Mapping the universe in "real time"?

[Baby Astronaut]

Does anyone know of a diagram of the observable universe shown in real time, like how it exists if we account for galaxy movements and cosmic expansion? Or of any group attempting to calculate where galaxies and super clusters would be today and give us the projected approximations, rather than mapping the universe in observational/past time?

 

I believe we might be able to glean some new information about the universe if we also looked at it's modern state, rather than just its (often, eons ancient) past history. Could be that we see an unforeseen pattern emerge, or a surprising connection between events. I also believe people would like to see it just for curiosity's sake.

 

Wouldn't you?

 

It obviously can't be entirely accurate, for who knows the number of supernovas and unknown variables, but at least the death of many stars can be approximated. I'd imagine the present day universe, in real time, would be a lot emptier perhaps?

 

The reason for me inquiring about this subject is because a lot of times you hear about how "presently", the universe expansion is accelerating at this increasing rate and one day most of it will pass go, and I'm left wondering if that hasn't already occurred eons ago. Get my drift?

 

What if mostly everything has already passed the cosmological horizon? It's not something we might be waiting to happen, it could've happened waaaaay back in cosmic history. Unless I'm wrong because I'm not sure if they do calculate forward to make up for light speed's far journey in providing us glimpses into the past.

 

But anyway, I'd like to see an approximately "real time" universe. And I'm sure others here would too.

 

========================

 

http://www.skyskan.com/Company/press/glendale.html

 

The quoted text below is from the link above. Their system probably does what I proposed only on a fraction of the cosmic neighborhood, but it sounds like a neat thing to experience.

 

The software used by SkyVision and DigitalSky provides a powerful way to manipulate the sky and demonstrate a wide variety of astronomical concepts in a way that is both visually beautiful and scientifically accurate.

Edited January 1, 2009 by Baby Astronaut
multiple post merged

[Klaynos]

I'm not sure it'd add much to our understanding.

 

Esspecially when you consider the shear amount of maths that have to be calculated, it'd be immense. A thousands of very very complicated (probably chaotic) systems. We have trouble enough trying to work out where clouds will be in a couple of days time.

 

You must bear in mind that if we look at the local galaxy we must assume that that galaxy is pretty much the same as any other galaxy of that age (result of the copernicus principle).

[Baby Astronaut]

If we bypass the galactic scale and just go with superclusters (Wikipedia page), it'll probably be feasible.

 

Also check out the galaxy filaments image.

 

On the grander scales, we're told about great voids and whatnot. But if you think about it, since we're looking at a relatively "all at once" picture of things, how accurate is it to say that voids of such magnitude are scattered throughout our universe? I mention this because every several million light years away from us becomes a much different era of time, and the voids we see now might in fact not be real. The picture of the universe we end up with might be patches of newer formations joined with patches of older formations into a resulting shape that is far different than the shape would've been if each of its areas were mapped in its true position.

 

Like I said, astronomers may account for such time differences when mapping the universe, but again I'm not sure.

[snp.gupta]

If we bypass the galactic scale and just go with superclusters (Wikipedia page), it'll probably be feasible.

 

Also check out the galaxy filaments image.

 

On the grander scales, we're told about great voids and whatnot. But if you think about it, since we're looking at a relatively "all at once" picture of things, how accurate is it to say that voids of such magnitude are scattered throughout our universe? I mention this because every several million light years away from us becomes a much different era of time, and the voids we see now might in fact not be real. The picture of the universe we end up with might be patches of newer formations joined with patches of older formations into a resulting shape that is far different than the shape would've been if each of its areas were mapped in its true position.

 

Like I said, astronomers may account for such time differences when mapping the universe, but again I'm not sure.

 

Do you observe the universe is isotropic in any scale?

 

(I am sorry about my post about CMB in previous thread. Just I want provoke some thought. But not disturb the thread…..)

[Baby Astronaut]

Do you observe the universe is isotropic in any scale?

Well on the local scale we know it's not. That's close enough to real time. And it's highly likely that on all scales, if the cosms were to be arranged into their "now" configurations, all the inconsistent orientations and formations of various systems wouldn't interlock to become a single cosmic grid of neatness.

 

So to answer, I don't believe the universe is isotropic on any scale, except if perhaps you mean the quantum scale. And I'm not even sure about that. But what do I know?

[snp.gupta]

Well on the local scale we know it's not. That's close enough to real time. And it's highly likely that on all scales, if the cosms were to be arranged into their "now" configurations, all the inconsistent orientations and formations of various systems wouldn't interlock to become a single cosmic grid of neatness.

