The distant cosmos as seen in the infrared

Apr 12, 2013
The famous Hubble deep field of galaxies as seen here in the infrared at a wavelength of 3.6 microns. The new SEDS project that has observed this region has also studied many other deep extragalactic fields, covering a total area nearly six times that of the full moon. Credit: NASA/Spitzer and M. Ashby

(Phys.org) —At some stage after its birth in the big bang, the universe began to make galaxies. No one knows exactly when, or how, this occurred. For that matter, astronomers do not know how the lineages of our own Milky Way galaxy and its stars trace back to those first galaxies and their first stars, but astronomers have been working hard to find out. The Hubble Space Telescope announced in 1996 that it had stared at apparently dark sky for ten days at optical wavelengths, long enough to acquire a picture of the very distant universe. The resultant image, the Hubble Deep Field (HDF), reveals galaxies that are so far away that they existed when the universe was less than about 5% of its present age of 14 billion years. Since 1996 astronomers have been working to understand exactly what kinds of galaxies these remote objects are, and whether they bear any resemblance to our own Milky Way galaxy, either as it is now, or as it was when it was younger.

CfA astronomers Matthew Ashby, Steve Willner, Giovanni Fazio, Jia-Sheng Huang, Lars Hernquist, Joe Hora, and Howard Smith, along with an international team of colleagues, have just completed an unbiased, deep survey of the distant universe at infrared wavelength using the on the . The largest Spitzer science program to date, this survey explored the universe at a depth and over a large field of view never before achieved – nearly six times the area of the full moon and much larger than the original Hubble image. The survey detected galaxies as small in mass as 15% of the Milky Way, and so far away that their light has been traveling for over 12.7 billion years, over 90% of the age of the universe. Within the wide field the team discovered more than 300,000 galaxies.

The new results address four major research goals: a study of across this dramatic time span, the detection of galaxies with active at their nuclei in this volume, and variable emission from such nuclei (thanks to the way the survey was executed, with repeated visits to the same regions of the sky to spot changes). Moreover, this deep, wide field allowed the team to study not only galaxies, but the infrared emission from the sky "between" these sources, the so-called diffuse component. Remarkably, the study found that while nearly half of the cosmic infrared light comes from distant galaxies, the other half comes from this diffuse background component whose origin is still not known, though some speculate that it may include light from ensemble of even smaller galaxies. This legacy survey will provide a basis for new research activity for years to come.

Explore further: 'Blockbuster' science images

Related Stories

Radio galaxies in the distant universe

Jun 26, 2012

(Phys.org) -- For over a decade astronomers have been probing a region of the northern sky, not far from the handle of the Big Dipper, that is relatively free of bright stars and the diffuse glow of the Milky ...

Galaxies in the young cosmos

May 21, 2012

(Phys.org) -- The universe was born about 13.7 billion years ago in the big bang. The Sun and its system of planets formed about five billion years ago. What happened, then, during that long, intervening stretch ...

Strange new 'species' of ultra-red galaxy discovered

Dec 01, 2011

In the distant reaches of the universe, almost 13 billion light-years from Earth, a strange species of galaxy lay hidden. Cloaked in dust and dimmed by the intervening distance, even the Hubble Space Telescope ...

Mysterious red galaxies

Dec 12, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Perhaps the most astonishing and revolutionary discovery in cosmology was Edwin Hubble's observation that galaxies are moving away from us with velocities that are proportional to their distances. ...

Recommended for you

Image: Hubble captures the Egg Nebula

11 hours ago

This colourful image shows a cosmic lighthouse known as the Egg Nebula, which lies around 3000 light-years from Earth. The image, taken with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, has captured a brief but dramatic ...

'Blockbuster' science images

Nov 21, 2014

At this point, the blockbuster movie Interstellar has created such a stir that one would almost have to be inside a black hole not to know about it. And while the science fiction thriller may have taken some ...

Estimating the magnetic field of an exoplanet

Nov 20, 2014

Scientists developed a new method which allows to estimate the magnetic field of a distant exoplanet, i.e., a planet, which is located outside the Solar system and orbits a different star. Moreover, they ...

