistical value, taken from the spectral lines of many distant objects. I doubt that the raw data of the majority of the measured objects even comes close the so called Hubble constant. There are certainly objects even coming closer.

But as observers roam to distances further and farther away such objects become less.

The blue shift lets us know it is still expanding.

Blue shift?? Why Blue? Do you mean red shift?

The problem with that is; the light that is blue shifted left its source fifteen billion years ago. Even I agree it was expanding back then. But that gives us no clue as to what is happening now.

Again, agreed, see above (except for the blue part ;) ).

So how would we know if The Universe were contracting?

This contraction would first be noticed in the home galaxy.

No change of state has been detected. As far as we know today, (the gaseous part of) our milky way has been contracting ever since (yet, the visible part was growing!). Point is, it is not known that our galaxy had ever been expanding in the past. So, we would not and did not notice a change of state of our galaxy from expanding to contracting.

In other words if the universe came to dead stop say one billion years ago, what would we see now? Well, we should see our own Galaxy perhaps having a slight contraction.

Which is basicly what we observe. This doesn't mean that space in our part of the galaxy is not expanding. It just means we observe a greater tug by gravity than an expanding space.

These are exactly the conditions we find today. Our home galaxy is stable. In our local group: the Magellanic clouds are in the process of merging into the Milky Way, as are M42, M44, and M45 among a number of others. The Andromeda Galaxy is closing on us, while also merging with M32, M33, and m110 amongst others. The entire local group is moving toward the Virgo Cluster. Which is moving toward the Virgo Super-Cluster.

Again correct*. It still does not mean that space is not expanding. It still might only mean expansion of space is not big enough. Space expansion & gravity are two different sets of effcts.

This meets all of the conditions for contraction of the closed model of the Universe.

No, it does not. As I said above, we can either tell what's happening (more or less) now, localy. Or we can tell a expanding or contracting state of the global universe for the past. Never both!

But when you conclude from the evidence drawn localy that the overall universe is contracting at this very moment you do this without evidence for the global picture. I don't say, the global scale is not contracting (now). I say, there's no evidence for it.

Why then would we still think that the universe is continuing to expand?

Because, it fits the evidence we have today the best. We have estimated the overall mass in the universe. We know that the universe was expanding in the past on a global state. Therefore we can calculate if the amount gravitational energy is enough ever to counter the expansion or not (result at halftime: they lose).

Why, could one ask, should this expansion have stopped, lately? The latest measurements on this matter imply that the expansion is even increasing as the universe grew older (means closer to us!). Should that be confirmed, then in this sense the hubble constant is not a constant, either.

The latest word has not been said on this matter. Maybe we underestimated the amount of mass. Or there might be a third effect influencing the morphology of the universe. But so far there's just no evidence for it.

It seems to me the reason for this is that it is less than 100 years since we found out there was an expansion. It was quite a discovery since everyone at that time thought the universe was static, even Einstein!

Yes. And since Einstein, we even found out that it's not static. Quite a progress, I should say.

Since we were not around when the Milky Way was expanding, we didn’t notice it stopping. The same applies to the local group! We didn’t see it expanding so we think it was always gravity bound.

As I said, we know pretty well that during the phase of the universal inflation the milky way or the local group was not aorund, yet. If I remeber correctly, all matter was formed after that phase.

We have never really dealt with the question of "Why isn’t space expanding between us and the other galaxies in the local cluster?" We just say they are gravity bound and let it go at that. GRAVITY BOUND IS ONE OF THE FIRST CHARACTERISTICS OF A CONTRACTING UNIVERSE!

I don't know about that either. Local space is not big enough to contain enough evidence to measure the local value of the hubble contant. The theory of space expansion also predicts that the expansion around any local observer should be the least.

But the constant doesn't really deal with distance; it deals with time.

Which is the same!

If we see a galaxy that is red-shifted, is it necessarily moving away from us? Of course not!

If we imply that the red shift is not caused by the drift away motion then we must asume a complete different physics for this distant object or the space between, which would be far more comlicated. If we don't want this, then the only explanation for the red shift must be a growth in distance between us and the object in question.

The farther that we go into the past the faster the universe was expanding and the closer that we get to the present, the slower the universe is expanding. This is not theory; this is what we observe.

This observation is just what one would expect if the universe as whole would expand. This is the part where the picture with the raisin cake makes sense: The closer the raisins the slower their drift away motion, even if the cake expands at the same rate over all. But seen from the piont of view of any raisin the other raisins increase their fleeting speed the farther away they are.

Occam’s razor say’s the simplest explanation that fits all of the facts is probably the correct one. The simplest explanation for the data is that the expansion of the universe has stopped.

To be honest: A little bit too simple for my taste. As I stated above there's no way to tell if there's an over all stop of expansion in this universe.

Localy and hence close in time we measure that gravity is the major element in building this part of the universe.

On a global scale and far away in time we see how the universe is floating apart.

Those two effects do not really contradict themselves. It might be even so, that the clusters or superclusters in this universe contract (meaning that thier members getting closer to each other), but all these groups each as a whole still fly away from each other. The overall effect would still be expansion.

So, I think you're incorrect in some crucial details, yes. But I hope that I did not humililate you, but rather encourage you to keep your mind traveling.

Maybe I should tell you that I really don't like the theory of an ever expanding universe (or even an accellerating expansion of the universe). As I understand it, many theorists don't like it either.

