Is the universe actually speeding up?

[rigney]

Supposedly, microseconds following the big bang; an absence of the Higgs boson allowed our universe to expand at a runaway speed many times that of light. After a short span of time, a few milli/micro seconds or so; the Higgs boson materialized to infuse the entire universe, and light speed became the norm. Theory is that the Higgs controls the speed of everything in the entire universe from a feather to a meteor to a galaxy. A fascinating conjecture, but now the theory seems to have fallen on hard times, and red shift once again is dictating that the universe is now speeding up. Are we to believe that after fourteen billion years, our universe is speeding up to surpass light speed again. What happens to the Higgs boson theory? After controlling universal speed for these billions of years and with no empty space; how can we be speeding up again? Since the equation is math, I'm lost.

[Incendia]

Higgs is not the reason why things can't go faster than the speed of light.

[rigney]

Higgs is not the reason why things can't go faster than the speed of light.

 

I agree!. But then tell me, if the Higgs Boson is mythical and nothing etherel is maintaining a universal speed; why has it taken so long for it to start speeding up again? Edited June 12, 2011 by rigney

[Incendia]

I agree!. But then tell me, if the Higgs Boson is mythical and nothing etherel is maintaining a universal speed; why has it taken so long for it to start speeding up again?

 

 

I don't think you understand...Higgs has nothing to do with this. The only thing higgs does is give particles mass.

 

The universe has never expanded faster than light.

 

Nothing can go faster than the speed of light because of E=MC^2. Anything going faster than the speed of light would be consuming infinite energy (which is impossible because there isn't infinite energy).

 

(This is only true if you don't believe in tachyons...but tachyons aren't mainstream science as far as I know.)

 

...I'm not a physicist so you'll have to ask a physicist to check if I am correct.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Incendia

[ajb]

There is nothing in general relativity that does not allow space-time to expand faster than the speed of light. Indeed in the inflationary epoch of the early universe the expansion is necessarily faster than the speed of light. The expansion must have been on the order of [math]10^{-15}[/math]m to 0.1 m across in only [math]15 \times 10^{-33}[/math]s.

[michel123456]

There is nothing in general relativity that does not allow space-time to expand faster than the speed of light. Indeed in the inflationary epoch of the early universe the expansion is necessarily faster than the speed of light. The expansion must have been on the order of [math]10^{-15}[/math]m to 0.1 m across in only [math]15 \times 10^{-33}[/math]s.

 

Necessarily, otherwise?

[Incendia]

The universe would has collapsed in on itself...which It already has if you believe the Big Bounce Theory; in which the universe expanded, collapsed back into a singularity, and then expanded again, but expanded more successfully the second time.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Incendia

[J.C.MacSwell]

Expansion of space is not the same as movement in space.

 

Given that:

 

For a certain spatial separation of points and beyond are we (universe "now" wrt cmbr) not expanding such that those points are increasing their separation at a rate faster than light speed?

[michel123456]

The universe would has collapsed in on itself...(..)

 

I don't think so.

Without inflation faster than light, our observation of the universe don't match with the Big Bang Theory, that's all.

[rigney]

I don't think you understand...Higgs has nothing to do with this. The only thing higgs does is give particles mass.

 

The universe has never expanded faster than light.

 

Nothing can go faster than the speed of light because of E=MC^2. Anything going faster than the speed of light would be consuming infinite energy (which is impossible because there isn't infinite energy).

 

(This is only true if you don't believe in tachyons...but tachyons aren't mainstream science as far as I know.)

 

...I'm not a physicist so you'll have to ask a physicist to check if I am correct.

 

Perhaps I don't understand how everything works in the universe, but if you have read anything on the Higgs Boson, it supposedly is the reason for all things meeting a quiescent stability. Never believing in a big crunch or any other unfalsifiable hyporheses, I just keep on reading. Einsteins E=MC^2 is very compelling, but what if we find that in all instances it isn't necessarily the case? What then? Edited June 12, 2011 by rigney

[jackson33]

I'm not sure any current BB Model, still allows for faster than light expansion at any point in the expansion stage. Originally any explanation to quantify for this, was said to be that the singularity or matter/mass/energy involved prior to cooling, could not be explained by today's science. Keep on mind, under the singularity scenario, the universe itself was that singularity at temperatures and pressures not possible to recreate. That is any laws of physics explainable in our reality, would not have been possible under another reality...

 

My personal views follow, for the most part, SSU theory. Simply put, the Universe is an entity with in, infinite space. There is no definable edge, other than where matter has thinned probably retreating back. All energy can just roam on, outside the universe.

 

If BBT is correct and the Universe is an expanding unit from which it began, its seems illogical heat could have ever escaped. Energy waves themselves create no heat in space, unless absorbed. Under BBT, space is expanding at/near or over C, assume is or has a great deal of energy which cannot leave or go beyond the expansion.

 

Q has stated, along with many others that SSU cannot explain CRB. My eventual argument is that IMO, unless BBT, gets off the self contained singularity idea, dispersion of heat from whatever said (40B/D/K to millions of trillion D/K) could not be possible. Any and all heat from the BB would have to be in the universe someplace. To go one step further, an argument could be made this heat and energy soon became the stars, which could cool space, but under the suggested scenario, stars could never have formed... [/Quote]

 

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=9191&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=165

 

rigney, rather than go back over many of the issues you bring up, I'll offer you an old thread (2007) from another forum (hope that's legal), which went on for some time, covering many of your questions. Cosmo, was an 88 yo Detroit, self taught advocate (20+ years) opposed to BBT and much of this thread and many others there and even here on this forum (he was later banned, here), think now deceased, but reflected an approach to BBT, similar to mine but as Fred Hoyle had done, argued BBT trying to incorporate two theories, opposed to my explanations fundamentally ignoring BBT in total.

 

You also have mentioned consistency of matter/energy in the U, which is not exactly, thought correct. There are a great many "voids" throughout space, which would not be consistent with expansion or BBT (my opinion).

 

I feel our Universe is a finite dynamic entity that is perhaps a hundred billion light years across and perhaps a trillion years old. While some matter is constantly crashing into its border at tremendously high energy levels other matter is directed back toward the central portion of the Universe. Some of these are the cosmic rays we encounter. The matter that crashes into and is absorbed by the border is replaced in the central part of the Universe as new massless matter ready to begin its long journey outward toward the far off border (matter that is at a very low SPACE ENERGY LEVEL or REST MASS). The amount of matter and energy within the universe is constant.[/Quote]

 

http://novan.com/space.htm

[rigney]

I'm not sure any current BB Model, still allows for faster than light expansion at any point in the expansion stage. Originally any explanation to quantify for this, was said to be that the singularity or matter/mass/energy involved prior to cooling, could not be explained by today's science. Keep on mind, under the singularity scenario, the universe itself was that singularity at temperatures and pressures not possible to recreate. That is any laws of physics explainable in our reality, would not have been possible under another reality...

 

 

 

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=9191&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=165

 

rigney, rather than go back over many of the issues you bring up, I'll offer you an old thread (2007) from another forum (hope that's legal), which went on for some time, covering many of your questions. Cosmo, was an 88 yo Detroit, self taught advocate (20+ years) opposed to BBT and much of this thread and many others there and even here on this forum (he was later banned, here), think now deceased, but reflected an approach to BBT, similar to mine but as Fred Hoyle had done, argued BBT trying to incorporate two theories, opposed to my explanations fundamentally ignoring BBT in total.

 

You also have mentioned consistency of matter/energy in the U, which is not exactly, thought correct. There are a great many "voids" throughout space, which would not be consistent with expansion or BBT (my opinion).

 

 

 

http://novan.com/space.htm

 

As I stated, all I do is read and think. Everything is so conflicting it's hard for me to gain a foothold. I made a statement about the Higgs Boson and Incendia answered with this portion of a quote: I don't think you understand...Higgs has nothing to do with this. The only thing higgs does is give particles mass.This is the video.

Higgs boson field... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFGpNMe5eEQ How can Incendia's statement or the Higgs field video be taken seriously, since both are only ideas? And heck, I'm full of those. Looking at the little squigglies in the video a bit closer, it appears someone may be trying to tie super string theory into it as well.

Edited June 13, 2011 by rigney

[Incendia]

As I stated, all I do is read and think. Everything is so conflicting it's hard for me to gain a foothold. I made a statement about the Higgs Boson and Incendia answered with this portion of a quote: I don't think you understand...Higgs has nothing to do with this. The only thing higgs does is give particles mass.This is the video.

Higgs boson field... http://www.youtube.c...h?v=RFGpNMe5eEQ How can Incendia's statement or the Higgs field video be taken seriously, since both are only ideas? And heck, I'm full of those. Looking at the little squigglies in the video a bit closer, it appears someone may be trying to tie super string theory into it as well.

 

My statement is not incompatible with the video.

[ajb]

Necessarily, otherwise?

 

Inflation would not solve the horizon problem.

Edited June 13, 2011 by ajb

[jackson33]

As I stated, all I do is read and think. Everything is so conflicting it's hard for me to gain a foothold. I made a statement about the Higgs Boson and Incendia answered with this portion of a quote: I don't think you understand...Higgs has nothing to do with this. The only thing higgs does is give particles mass.This is the video. [/Quote]

 

 

rigney; Actually all theoretical explanations for BBT or for that matter SSU, String or the U being an experiment in some laboratory (is one theory) or any other are based on the unknown, but each has there own circumstances for splitting from another and then validation of one. They are all connected, to when, where, why the U began, or even if it does have a beginning.

 

If energy is mass or has mass qualities (The property of a body that causes it to have weight in a gravitational field), it's possible in my mind, limitations (C velocity/speed) could be because of sub-atom particles (tachyons*) and as ajb's link suggest C itself has changed over the eons. By the way "tachyons" have long been explored, as a means for mechanical time travel, opposed to going faster than C, which for required energy is not possible.

 

 

A tachyon ( /ˈtæki.ɒn/; Greek: ταχύς, takhus, "swift" + English: -on "elementary particle") is a hypothetical subatomic particle that moves faster than light. In the language of special relativity, a tachyon would be a particle with space-like four-momentum and imaginary proper time. A tachyon would be constrained to the space-like portion of the energy-momentum graph. Therefore, it cannot slow down to subliminal speeds.

 

The first hypothesis about tachyons is attributed to German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld. However, it was George Sudarshan,[1] Olexa-Myron Bilaniuk,[2] Vijay Deshpande,[2] and Gerald Feinberg[3] (who originally coined the term in the 1960s) who advanced a theoretical framework for their study.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

 

In offering you a long thread which covered many issues, most challenged, it was my hope you could formulate an opinion based on actual discussion, opposed to skipping from one idea to another. None of us here or on any science oriented forum, have the answers your looking for, BUT can respond to specific questions. In this case "Is the universe actually speeding up?", my answer would be NO. If we are seeing things from distant space (opposed to artist illustrations), then those seen galaxy's from 10 BLY away and as it was 10 BLY ago, should not look as they do, IMO. The James Webb Telescope*, was scheduled for 2013 or so, now 2018 should show even better/clearer pictures of what was and of what was is traveling faster (under BBT, should be) it would NOT indicate what's going on billions of LY further out, from where those pictures get their information.

 

The James Webb Space Telescope (sometimes called JWST) is a large, infrared-optimized space telescope. The project is working to a 2018 launch date. Webb will find the first galaxies that formed in the early Universe, connecting the Big Bang to our own Milky Way Galaxy. Webb will peer through dusty clouds to see stars forming planetary systems, connecting the Milky Way to our own Solar System. Webb's instruments will be designed to work primarily in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, with some capability in the visible range.

 

Webb will have a large mirror, 6.5 meters (21.3 feet) in diameter and a sunshield the size of a tennis court. Both the mirror and sunshade won't fit onto the rocket fully open, so both will fold up and open once Webb is in outer space. Webb will reside in an orbit about 1.5 million km (1 million miles) from the Earth.[/Quote]

 

http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

[rigney]

rigney; Actually all theoretical explanations for BBT or for that matter SSU, String or the U being an experiment in some laboratory (is one theory) or any other are based on the unknown, but each has there own circumstances for splitting from another and then validation of one. They are all connected, to when, where, why the U began, or even if it does have a beginning.

 

If energy is mass or has mass qualities (The property of a body that causes it to have weight in a gravitational field), it's possible in my mind, limitations (C velocity/speed) could be because of sub-atom particles (tachyons*) and as ajb's link suggest C itself has changed over the eons. By the way "tachyons" have long been explored, as a means for mechanical time travel, opposed to going faster than C, which for required energy is not possible.

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

 

In offering you a long thread which covered many issues, most challenged, it was my hope you could formulate an opinion based on actual discussion, opposed to skipping from one idea to another. None of us here or on any science oriented forum, have the answers your looking for, BUT can respond to specific questions. In this case "Is the universe actually speeding up?", my answer would be NO. If we are seeing things from distant space (opposed to artist illustrations), then those seen galaxy's from 10 BLY away and as it was 10 BLY ago, should not look as they do, IMO. The James Webb Telescope*, was scheduled for 2013 or so, now 2018 should show even better/clearer pictures of what was and of what was is traveling faster (under BBT, should be) it would NOT indicate what's going on billions of LY further out, from where those pictures get their information.

 

 

 

http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

 

Jackson, I am not striking out at anyone or anything, yet my eyes only see the mechanical functions of a universe which will always be controversial. I've looked at a slew of theories these past few months that many of you may have filed away years ago, but it's all new to me; every bit of it! If I seem to be jumping from topic to topic it's only because I haven't spent any time pursueing even rudimentary science. Now I read and skim the surface of many items hoping to find answers to some of my ideas and thoughts; but math is my stumbling block. The physical and even the metaphysical world in which much of our sciences are rooted, leads me to conjecture that I can assimilate; but the math is much too deep for me. Thanks for your input.

[pwagen]

I'm sorry if I missed the answer, but I would like to ask something regarding the original question; how do we know the expansion of the universe is speeding up?

[ajb]

I'm sorry if I missed the answer, but I would like to ask something regarding the original question; how do we know the expansion of the universe is speeding up?

 

The initial evidence comes from careful study of supernova as "standard candles".

 

It is believed that type Ia supernova's light out put peaks in a narrow range. To every type Ia supernova you can attach a more of less fixed absolute magnitude. You can then look at the observed redshift to get a distance. Careful analysis of this suggested that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate [1].

 

 

References

[1] Riess, A. et al. Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant , Astronomical Journal, 116, 1009 (1998) (Online version available here)

[rigney]

The initial evidence comes from careful study of supernova as "standard candles".

 

It is believed that type Ia supernova's light out put peaks in a narrow range. To every type Ia supernova you can attach a more of less fixed absolute magnitude. You can then look at the observed redshift to get a distance. Careful analysis of this suggested that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate [1].

 

 

References

[1] Riess, A. et al. Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant , Astronomical Journal, 116, 1009 (1998) (Online version available here)

 

I have seen the below link before and others similar to it and am still totally confused. Is there a reason two galaxies, if linked together; would have such distinctively different redshifts? Is this guy Arp a nutcase or simply getting in the way of proverbial astrophysics?

 

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Edited June 18, 2011 by rigney

[ajb]

I have seen the below link before and others similar to it and am still totally confused. Is there a reason two galaxies, if linked together; would have such distinctively different redshifts? Is this guy Arp a nutcase or simply getting in the way of proverbial astrophysics?

 

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

 

I do not know of Arp's work to really make many comments. However, there are other forms of evidence supporting the big bang such as the CMBR.

[rigney]

I do not know of Arp's work to really make many comments. However, there are other forms of evidence supporting the big bang such as the CMBR.

 

I know thing of the man myself other than this bit of information I found about his experiments. Evidently he worked with Edwin Hubble some years ago and over time, likely came up with his own ideas. And the Big Bang?, hopefully it was more of a Big Diversification, "without the heat". And lord knows, when I see links like the one below, I'm even more lost!

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html

Edited June 19, 2011 by rigney

[tar]

Would like to reiterate Jackson33's statement of fact, that when we see a Galaxy doing something, it is not indeed what that Galaxy is doing now. We don't even know what the rest of our Milky Way is doing right now. In fact since our Sun's nearest neighbors are a light year or two away, we won't know what THEY are doing right now, for a year or two.

 

So when you ask "is the universe speeding up", I would have to ask in return, "compared to what?"

 

Seems much more likely, that the universe is churning about, and some of it is moving toward us, and some of it away. When you consider the emense scales that this is happening on, where whole strings of galaxies and voids are changing shape and structure, and the whole operation is happening so far away that we won't know about the details for millions or billions of years, at which point the details will be history, and those areas of space already in some other configuration, I would say that the universe, as a whole, is probably not doing only one thing, now.

 

Regards, TAR2

[ajb]

So when you ask "is the universe speeding up", I would have to ask in return, "compared to what?"

 

This is a good question.

 

To quantify how the Hubble parameter varies with time you "cook-up" what is known as the deceleration parameter [math]q_{0}[/math].

 

I am going to assume you know a little about the FRW cosmologies and in particular you know what I mean by the scale factor. If not let me know and I will outline this later.

 

Let us expand out the scale factor as

 

[math]a(t) = a(t_{0}) + \dot{a}(t_{0})(t-t_{0}) + \frac{1}{2}\ddot{a}(t_{0})(t-t_{0})^{2} + \cdots [/math]

 

where [math]t_{0}[/math] is an arbitrary reference time, which we will take to be now. The dot denotes taking the derivative wrt time.

 

 

Recall that the Hubble parameter is given in terms of the scale factor as

 

[math]H_{0} = \frac{\dot{a}(t_{0})}{a(t_{0})} [/math],

 

thus

 

[math]\frac{a(t)}{a(t_{0})} = 1 + H_{0} (t-t_{0}) - \frac{q_{0}}{2}(H_{0})^{2}(t-t_{0})^{2} + \cdots[/math],

 

 

where the deceleration parameter is defined as

 

[math]q_{0}= - \frac{a(t_{0}) \ddot{a}(t_{0})}{\dot{a}^{2}(t_{0})}[/math].

 

The deceleration parameter is the term that tells us something non-trivial about the ratio of the scale factor at any time with the scale factor now.

 

Now by accelerating we mean [math]q_{0}< 0[/math].

 

Careful observation of type IA supernova allows one to observe how the scale factor changes with time. You feed all this into the definition of the scale factor and see what you get. One gets an accelerating Universe, which is not predicted by the simple cosmological models.

Edited June 20, 2011 by ajb

[tar]

ajb,

 

Only laymenly familiar with scale factors and Hubble constant and the like.

 

Its the "careful" observation of super nova, that I am not fully understanding.

 

In equations and calculations there are always assumptions and definitions, that I am not knowledgeable of.

 

I never know whether I "agree" with the definitions, or whether the "reference points" are compatable in the equation.

 

I suppose I could make the assumption that better minds than mine are at work, and are reviewing each others work to catch any misapplication. But it is hard to completely trust somebody elses imagination.

 

I am not understanding properly the idea of "now".

 

The images of distant supernova are compiled "over time" as sparse photons are gathered one by one, to build and image of the event. Then the image is considered as how that part of the universe was, as long ago as it is deemed to be far away. We have no way to know how that part of the universe is now, except to assume that it might be like "here", "now", if it underwent the same kind of evolution and its "constants" and physics developed as one with that of our location.

 

Not sure exactly how one can make that assumption, since, by what has already been determined, the universe has gone through various stages of inflation and expansion and potentially has left most of itself out of our reach...ever.

 

But even considering the knowable universe, judging anything from here and now, does not put us in a position to ever "see" the entire universe at one time. We always see it later, after it has done something, by the photons that announce the event.

 

Our imaginary eye may defeat itself in its ignorance of the time it takes for one part of the universe to actually announce itself to another part. What I mean, is there is no actual platform upon which we can stand, that can see two separated parts of the universe as doing what they are doing, now.

 

So I am always left with a frame shift problem, and don't know the math to do the proper transforms and mapping, from one here and now, to another. Nor to I have the confidence that everybody that CAN do the math, is taking everything that needs to be taken, into account.

 

So I am left with the question, in regards to whether the universe is speeding up, or slowing down, now, "whose here, and whose now are we talking about?"

 

Regards, TAR2

[ajb]

Its the "careful" observation of super nova, that I am not fully understanding.

 

I will come back to this later.

 

 

I am not understanding properly the idea of "now".

 

The usual thing to do is pick special coordinates and in this case these are known as comoving coordinates. These are the natural coordinates that comove with respect to the Hubble expansion.

 

This gives a notion of "now" that is universal. This is the [math]t_{0}[/math] as found in cosmological equations. This also is what people mean by the age of the universe.

Edited June 20, 2011 by ajb