It's filamentary: How galaxies evolve in the cosmic web

Nov 20, 2014

How do galaxies like our Milky Way form, and just how do they evolve? Are galaxies affected by their surrounding environment? An international team of researchers, led by astronomers at the University of ...

User comments : 52

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Pressure2
1 / 5 (14) Apr 12, 2013
Galaxy formation in such a short period of time just doesn't square with the BigBang theory either. It is now resting on a one legged stool, the observed red-shift. Click on my username for a link that may even explain that away without violating classical physics.
Q-Star
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 12, 2013
Galaxy formation in such a short period of time just doesn't square with the BigBang theory either.


What about this "doesn't square"? It fits rather nicely as far as I understand the concordance model. 1 billion plus years is plenty of time for galaxies to have begun forming in large numbers.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (9) Apr 12, 2013
Galaxy formation in such a short period of time just doesn't square with the BigBang theory either.


What about this "doesn't square"? It fits rather nicely as far as I understand the concordance model. 1 billion plus years is plenty of time for galaxies to have begun forming in large numbers.

Good for you Q-star, maybe you could explain it to the astronomers (and me)who admit they have very little idea as to how galaxies formed so early let alone in one billion years.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (10) Apr 12, 2013
Q-star maybe you could explain this also.

Quote from article: "Remarkably, the study found that while nearly half of the cosmic infrared light comes from distant galaxies, the other half comes from this diffuse background component whose origin is still not known, though some speculate that it may include light from ensemble of even smaller galaxies."

My answer is that it is probably red-shifted light from even more distant galaxies.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 12, 2013
Q-star maybe you could explain this also.

Quote from article: "Remarkably, the study found that while nearly half of the cosmic infrared light comes from distant galaxies, the other half comes from this diffuse background component whose origin is still not known, though some speculate that it may include light from ensemble of even smaller galaxies."

My answer is that it is probably red-shifted light from even more distant galaxies.


Although that may be a COMPONENT of it,, it couldn't be the bulk of it, just because it is so diffused. The background infrared is probably more closely tied to the reionization era. But as ya point out, it's much understudied, maybe some future "purpose built" space-based observatories will enlighten us.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 12, 2013
Galaxy formation in such a short period of time just doesn't square with the BigBang theory either.


What about this "doesn't square"? It fits rather nicely as far as I understand the concordance model. 1 billion plus years is plenty of time for galaxies to have begun forming in large numbers.

Good for you Q-star, maybe you could explain it to the astronomers (and me)who admit they have very little idea as to how galaxies formed so early let alone in one billion years.


Why would ya think that so strange? No one I know finds that they formed before a billion years so perplexing. As I said, it fits the concordance model, the so-called "hot bang - cold inflation" model.

When the universe was smaller, denser, galaxy formation would follow the first short-lived stars quickly enough.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 12, 2013
It would just seem to me to take billions or maybe even trillions of years to create something as majestic as our Milky Way galaxy. After all it takes about 250 million year for our galaxy to make one revolution.

No, the universe was not smaller in those days. It expanded to at least the size we observe today by inflationary period. So unless you can look back in time and observe a more dense universe it would face the same obstacles as the universe around us today. And I do not see much happening around us that is in a great hurry today. It is slow.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 12, 2013
It would just seem to me to take billions


Would something a tad over 10 billions be long enough? That is the round age of the Milky Way that most people agree on.

or maybe even trillions of years to create something as majestic as our Milky Way galaxy.


No observations, and no data support that.

After all it takes about 250 million year for our galaxy to make one revolution.


That's a good round number, about 40 rotations.

No, the universe was not smaller in those days. It expanded to at least the size we observe today by inflationary period.


That's not one of the conventional models of inflation. Who proposed that? Why do they think that?

So unless you can look back in time and observe a more dense universe it would face the same obstacles as the universe around us today.


That's exactly what we do to limit of the tools available. You can not look back further than about 13.4 billion years with any tool known to man. The CMB is the limit.
Pressure2
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 12, 2013
Yes, it is the conventional model of the visible universe. You don't seem to understand what is meant by a "flat universe".

