Expansion different in different directions

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

To me it sounds it’s bigger information that we think with possible bad outcomes for us 

But you think that about everything. I assume a conversation with you must be like:

Me: Good morning!

You: Oh no! Does that mean we are all going to die?

Me: No. I was just saying hello.

You: Oh but it sounded like you were saying the world was about to end.

Me: ...

 

4 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

To me it sounds it’s bigger information that we think with possible bad outcomes for us 

They say that their measurements are consistent with previous measurements. (That is science-speak for "almost the same as")

How on Earth can a small difference in the expansion rate in different directions (or even a large difference) be a bad outcome for us? It's not like anything has changed, apart from our understanding.

 

[Bmpbmp1975]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

But you think that about everything. I assume a conversation with you must be like:

Me: Good morning!

You: Oh no! Does that mean we are all going to die?

Me: No. I was just saying hello.

You: Oh but it sounded like you were saying the world was about to end.

Me: ...

 

They say that their measurements are consistent with previous measurements. (That is science-speak for "almost the same as")

How on Earth can a small difference in the expansion rate in different directions (or even a large difference) be a bad outcome for us? It's not like anything has changed, apart from our understanding.

 

It would change the age of the universe, change our understanding, change the lifetime of the universe, it would affect a lot of things 

[MigL]

NO !

[Mordred]

In all fairness though dipole anistropy isn't something easily understood. You won't see much detail outside of textbooks covering this detail.

 When I get a chance I will post the mathematics via Matt Roose Introductory to Cosmology.

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

It would change the age of the universe, change our understanding, change the lifetime of the universe, it would affect a lot of things 

So it could change what we know. As I say, what we know has changed much more dramatically in the past. I mean, like totally revolutionary, overturn everything we thought we knew, changed. This is just another minor tweak to that understanding.

How can improving our understanding of the universe be a "bad outcome"? Why does everything have to be "bad" to you?

[Bmpbmp1975]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

So it could change what we know. As I say, what we know has changed much more dramatically in the past. I mean, like totally revolutionary, overturn everything we thought we knew, changed. This is just another minor tweak to that understanding.

How can improving our understanding of the universe be a "bad outcome"? Why does everything have to be "bad" to you?

Without understanding everything sounds scary, it’s hard to understand it is expanding faster by a little is it like double the actual speed. thats why I am curious about the values 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975

[Mordred]

3 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

Without understanding everything sounds scary, it’s hard to understand it is expanding faster by a little is it like double the actual speed. thats why I am curious about the values 

Values are meaningless unless you understand how they relate to other values via their appropriate ratios.

 This is where understanding where those values become significant in the formulas they apply to become significant.

[Bmpbmp1975]

Just now, Mordred said:

Values are meaningless unless you understand how they relate to other values via their appropriate ratios.

 This is where understanding where those values become significant in the formulas they apply to become significant.

What I mean by values is how much faster vs how much slower. Are they tiny difference in speed or major ones?

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

What I mean by values is how much faster vs how much slower. Are they tiny difference in speed or major ones?

OK. It looks like some previous measurement of the anisotropy make it slightly less than 10% of the expansion rate. (http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/tecci/v13n24/1909-3667-tecci-13-24-00011.pdf) If I have understood that correctly. 

So it is 10% less in one direction and 10% more in the other. And it is unchanged in all the other directions. While these results might tell us something interesting about the evolution of the universe, it doesn't;t look like they will substantially change our estimate of the age. (Mordred may have more detail on that.)

But even if the universe were 10% older or 10% young than we currently think, it is not a "bad outcome". It is, like all increases in knowledge, a good outcome.

[Bmpbmp1975]

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. It looks like some previous measurement of the anisotropy make it slightly less than 10% of the expansion rate. (http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/tecci/v13n24/1909-3667-tecci-13-24-00011.pdf) If I have understood that correctly. 

So it is 10% less in one direction and 10% more in the other. And it is unchanged in all the other directions. While these results might tell us something interesting about the evolution of the universe, it doesn't;t look like they will substantially change our estimate of the age. (Mordred may have more detail on that.)

But even if the universe were 10% older or 10% young than we currently think, it is not a "bad outcome". It is, like all increases in knowledge, a good outcome.