So to answer, I don't believe the universe is isotropic on any scale, except if perhaps you mean the quantum scale. And I'm not even sure about that. But what do I know?

 

Thank you,

 

That is correct. We all would like to see your NOW results. Do you have them already???

[Baby Astronaut]

We all would like to see your NOW results. Do you have them already???

Not quite. Perhaps if we worked together?

 

A real time universe map scaled to the largest systems doesn't have to represent NOW this very second, even last year's positions or the prior decade's or even the last several thousand years would be good enough to visualize the state of the as of yet non-visible universe (can't see light that hasn't reached us).

[Klaynos]

I don't quite see what you'd hope to see from this, the distribution of mass would be broadly the same surely?

[snp.gupta]

Not quite. Perhaps if we worked together?

 

A real time universe map scaled to the largest systems doesn't have to represent NOW this very second, even last year's positions or the prior decade's or even the last several thousand years would be good enough to visualize the state of the as of yet non-visible universe (can't see light that hasn't reached us).

 

Thats a nice idea sir, i would like to join you...

 

May be we can take year 2000; 0,0 hours as basis. I see most data is available readily from catalogs. We have to calculate distances based on luminosities only... We have to write equations...

 

I don't quite see what you'd hope to see from this, the distribution of mass would be broadly the same surely?

 

No sir, Mass distribution may not be same...

His Idea is correct. There may be some IMAGES for galaxies, which may cancel out eventually; I don’t know. I am just speculating……

[Klaynos]

No sir, Mass distribution may not be same...

His Idea is correct. There may be some IMAGES for galaxies, which may cancel out eventually; I don’t know. I am just speculating……

 

So, what physical phenomena would have caused this then?

[snp.gupta]

So, what physical phenomena would have caused this then?

 

Multiple bending of light ( Subbarao’s Paths), Gravitational Lansing of light and Gravitational Bending of Light….

[Klaynos]

How would that change the large scale mass distribution?

[snp.gupta]

How would that change the large scale mass distribution?

 

If there are some images, if we can confirm they are so. We will cross that image out. Hence mass will reduce....

[Klaynos]

But how do we know that the light hasn't just happened to cross over each other and they were infact distinct objects that now have apparently single sources.

 

We couldn't achieve this in reverse because we'd be working from the data we currently have.

 

I still don't think the computation resources required to do this would justify it.

[Baby Astronaut]

I still don't think the computation resources required to do this would justify it.

I don't believe the computational resources would be that severe.

 

There are the Morgan and Wright calculators (thanks Martin) for determining a few essentials, like the "now" and "then" distances from us, and which hardly use any resources, so imagine a more complex version of each.

 

We'd also need a software that lets us plug in the orbits of the larger bodies, such as galaxies and ignore the positions of their individual stats.

 

Another software that lets us plug in the life expectancy of those larger bodies, and eliminate the ones that are likely "dead". And if we're aware of mergers and collisions we'd input those and whatever approximate change in direction/orbits the events would cause.

 

Remember, we're focusing on large scale, because we only want to compare the visible universe with the present one, and only visually.

 

To increase its usefulness, the software can let the user right-click on a system to compare different variables between its "now" and "then" states.

[Klaynos]

It's a highly complex probably chaotic system. Far far more complicated than the weather system of earth and yet we can't even successfully model that.

 

The calculators you mention only calculate very specific details. We have enough trouble adding the perturbations that the planets cause on the orbits of asteroids over just a few tens of years...

 

Many bodied problems just don't work well.

 

One of the advantages of the limited speed of light is we don't have to run this kind of experiment (in reverse) as we can just look out into space and see back through time...

[snp.gupta]

...

The calculators you mention only calculate very specific details. We have enough trouble adding the perturbations that the planets cause on the orbits of asteroids over just a few tens of years...

 

Many bodied problems just don't work well.

 

...

 

 

Sir,

We can even develop software to our specific needs..

 

If you try to solve the perturbations of planets as a separate entry, it will be problematic. You have to deal with them in overall.

 

For example:

Dynamic universe model is a many body problem. It solved specifically,

 

1. Formation of Non-collapsing Galaxy disks

2. Expansion and contraction of universe.

3. Missing mass and Circular velocity curves of stars

4. Pioneer anomaly etc…

 

We have to formulate our equations properly in many body problems, then implement them, that will do the trick..

[Baby Astronaut]

It's a highly complex probably chaotic system. Far far more complicated than the weather system of earth and yet we can't even successfully model that.

 

The calculators you mention only calculate very specific details. We have enough trouble adding the perturbations that the planets cause on the orbits of asteroids over just a few tens of years...

I get what you're saying. But asteroids would be ignored by large-scale mapping. So would planets. And individual stars as well.

 

As an example, we can't successfully predict weather on the scale of gusts of updraft winds in one's back yard, however we can track small weather patterns like the day's forecast in a small town. Yet it remains possible to ignore both those and still get meaningful results from predicting a region's overall by the year such as the Antarctic, deserts, ocean currents, etc.

 

In the same way, just focus on larger bodies such as galaxies, clusters, super clusters, etc.

[WaveRider]

Doesn't mapping the universe in "real time" have a problem with the relativity of time?

 

If you try observation measurement conversions based on the movement of particles, e.g., photons, aside from all the correction calculations (e.g., for lensing) you still have no way of relating time there to time here--except as it is done now.

 

Isn't "A billion light years" from here "real" time there measured in time units and standards from here?

[NowThatWeKnow]

Doesn't mapping the universe in "real time" have a problem with the relativity of time?

...

Isn't "A billion light years" from here "real" time there measured in time units and standards from here?

 

There are calculators that will give you past, current and future locations of galaxies from the red shift measurements. With billions of galaxies it would be a monumental task. Any gravitational lensing and transverse movement would also be a problem to predict.

 

The light from the distant galaxies we see today are now far enough away that we will never see their current light (Unless expansion reverses). They could be zapped from space today and we would never know the difference so is there a need to map those? Then there are probably the galaxies that are already too far away to see.

[Baby Astronaut]

The light from the distant galaxies we see today are now far enough away that we will never see their current light (Unless expansion reverses). They could be zapped from space today and we would never know the difference so is there a need to map those?

It'd be doing a time-saver to future cosmologists who might one day find ways to reach those spots beyond our current understanding.

 

Seriously, though. We do have a potential vehicle to carry us faster than c already. We practically talk about it every day here.

 

If we can find a way to ride the space expansion, bingo -- we travel faster than light speed without violating any physical laws. And conveniently, it'd be a two-way mode of travel.

Edited January 5, 2009 by Baby Astronaut

[NowThatWeKnow]

If we can find a way to ride the space expansion, bingo -- we travel faster than light speed without violating any physical laws. And conveniently, it'd be a two-way mode of travel.

 

With knowledge doubling every few years and accelerating we will figure out a way to get accross the universe.

 

In 60 years we will have 1.5 million times as much knowledge as today.

In 75 years we will have 12 million times as much knowledge.

In a few thousand years we will be GOD, created by the universe. then we will travel in spirit form when needed.

 

Unfortunately something will probably kill us off before we make it that far.

[Baby Astronaut]

With knowledge doubling every few years and accelerating we will figure out a way to get accross the universe.

 

In 60 years we will have 1.5 million times as much knowledge as today.

In 75 years we will have 12 million times as much knowledge.

In a few thousand years we will be GOD, created by the universe. then we will travel in spirit form when needed.

I seriously doubt it. Or even that knowledge doubles every few years.

 

Maybe written information doubles every few years, but if true, most of it would likely be simple communication. Real, previously-unknown-to-the-world knowledge does not multiply that easily. At least not apparently.

 

Even if we did have all the knowledge already existing in written form to catapult us into and beyond science fiction land, we as a people can barely separate the wheat from the chaff as it is. Thus we don't have the knowledge in our grasp. For if we did, this conversation would likely not be occurring.

 

But that's philosophy, not science.

 

Do you have a source for your claim by the way?

[Klaynos]

I was using asteroids as a local example of something that seems quite simple being beyond our capabilities.

 

I think NowThatWeKnow and WaveRider has an interesting point, causally what we see is the current real time universe.

 

Weather imo is actually quite a good example of how bad we are at this kind of system, some of the worlds most powerful supercomputers are devoted to solving it, and we can't predict weather accurately to a town and time. How often are the forecasters wrong?

[NowThatWeKnow]

I seriously doubt it. Or even that knowledge doubles every few years.

...

Do you have a source for your claim by the way?

 

Do a google search "knowledge doubles every" and see what you find. Medical knowledge doubles ever 14 months and other knowledge at different rates. Artificial intelligence will accelerate knowledge significantly in the near future.

 

There is some speculation in what I said but I base it on the rate knowledge increases and looking back through history. Think about what we have done in the last 100 years compared to the last 1000 years. How about computers in the last 30 years. I predict that if things continue we will be unimaginable in a few thousand years.