Universe's most distant galaxy discovered

Oct 23, 2013
This image from the Hubble Space Telescope CANDELS survey highlights the most distant galaxy in the universe with a measured distance, dubbed z8_GND_5296. The galaxy's red color alerted astronomers that it was likely extremely far away and, thus, seen at an early time after the Big Bang. A team of astronomers including Steven Finkelstein of the University of Texas at Austin and Vithal Tilvi of Texas A&M University measured the exact distance using the Keck I telescope with the new MOSFIRE spectrograph. They found that this galaxy is seen at about 700 million years after the Big Bang, when the universe was just 5% of its current age of 13.8 billion years. Credit: V. Tilvi, Texas A&M University; S.L. Finkelstein, University of Texas at Austin; C. Papovich, Texas A&M University; CANDELS Team and Hubble Space Telescope/NASA

Texas A&M University and the University of Texas at Austin may be former football rivals, but the Lone Star State's two research giants have teamed up to detect the most distant spectroscopically confirmed galaxy ever found—one created within 700 million years after the Big Bang.

The research is published in the most recent edition of the journal Nature.

"It's exciting to know we're the first people in the world to see this," said Vithal Tilvi, a Texas A&M postdoctoral research associate and co-author of the paper, set to be available online after Oct. 24. "It raises interesting questions about the origins and the evolution of the universe."

The paper's lead author is Steven Finkelstein, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin and 2011 Hubble Fellow who previously was a postdoctoral research associate at Texas A&M under the mentorship of Texas A&M astrophysicist Casey Papovich, who is second author as well as current mentor to Tilvi. Ten other international institutions collaborated on the effort, from California to Massachusetts and Italy to Israel.

The galaxy, known by its catalog name z8_GND_5296, fascinated the researchers. Whereas our home, the Milky Way, creates about one or two Sun-like stars every year or so, this newly discovered galaxy forms around 300 a year and was observed by the researchers as it was 13 billion years ago. That's the time it took for the galaxy's light to travel to Earth. Just how mind-boggling is that? A single light year, which is the distance light travels in a year, is nearly six trillion miles. Because the universe has been expanding the whole time, the researchers estimate the galaxy's present distance to be roughly 30 billion light years away.

"Because of its distance we get a glimpse of conditions when the universe was only about 700 million years old—only 5 percent of its current age of 13.8 billion years," said Papovich, an associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy and a member of the George P. and Cynthia Woods Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy since 2008.

Papovich notes that researchers are able to accurately gauge the distances of by measuring a feature from the ubiquitous element hydrogen called the Lyman alpha transition, which emits brightly in distant galaxies. It's detected in nearly all galaxies that are seen from a time more than one billion years from the Big Bang, but getting closer than that, the hydrogen emission line, for some reason, becomes increasingly difficult to see.

"We were thrilled to see this galaxy," Finkelstein said. "And then our next thought was, 'Why did we not see anything else? We're using the best instrument on the best telescope with the best galaxy sample. We had the best weather—it was gorgeous. And still, we only saw this emission line from one of our sample of 43 observed galaxies, when we expected to see around six. What's going on?'"

The researchers suspect they may have zeroed in on the era when the universe made its transition from an opaque state in which most of the hydrogen is neutral to a translucent state in which most of the hydrogen is ionized. So it's not necessarily that the distant galaxies aren't there. It could be that they're hidden from detection behind a wall of neutral hydrogen fog, which blocks the hydrogen emission signal.

Tilvi notes this is one of two major changes in the fundamental essence of the universe since its beginning—the other being a transition from a plasma state to a neutral state. He is leading the effort on a follow-up paper that will use a sophisticated statistical analysis to explore that transition further.

This is an artist's rendition of the newly discovered most distant galaxy z8_GND_5296. (The galaxy looks red in the actual Hubble Space Telescope image because the collective blue light from stars get shifted toward redder colors due to the expansion of the universe and its large distance from Earth.) Credit: V. Tilvi, S.L. Finkelstein, C. Papovich, NASA, ESA, A. Aloisi, The Hubble Heritage, HST, STScI, and AURA.