The uiversity of Oregon proposed it.

"Extremely small portion of Universe ballooned outward in all directions at speeds much greater than speed of light
Becomes many billions of times its original size to become visible Universe of today"
http://zebu.uoreg...ion.html

And no I do not think 10 billion years is long enough to create the Milky Way, a few trillion year would be in my ball park.
rwinners
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2013
The Hubble Deep Field was more spectacular.
Pressure2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 12, 2013
40 rotations? Geez where in the hell could the kenetic energy contained in the rotation of the Milky War come from to accelerate it to its present rotational velocity in just 40 rotations? Not in the life time of the present theory of the age of universe, never. That would require about a few trillion years.
Fleetfoot
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 13, 2013
40 rotations? Geez where in the hell could the kenetic energy contained in the rotation of the Milky War come from to accelerate it to its present rotational velocity in just 40 rotations? ..


The kinetic energy comes from the material falling into the potential well. In fact you have it completely backwards, the problem in formation that theories have to explain is how to get rid of the excess kinetic energy, commonly known as "cooling". Galaxies and stars can do that because they radiate but the early structure was mainly formed by dark matter and since that doesn't radiate, it contracts into clumps more slowly.

Looking back, we do see a different picture with galaxies less clustered in the recent past but more clustered in the early universe because the first galaxies formed only in the highest peaks of DM concentrations.

The diffuse background should be these early 'proto-galaxies' and hopefully some late, scattered Pop III supernovae. The JWST may see the last of these.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Apr 13, 2013
the other half comes from this diffuse background component whose origin is still not known
From AWT follows, the internal surface of event horizon will be quite reflective for short waves, which has even its own testable implications (a model of cosmic hall of mirrors). It MAY be possible, the faint structures observable in far infrared spectrum are the result of reflections from internal walls of our universe with nested dodecahedral space topology.
Fleetfoot
3 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2013
the other half comes from this diffuse background component whose origin is still not known
From AWT follows,


There is no such theory, the phrase you should use is "in my humble but unscientific opinion".

the internal surface of event horizon will be quite reflective for short waves, which has even its own testable implications (a model of http://physicswor.../23009).


You have failed to understand the article, the horizon isn't reflective, the universe wraps round like the old "Asteroids" game in those topologies.

It MAY be possible, the faint structures observable in far infrared spectrum are the result of reflections from internal walls of our universe with nested dodecahedral space topology.


That suggestion has been tested and no correlations have been found which isn't suprising IMO as inflation means the total size of the universe is much bigger than the observable part.
Pressure2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 13, 2013


Fleetfoot what you claim is mostly just speculation. For example the claim the universe was denser back then. Well the temperature of the CBR doesn't show that, in fact it was barely above absolute zero. If stars and galaxies formed as fast as you claim the background radiation should show a relatively high temperature from the heat radiating away from all the condensing gases.

Another thing the BB theory claims that stars and galaxies were forming in less than a billion years, pure speculation. How many stars do we observe forming in our own galaxy today? If our galaxy contains 100 billion stars we should be observing about 8 new stars a year. I have yet to hear of one star turning its lights on. And the age of our galaxy, well it contains stars older than 10 billion years, some thought to be older than the age of the universe itself.

The BB theory rest on the observed red-shift alone. Most of the rest is wishful thinking and ad-hoc magic.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2013
As for your quote above you credited to me, "the other half comes from this diffuse background component whose origin is still not known", It comes for the article itself.

I gave a speculative answer, what is yours?
Fleetfoot
4 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2013
Fleetfoot what you claim is mostly just speculation. For example the claim the universe was denser back then. Well the temperature of the CBR doesn't show that, in fact it was barely above absolute zero.


http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3164

See figure 4.
Fleetfoot
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 13, 2013
As for your quote above you credited to me, "the other half comes from this diffuse background component whose origin is still not known", It comes for the article itself.


I know, but I didn't quote that part, I only quoted what you asked about kinetic energy.

I gave a speculative answer, what is yours?


I already posted my thoughts on that:

"The diffuse background should be these early 'proto-galaxies' and hopefully some late, scattered Pop III supernovae. The JWST may see the last of these."
Fleetfoot
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 13, 2013
If stars and galaxies formed as fast as you claim the background radiation should show a relatively high temperature from the heat radiating away from all the condensing gases.


Hot young stars mostly emit ultra-violet. That is what ionised the neutral gas making it transparent, we see that in the Lyman Alpha forest and the Gunn-Peterson Trough

http://www.ast.ca...eion.gif

Another thing the BB theory claims that stars and galaxies were forming in less than a billion years, pure speculation. How many stars do we observe forming in our own galaxy today? If our galaxy contains 100 billion stars we should be observing about 8 new stars a year. I have yet to hear of one star turning its lights on.


The current rate is around 6 to 7 but was higher in the past. There are regular reports about star-forming areas in this forum.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2013
the horizon isn't reflective
In relativity theory not, but in AWT yes - in certain extent - after all, like every other density gradient. I'm talking about local event horizons inside of our universe here.
the universe wraps round like the old "Asteroids" game in those topologies
It happens too at the boundaries of bubbles - compare the dark energy flow.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 13, 2013
BB theory claims that stars and galaxies were forming in less than a billion years, pure speculation. How many stars do we observe forming in our own galaxy today? If our galaxy contains 100 billion stars we should be observing about 8 new stars a year
And our galaxy is already dense and condensed. Whereas the distant galaxies do appear already well formed and separated each other at the place, where the universe was still very sparse. IMO With JWST we will see myriads of another well developed galaxies at distance.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2013
Quote Fleetfoot: "The current rate is around 6 to 7 but was higher in the past. There are regular reports about star-forming areas in this forum."

The key words here are "star forming areas". That is not the same as newly formed stars. Where are they?
Fleetfoot
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 13, 2013
Quote Fleetfoot: "The current rate is around 6 to 7 but was higher in the past. There are regular reports about star-forming areas in this forum."

The key words here are "star forming areas". That is not the same as newly formed stars. Where are they?


You seem to be forgetting how long it takes for energy to get out from the core of a star. For the Sun it's around 100,000 years. Here's an example of a new star:

http://phys.org/n...tar.html

Of course, most are hidden from us because they form out of dense, opaque gas. This is what we usually see:

http://hubblesite...image/a/
Fleetfoot
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 13, 2013
the horizon isn't reflective
In relativity theory not, but in AWT yes ...


There is no such thing as AWT and no such prediction. If you disagree, post the maths.

Our event horizon is just a distance at at that range space is no different to what we see around us. For an observer a billion light years from us, their horizon is a billion light years farther on than ours.
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2013
And our galaxy is already dense and condensed. Whereas the distant galaxies do appear already well formed and separated each other at the place, where the universe was still very sparse. IMO With JWST http://www.techno...logists/ of another well developed galaxies at distance.


At the original design spec, JWST would have reached to z=~25 but the downgraded version will only reach z=~15. The WMAP measurement says reionisation was at its peak around z = 11 so it's going to be borderline.
Pressure2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 13, 2013
Time nor opaque gases would not hide the fact if 6 or 7 newly formed stars are created in our galaxy every year. The reason if they have been forming at that rate over millions of years there should be 6 or 7 newly visible stars every year as the gases clear and the fusion energy reaches the surface of these stars.

What you and the BB theory claims can happen in less than 14 billion, I just do not buy. Like I said earlier it is based on wishful thinking and magic. I think it would take at least a 1000 times longer.
Fleetfoot
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 13, 2013
Time nor opaque gases would not hide the fact if 6 or 7 newly formed stars are created in our galaxy every year. The reason if they have been forming at that rate over millions of years there should be 6 or 7 newly visible stars every year as the gases clear and the fusion energy reaches the surface of these stars.


As the light from the star blows the remainder of the cloud away, we see a new star, but that star will have been glowing for thousands of years to disperse the gas and dust. That is exactly what we see. Finding recent stars which are already visible is of course much rarer, a matter of luck in specific cases. There is no discrepancy between expectation and observation.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 13, 2013
I'm still waiting for evidence that the universe was more dense shortly after the BB.