Yet there has been no observation or a crucial physical experiment, that piont into another direction.

This was this from Germany. Please say 'hi' to 29 Palms, I once been there (should be 17 years ago = around the same time when the light of the star Altair you will see tonight was leaving ;) )

--- Enzo

*by the way: M42, M44 & M45 are not galaxies by themselves, they are rather part of our own galaxy: http://www.seds.org/messier/data2.html

budcamp
September 6th, 2003, 04:38 AM
That is a well thought out answer. I'm on the road right now, but will be back home in a couple of weeks. I'll send my reply then.

Bud

star viewer
September 7th, 2003, 12:32 PM
:)

see you,

enzo

budcamp
February 16th, 2004, 01:37 PM
It took me along time to get back to you. I hope you are still checking the board.


“I' don't know about that. I once heard that the raisins should be objects of much larger scale, like superclustes. As you point out later, on a local scale this isn't true anymore”

Every time I have heard this explanation, and that is quite a few times, it was always galaxies. This was the explanation used on “The expanding Universe” a science show on TV last week.

************************************************** ************
Originally Posted by budcamp
A long time ago, galaxies were expanding from each other very rapidly: almost at the speed of light. That was plus or minus fifteen billion years ago. What has happened to that expansion today?

“Granted. This phase is called the inflation”

NO! Inflation took place (if it took place at all), before there were galaxies. Back in the time period of the Hubble deep field photo, there were no gravity bound galaxies. They were all expanding away from each other and from us. Not like today!

************************************************** ***********

Originally Posted by budcamp
We just don’t know! We have absolutely no idea of what is happening fifteen billion light years from us, at this instant. The only things we know about the present, is what we can see within a few light years. Astronomers are historians, not news reporters. Astronomy deals almost exclusively with “old news”.

“Again, I'm absolutely with you. Any astronomer thinking about this would probably agree with this, also. Here comes my first question to you: Are you addressing your question correctly? As you state astronomers are more like historians but you would like to know something about the present. Shouldn't you ask a news reporter, maybe physics? “

Physicists are stuck with the same problem. Data from the past has to be used to describe the present.

************************************************** ************

“Blue shift?? Why Blue? Do you mean red shift?”

Yes I did mean red shift. I changed that.

************************************************** ************

Originally Posted by budcamp
But the constant doesn't really deal with distance; it deals with time.

“Which is the same!”

No, it isn’t the same. If you say something happened 1000 miles away, that is not the same as saying something happened a year ago!

************************************************** **********

“On a global scale and far away in time we see how the universe is floating apart.”

That's right long ago the universe was floating apart. Gravity bould did not exist back then.

************************************************** ************

*by the way: M42, M44 & M45 are not galaxies by themselves, they are rather part of our own galaxy.

You’re right! I changed that. Thanks

Bud

Quarkhead
February 23rd, 2004, 08:36 PM
lol i like your determination, star viewer.... ;)

Quarkhead
February 23rd, 2004, 08:49 PM
NO! Inflation took place (if it took place at all), before there were galaxies. Back in the time period of the Hubble deep field photo, there were no gravity bound galaxies. They were all expanding away from each other and from us. Not like today!

i assume you mean that inflation was when the atom-sized universe became a couple of billion times bigger in a nanosecond, and if it had'nt happened, then the universe would look conpletely different.

Is it really true, that in about 50 million years, andromeda and milky way are going to crash into each other and look something like the Cartwheel Galaxy? (I wonder if they have counted the fact that the smaller the distance between us, the faster we're moving at each other.)
also, please tell me something about neutrinos other than the fact that they are "ghost" particles...
thanks a lot for the other facts though. :D

Yazoo
February 24th, 2004, 09:12 AM
It will take a little longer than that, but yes. The Milky Way galaxy will gobble the smaller ones around it (Large Magellanic, Small Magellanic, others) over the next few billion years. Andromeda will gobble up the Pinwheel galaxy and others. 7 billion years from now, the Milky Way and Andromeda will merge. It will take a long time as they slowly spiral around each other, tugging pieces from each other, but they will eventually become a giant eliptical galaxy. During the merger process, they will look something like this...

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_hubble_ac_mice_02.jpg

irizarry
April 7th, 2004, 06:47 AM
There is an excellent article on the whole galaxy colliding thing and our local galactic neighborhood in

Villard, Ray. "Order Out Of Chaos",
Astronomy, November 2003, pp. 38-43.

There is a superb graphic of our galactic neighborhood in this article.

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

astrogirl7
April 28th, 2004, 03:23 AM
I am just an amature. I love reading about theories in astrophysics! I have recently read Hawking's books, Brief History of Time and Universe in a Nutshell. I won't pretend that I really know anything. But when I was reading about the expanding balloon theory of expansion (that sounded redundant), I asked myself, "What two dots on an expanding balloon would move toward eachother?" The answer, of course, is none. I thought that model couldn't fit with some of the galaxies moving toward us. You are right. We can only see into the past! I didn't realize that Andromeda's light took 2 mil. yrs. to get to us. And it is blue-shifted. I often wonder what is really going on in the rest of the universe right now. If we are in the contracting phase, it will take us a long time to actually see it. I read something in Hawking's book about the direction of time and that we would cease to exist during the contracting phase or things would happen backwards. We would start our life old and end up young? I just don't get that. I'll have to check on what that idea was. Anyway, very insightful thinking. astrogirl7 :rolleyes: