|
Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions. If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name. |
|
|||||||
| Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
|
#1 | |
|
Rear Admiral
|
Question about how Hubble can see objects from soon after the Big Bang
The universe is expanding at less than the speed of light. So 600 million years after the Big Bang, it should have been less than 600 million light years across. So wouldn't the light emitted by these objects then have reached the limit of the universe not more than 1.2 billion years after it was emitted? How can that light still be traveling around anywhere for us to see it?
__________________
De Bello Lemures [Kindle] [Paperback] Zombies and Ancient Rome...two great tastes that taste great together. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Vice Admiral
Location: Great Britain
|
Re: Question about how Hubble can see objects from soon after the Big
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch. |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Commodore
|
Re: Question about how Hubble can see objects from soon after the Big
Second, the edge of the observable universe is 46 billion light years away.
__________________
R.I.P. Admiral James T. Kirk (2233-2267, 1969, 2267, 1930, 2267-2268, 1968, 2268-2269, Serpeidon Middle Ages, 2269, 2237, 2269-2286, 1986, 2286-2293, 2371) |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Rear Admiral
Location: Chairman of the bored
|
Re: Question about how Hubble can see objects from soon after the Big
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...energy_gr.html No-one knows how big the universe actually is, but measurements of its curvature seem to imply that it must be much bigger than its observable size. http://atramateria.com/the-size-of-t...at-is-visible/ It might be infinite, or it might be finite but closed and not have an edge at all. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
__________________
"It is a lonely life, the way of the necromancer... oh, yes. Lacrimae Mundi - the tears of the world." |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Rear Admiral
|
Re: Question about how Hubble can see objects from soon after the Big
Because the photons emitted from those light sources would end up acting like photons trying to escape from a black hole. Wouldn't they? That's why I'm confused. These distant objects are either moving away from us at less than / equal to the speed of light, or more than the speed of light. If it's the former, then the light should have passed our location already. If it's the latter, the light should never reach us and the universe should be a sort of reverse event horizon surrounding us in every direction. Light that is 13 billion odd years old must have been 13 billion light years away from us when it was emitted, if c is a constant. Right?
__________________
De Bello Lemures [Kindle] [Paperback] Zombies and Ancient Rome...two great tastes that taste great together. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Rear Admiral
|
Re: Question about how Hubble can see objects from soon after the Big
But the cosmic background radiation bit has also never made sense to me. If these microwaves date to the time of the Big Bang, then they all originated at a single point and all were emitted within the same narrow window of time. So how can it be "background" radiation? Shouldn't it be a thin hollow globe of radiation, like a glass Christmas ornament but made of microwaves, the size of the universe and expanding at the speed of light? And with nothing behind it, since the emissions of the Bang stopped at some point? Wouldn't you need a continuous radiator to have the radiation be distributed evenly as a "background"?
__________________
De Bello Lemures [Kindle] [Paperback] Zombies and Ancient Rome...two great tastes that taste great together. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |||
|
Rear Admiral
Location: Chairman of the bored
|
Re: Question about how Hubble can see objects from soon after the Big
You'd think it's 13.7 billion light years to the horizon, but the space-time in between has expanded since the light was emitted, and the photons have lost energy as a result. In fact, depending on how you do the calculation, you can argue either that energy is lost or that it's been transformed. ETA:
http://library.thinkquest.org/C01266...tion%20era.htm During the radiation era, the entire volume of the universe was dominated by radiation rather than by matter. So it was everywhere and not just a thin shell.
__________________
"It is a lonely life, the way of the necromancer... oh, yes. Lacrimae Mundi - the tears of the world." Last edited by Asbo Zaprudder; December 14 2012 at 09:26 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Fleet Captain
|
Re: Question about how Hubble can see objects from soon after the Big
and the physics and cosmology behind it is called the InflationaryUniverse model We are now told that the very early Universe went through a quick period of rapid FTL expansion like a balloon blowing up faster than light speed. But that's ok because none of the laws of physics and mathematics were broken in the real Universe, newton laws and einsteins theories and all those other nifty bits of math still hold true because the real Universe itself didn't expand.....you see the Real Universe is like the skin on an apple or the skin of a balloon and it expanded normal speed.....but that pocket of magicair inside we call inflation well that was allowed expand FTL because its only an expanding bubble of space-time The Inflationary Expansion didn't last long though cos if it did our math of the stars would be a mess, so this expansion well it lasted less than a hundredth of a second, less than a microsecond, less than a nano second....about 10-^35 seconds. In defense of the magic FTL Inflation theory The science is actually pretty sound once the eggheads actually went out and tested it The model helps explain why some of the Universe is now no longer observable, adds to the theory of missing observable matter and how space at the start didn't have initial curvature but the universe then started to warp and curve over time. Laboratories like Fermilab and Cern are now finding some of the fundamental early particles that were expected to be found at the beginning of time in the Inflationary Model NASA's Cobe satellite mission, the Hubble and Europe's Plank craft searched for predicted structures in the early universe, light red shifted into CMB radiation and these structures scientists forecast in visible and microwave were consistent with satellite data |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.
