Below is a quote from Nova. Physorg blocks the link.

Quote from Nova: "This view of the universe fits with the currently popular idea that the universe began with a vast expansion of size. The idea describes a kind of undirected energy present in the vacuum of space, called scalar fields, that somehow got channeled into a process called "inflation." By conservative estimates, the universe expanded so much during this period that something the size of an atom inflated to the size of a galaxy.
If this grand idea is correct, then the universe is larger than we ever could have imagined. But the question remains: Is there a boundary, and if so, what lies in the voids beyond? The answer, according to some cosmologists, is truly mind-boggling. "

Pressure2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 13, 2013
Time nor opaque gases would not hide the fact if 6 or 7 newly formed stars are created in our galaxy every year. The reason if they have been forming at that rate over millions of years there should be 6 or 7 newly visible stars every year as the gases clear and the fusion energy reaches the surface of these stars.


As the light from the star blows the remainder of the cloud away, we see a new star, but that star will have been glowing for thousands of years to disperse the gas and dust. That is exactly what we see. Finding recent stars which are already visible is of course much rarer, a matter of luck in specific cases. There is no discrepancy between expectation and observation.

There certainly is a discrpancy. You claim the Milky Way is creating 6 to 7 stars a year, if that has been going on for billions of year we should see 6 to 7 new stars every year as these new stars light up and the gases around them clear.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2013
There is no such thing as AWT and no such prediction. If you disagree, post the maths.
Black hole gravity field behaves like density gradient of vacuum, as it exhibits gravitational lensing. Every gradient exhibits the total reflection after then. It's math is described here.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2013
Is there a boundary, and if so, what lies in the voids beyond?
In mainstream cosmology the visibility of our universe is not limited with expansion of universe, but with opaqueness of hot diluted matter there due so called reionization period. But the last photos from SPITZER, HERSCHEL and another infrared telescopes indicate, many well developed galaxies do exist already there.
Fleetfoot
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 13, 2013
I'm still waiting for evidence that the universe was more dense shortly after the BB.


You made a point about the change of temperature of the CMBR which is to be expected in the model. I went to the trouble of finding a paper that precisely addressed your comment. If you can't even take the time to look at it and respond, why should I waste any more time on you?

People who want to increase their knowledge will follow links and think about what they find, the cranks just ignore and use what is called the "scattergun" approach, slinging out random baseless challenges trying to win by quantity alone.

Which are you?
yyz
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 13, 2013
Pressure2 appears to have some misconceptions concerning star birth, galaxy formation and the BBT, to name a few of the topics mentioned in this thread. Good work Fleetfoot.

"Which are you?"

Reading Pressure2's treatise "Waves of Particles Theory of Light" may give you a clue as to where he's coming from [out there]: http://www.scribd...-Physics
Pressure2
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2013
I'm still waiting for evidence that the universe was more dense shortly after the BB.


You made a point about the change of temperature of the CMBR which is to be expected in the model. I went to the trouble of finding a paper that precisely addressed your comment. If you can't even take the time to look at it and respond, why should I waste any more time on you?

People who want to increase their knowledge will follow links and think about what they find, the cranks just ignore and use what is called the "scattergun" approach, slinging out random baseless challenges trying to win by quantity alone.

Which are you?

An open mind not locked into a nearly religious doctrine like the BB theory.
I looked up both of your links. Maybe I missed something but I did not see where either one addressed the issue of density.
Also why don't we see any new stars forming in our galaxy. I tell you why they form about a 1000 times slower than the BB would have you believe.
Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 13, 2013
I'm still waiting for evidence that the universe was more dense shortly after the BB.

...
Which are you?

An open mind not locked into a nearly religious doctrine ...
I looked up both of your links. Maybe I missed something but I did not see where either one addressed the issue of density. ...


Here again is what you said previously:

Fleetfoot what you claim is mostly just speculation. For example the claim the universe was denser back then. Well the temperature of the CBR doesn't show that, in fact it was barely above absolute zero.


My response was:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3164

See figure 4.


If you have an open mind as you claim, be honest about what figure 4 of that document tells you about the temperature of the CMBR in the past compared to its value today. Opinions don't matter, the factual evidence is the only way to resolve such questions.
Pressure2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 13, 2013
I have checked out both of your links at least three times now and all I see is a chart giving the frequencies but nothing about distances from where these frequencies originated. Unless I'm missing something that chart doesn't prove anything about time periods or densities after the BB.

As for a temperature increase in the CMB, why shouldn't there be? It doesn't prove is was hotter shortly after the BB after all the futher back one looks the more radiation one would see. That is just like looking into a fog, the further you look into the fog the more fog one sees. This should hold true even in a steady state universe.

http://www.ast.ca...eion.gif
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3164

Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (7) Apr 14, 2013
The Universe isn't expanding, rather the Earth is increasing in speed relative to the Great Attractor, according to Einstein Time Dilation and length contraction account for the perception of expansion, as a body moves through space time at greater and greater speeds it is contracted. Speed effects the length of the measure.
Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2013
I have checked out both of your links at least three times now and all I see is a chart giving the frequencies but nothing about distances from where these frequencies originated. Unless I'm missing something that chart doesn't prove anything about time periods or densities after the BB.


OK, I see the problem, I replied to two separate topics because your comment merged two unrelated phenomena.

Early stars and AGN produced ultra-violet but that would affect the photons that had already been emitted and which we see as the CMBR, they just add a higher frequency component. What that radiation did though was to ionise the IGM changing it from opaque to transparent at the Lyman alpha frequency. The evidence for that is in the typical example spectrum I posted:

http://www.ast.ca...eion.gif

That's not directly related to density but is related to the point you raised about seeing the effects of early radiation.
Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2013
all I see is a chart giving the frequencies but nothing about distances from where these frequencies originated.


http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3164

Figure 4 plots temperature versus redshift which is an empirical measure of distance.

As for a temperature increase in the CMB, why shouldn't there be? It doesn't prove is was hotter shortly after the BB after all the futher back one looks the more radiation one would see. That is just like looking into a fog, the further you look into the fog the more fog one sees. This should hold true even in a steady state universe.


The temperature throughout the fog would be uniform and the clouds (which are measurable remotely) embedded in the fog would have the same temperature. Looking at the fog itself would show a common wavelength peak at all distances with only an intensity variation and the clouds would all be in equilibrium with the integrated energy of the flux. The change of temperature is consistent with a change of density.
Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2013
The Universe isn't expanding, rather the Earth is increasing in speed relative to the Great Attractor, according to Einstein Time Dilation and length contraction account for the perception of expansion, as a body moves through space time at greater and greater speeds it is contracted. Speed effects the length of the measure.


Since it would affect the Earth, not the source, we should see a common redshift regardless of distance, not the Hubble Law that we actually see.
Pressure2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2013
I finally found the chart 4 you referred to in PDF. I looked at it an came to a completely different conclusion. To me what that chart proves is that the observed red-shift is NOT caused by the expansion of the universe. The intensity would not increase if it was caused by recessional velocity. The intensity increases in direct proportion to distance as its frequency is red-shifted, this is required in order to conserve energy and momentum. This is EXACTLY what is claimed and explained The Waves of Particles Theory of Light.
Thank you.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3164

Figure 4 plots temperature versus redshift which is an empirical measure of distance.

Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2013
I finally found the chart 4 you referred to in PDF. I looked at it an came to a completely different conclusion. To me what that chart proves is that the observed red-shift is NOT caused by the expansion of the universe. The intensity would not increase if it was caused by recessional velocity.


The graph plots temperature, not intensity, sorry.

In your fog analogy, imagine some water droplets have a tiny thermometer inside measuring the water temperature. With a telescope we can look at droplets and read off the temperature. What we see is that more distant droplets have higher temperatures. There are two obvious models for that, one that we live at the exact centre of a spherical cold spot in a warmer (static) universe. The other is that the universe has the same temperature everywhere at an epoch but it was warmer in the past. That is compatible with the BB model which says it cools as it expands contrary to your claim. Of course it may be compatible with other theories too.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2013
Fleetfoot unless I'm entirely mistaken, at any given frequency temperature and intensity increase and fall in direct proportion.
Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2013
Fleetfoot unless I'm entirely mistaken, at any given frequency temperature and intensity increase and fall in direct proportion.


You need to read the paper to get the details. The intensity would also depend on the size of the quasar system, the amount of absorption from dust and and so on. However, those factors are common for the various frequencies and the analysis extracts the temperature from the ratios of the depth of the various spectral lines independent of the other factors.

All that means is that you don't get any useful information about intensity, just the temperature from the shape of the spectrum.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2013
All your side distraction add nothing to this discussion. The bottom line is that at any given set of frequencies temperature and intensity are directly proportional. If that was not the case energy and momentum would not be conserved it is as simple as that.

And this applies directly to the link you gave me below. Thanks again. I am saving that link for future reference.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3164

Figure 4 plots temperature versus redshift which is an empirical measure of distance.
Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2013
All your side distraction add nothing to this discussion.


It is you who has drifted from the topic, the temperature of the CMBR was higher in the past which supports the BB model contrary to your claim.

The bottom line is that at any given set of frequencies temperature and intensity are directly proportional.


The observations are made using absorption lines against the bright background light of a distant quasar, it is impossible to see emission under such circumstances.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3164

Figure 4 plots temperature versus redshift which is an empirical measure of distance.

Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2013

Since it would affect the Earth, not the source, we should see a common red-shift regardless of distance, not the Hubble Law that we actually see.


If you are on the body moving faster and faster thru space time, you will contract from the perspective of the outside observer, for the observer on board, the outside would appear to increase, the effects of contraction would be reversed for all you observe, otherwise known as expansion. The mass and speed of our own galaxy thru space-time effects our observation of the universe. Maybe time itself has been steadily slowing down, which would also give the perception of an expanding universe, how do we know that time has been a universal constant since the big bang and not varied or slowed down?
ROBTHEGOB
1 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2013
I am amused by these many arguments about the universe by over-educated science geeks and "scholars"; consider this theory: what if there never was a Big Bang; what if the age and the size of the universe actually has no beginning and no end? Now THAT is a theory that is kind of scary! I believe that we will often try any kind of convoluted and complicated explanation to avoid admitting that we humans may be of no consequence at all in the great scheme of things. But I enjoy the entertaining discussions nevertheless.
Fleetfoot
3 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2013
Since it would affect the Earth, not the source, we should see a common red-shift regardless of distance, not the Hubble Law that we actually see.


If you are on the body moving faster and faster thru space time, you will contract from the perspective of the outside observer,


Correct, that is 'length contraction' in special relativity.

for the observer on board, the outside would appear to increase,


No, form our point of view it is the universe that would be moving so it would appear contracted, the effect is symmetrical. However,the point remains, that effect would apply equally to the whole universe, it would not produce the Hubble Law.
Fleetfoot
3 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2013
I am amused by these many arguments about the universe by over-educated science geeks and "scholars"; consider this theory: what if there never was a Big Bang; what if the age and the size of the universe actually has no beginning and no end? Now THAT is a theory that is kind of scary! ..


That is not a theory, it is just speculation. Show the maths, calculate what we should observe at high redshift based on your idea then compare it to what we actually see and if they match, you have a theory.
Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2013


No, form our point of view it is the universe that would be moving so it would appear contracted, the effect is symmetrical.


Reverse the experiment, you are on board the ship traveling at near the speed of light, and start to decelerate, the universe should appear to expand as you slow down.
Fleetfoot
3 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2013
No, form our point of view it is the universe that would be moving so it would appear contracted, the effect is symmetrical.


Reverse the experiment, you are on board the ship traveling at near the speed of light, and start to decelerate, the universe should appear to expand as you slow down.


Only along the axis of acceleration and again, no Hubble Law.

You can't produce an effect that depends on distance by applying an effect to the Earth alone.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.