10% would be like 1.5 billion right so universe would be like 12.7 or 14.7 b years old 

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

10% would be like 1.5 billion right so universe would be like 12.7 or 14.7 b years old 

Sigh. Is there any point when you just read every tenth word and then make up the rest.

So it is 10% less in one direction and 10% more in the other. So it is zero on average. No change to the estimated age of the universe.

[Bmpbmp1975]

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

Sigh. Is there any point when you just read every tenth word and then make up the rest.

So it is 10% less in one direction and 10% more in the other. So it is zero on average. No change to the estimated age of the universe.

See I was always thought the faster it expands the faster the universe ends. That’s what I meant before by if a section of faster by 10% the universe ends faster would that be in our lifetimes 

to clarify my comment before 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975

[Ghideon]

4 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

See I was always thought the faster it expands the faster the universe ends. That’s what I meant before by if a section of faster by 10% the universe ends faster would that be in our lifetimes 

to clarify my comment before 

If the universe's expected lifetime is now 10% shorter than previous estimates it's still pretty far into the future.
At least compared to my expected lifetime.

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Ghideon
spelling & missing sentence

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

See I was always thought the faster it expands the faster the universe ends. That’s what I meant before by if a section of faster by 10% the universe ends faster would that be in our lifetimes  

OK. Even if we ignore the fact that you are still wrong about the 10%, let's say the the universe will end in 500 trillion years (just as an example). If you take 10% off that, will that be "in your lifetime".

I am now going to report you for trolling.

[Bmpbmp1975]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. Even if we ignore the fact that you are still wrong about the 10%, let's say the the universe will end in 500 trillion years (just as an example). If you take 10% off that, will that be "in your lifetime".

I am now going to report you for trolling.

I get it now, I did need a calculator, 

and I am not trolling I have been trying really hard to learn as of late.  I just dont understand why this find is a big deal if it’s not a worry, it’s spreading to a lot of different articles on sites 

 

ill just stop asking questions 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

and I am not trolling I have been trying really hard to learn as of late.  I just dont understand why this find is a big deal if it’s not a worry, it’s spreading to a lot of different articles on sites

This can be important, exciting, revolutionary, dramatic, etc without being anything to worry about.

Of course it would be a big deal if we discover something new about the universe. That is what scientists (and people who are interested in science) hope for. 

Why do you think that learning new stuff is a worry or a bad outcome? Just stop posting that sort of stupid comment.

[Bmpbmp1975]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

This can be important, exciting, revolutionary, dramatic, etc without being anything to worry about.

Of course it would be a big deal if we discover something new about the universe. That is what scientists (and people who are interested in science) hope for. 

Why do you think that learning new stuff is a worry or a bad outcome? Just stop posting that sort of stupid comment.

I got the 10% from the estimate you gave before I am sorry. I think they said the earliest the universe can end is 2.8 billion years. Looking at 10% less I am sure I won’t be alive by then

 

thanks for your help 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975

[Mordred]

The problem with your understanding is paying too much attention to pop media coverage or the verbal word aspects in descriptives.

Let's take universe age for example I showed an inverse relationship between Hubble constant to age of universe.

[math] t=\frac{1}{H}[/math] now let's assume a start point of H=73/km/sec/Mpc. 

 Then let's assume an extreme (believe me this is an extreme easily discovered and highly unlikely) of 10 percent from one hemisphere to the other. 

Using the above formula the difference is roughly less than 30 million years. The different datasets such as HOLIVOW etc already noted a margin error of 6 Mpc/sec/Mpc between local group and far range measurements. Yet these all equate to fine tuning.

None of this is as profound as media tries to make them. 

Particularly since the Chandra telescope can only examine a limited range of frequencies that correspond to our local region.

It can never get the full picture. Lol no telescope gets that. You must take each piece of the puzzle and find the best fit.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Mordred

[Bmpbmp1975]

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The problem with your understanding is paying too much attention to pop media coverage or the verbal word aspects in descriptives.

Let's take universe age for example I showed an inverse relationship between Hubble constant to age of universe.

t=1H now let's assume a start point of H=73/km/sec/Mpc. 

 Then let's assume an extreme (believe me this is an extreme easily discovered and highly unlikely) of 10 percent from one hemisphere to the other. 

Using the above formula the difference is roughly less than 30 million years. The different datasets such as HOLIVOW etc already noted a margin error of 6 Mpc/sec/Mpc between local group and far range measurements. Yet these all equate to fine tuning.

None of this is as profound as media tries to make them. 

Particularly since the Chandra telescope can only examine a limited range of frequencies that correspond to our local region.

It can never get the full picture.

Thank you now what does the 30% difference of brightness mean does that mean the rate is 30% faster 

 

 

"Together with colleagues from the University of Bonn and Harvard University, we looked at the behaviour of over 800 galaxy clusters in the present Universe," says Konstantinos. "If the isotropy hypothesis was correct, the properties of the clusters would be uniform across the sky. But we actually saw significant differences."

properties, with similar temperatures, appeared to be less bright than what we would expect in one direction of the sky, and brighter than expected in another direction," says Thomas. "The difference was quite significant, around 30 percent. These differences are not random but have a clear pattern depending on the direction in which we observed in the sky

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/phys.org/news/2020-04-basic-assumption-universe.amp

Edited April 8, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

I got the 10% from the estimate you gave before I am sorry.

But I explained why that does not change the age of the universe.

Quote

I think they said the earliest the universe can end is 2.8 billion years.

Don't be ridiculous. The Sun will last longer than that.

[Mordred]

To understand the term brightness one has to start with the mass to luminosity ratio.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–luminosity_relation

This is a particular topic that is extremely difficult to present. However in essence it means that the matter ratio from one hemisphere locally appear different from another local hemisphere 

(I stress local region as this is where the difference is examined) it does not apply to far field measurements as Chandra does not have that capability.

[Bmpbmp1975]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

To understand the term brightness one has to start with the mass to luminosity ratio.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–luminosity_relation

This is a particular topic that is extremely difficult to present. However in essence it means that the matter ratio from one hemisphere locally appear different from another local hemisphere 

(I stress local region as this is where the difference is examined) it does not apply to far field measurements as Chandra does not have that capability.

So the 30% has nothing to do with the speed of expansion compared to another area then.

and I am still trying to understand what you mean about local regions and how this has to do with the paper 

you keep bringing up short distance of Chandra so if this is closer is this a concern

modred yesterday understood everything you thought me, today not so much lol

Edited April 9, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975

[Mordred]

Let's simplify then start with the detail telescopes no matter how advanced can only detect and measure out to a certain range.

 With advanced telescopes that range depends on what frequencies of light they are sensitive enough to receive.

"Chandra is sensitive to X-ray sources 100 times fainter than any previous X-ray telescope, enabled by the high angular resolution of its mirrors. Since the Earth's atmosphere absorbs the vast majority of X-rays, they are not detectable from Earth-based telescopes; "

The Chandra telescope is designed to detect wavelengths between 0.12 and 12 nm. As per the link

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_X-ray_Observatory

this limits its range of detectability.

Do you understand this thus far ?

the next step is to look specifically at the range of examination in the paper itself...

all galaxy clusters examined in the paper 313. Fall within a range of z=0.3 with the exception of two clusters. This is strictly a local group cluster...

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Mordred

[Bmpbmp1975]

16 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Let's simplify then start with the detail telescopes no matter how advanced can only detect and measure out to a certain range.

 With advanced telescopes that range depends on what frequencies of light they are sensitive enough to receive.

"Chandra is sensitive to X-ray sources 100 times fainter than any previous X-ray telescope, enabled by the high angular resolution of its mirrors. Since the Earth's atmosphere absorbs the vast majority of X-rays, they are not detectable from Earth-based telescopes; "

The Chandra telescope is designed to detect wavelengths between 0.12 and 12 nm. As per the link

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_X-ray_Observatory

this limits its range of detectability.

Do you understand this thus far ?

the next step is to look specifically at the range of examination in the paper itself...

Yes I do it’s range of detection is limited 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975

[Mordred]

Correct the range in this paper is 3.026 Gly or if you prefer 926 Mpc. Assuming my calculations is correct. This gives a range to z=0.3 in cosmological redshift value.

 The universe has a radius of roughly 46.5 Billion light years. 46.5 Gly. Z= 1096 roughly

We are examining only a miniscule portion of the observable universe.

3.026 Gly out of 46.5 Gly.

Local group only... And only a small sample of the observable universe.

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Mordred