"Everything seems to have changed since then," Tilvi said. "If it was neutral everywhere today, the night sky that we see wouldn't be as beautiful. What I'm working on is studying exactly why and exactly where this happened. Was this transition sudden, or was it gradual?"

The Nature paper is the result of raw data gleaned from a powerful Hubble Space Telescope imaging survey of the distant universe called CANDELS, or Cosmic Assembly Near-Infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey. Using that data, the team was armed with 43 potential distant galaxies and set out to confirm their distances.

On a crisp, clear April night, Tilvi, Finkelstein and his graduate student, Mimi Song, sat behind a panel of computers in the control room of the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is perched atop the summit of Hawaii's dormant Mauna Kea volcano and houses the two largest optical and infrared telescopes in the world, each standing eight stories tall, weighing 300 tons and equipped with 10-meter-wide mirrors.

They detected only one galaxy during their two nights of observation at Keck, but it turned out to be the most distant ever confirmed. It was at a redshift 7.51—or created about 13 billion years ago. Because the universe is expanding, the space between galaxies also is increasing. And as objects move away, they become redder. In essence, the higher the redshift, the farther away the object. Only five other galaxies have ever been confirmed to have a redshift greater than 7, with the previous high being 7.215.

Finkelstein credits technological advancements in recent years for allowing astronomers to probe deeper into space and closer to the Big Bang. For instance, a powerful new spectrometer called MOSFIRE (Multi-Object Spectrometer For Infra-Red Exploration) that is 25 times more light-sensitive than others of its kind was installed at Keck in 2012. And the Hubble Space Telescope is powered by a new near-infrared camera installed by astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle in 2009 that sees farther into the universe.

Finkelstein and Papovich's collaboration to study distant galaxies and our cosmic evolution is one of several between Texas' two public research giants in the realm of astronomy. Texas A&M, the University of Texas at Austin and other institutions are building the largest spectrograph in the world to be installed at the Hobby-Eberly Telescope in west Texas to shed light on the mysterious force dark energy that likely is driving the expansion of the universe.

Perhaps the largest and most important collaboration between the two universities' astronomy programs is on the Giant Magellan Telescope, which, when complete in 2020, will create images 10 times sharper than the Hubble Space Telescope and enable astronomers to see earlier into the universe than ever before. Texas A&M and the University of Texas at Austin are two of 10 international institutions that are founding partners on the project.

"The Giant Magellan Telescope will revolutionize this research," Papovich said. "We are pushing the current telescopes to their limits and only seeing the brightest galaxies at these redshifts. It is slow-going with current telescopes. The GMT will have about five times the light gathering power of the biggest telescopes we're using now, and it will make the measurements we're doing that much easier. It will probably take the GMT to really understand the conditions in the very early universe."

Nicholas Suntzeff, director of the Texas A&M astronomy program, said the University of Texas at Austin has been instrumental in helping to boost the College Station program's international profile and providing access to telescopes and facilities. Suntzeff, who this year was appointed Texas A&M's highest faculty rank, distinguished professor, himself serves as an adjunct professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

"If we want to maintain Texas as one of the most important centers in the world for astronomy, we can no longer do it as individual universities," Suntzeff said. "UT, Texas A&M and other universities must work together. Just as a strength of the University of California program is that its system is united, if we are going to be part of the biggest projects in the world, we must unite our forces. This is the only way we can rejoin the group of elite astronomical institutions that are doing the best science on the biggest telescopes. In Texas, we are on that path."

Explore further: 'Blockbuster' science images

More information: Paper: dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12657

Related Stories

The distant cosmos as seen in the infrared

Apr 12, 2013

(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 ...

"Red nugget" galaxies were hiding in plain sight

Sep 13, 2013

In 2005 the Hubble Space Telescope spotted unusually small galaxies densely packed with red stars in the distant, young universe. They were nicknamed "red nuggets," not only because they are small and red ...

Recommended for you

'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 : 81

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
1.8 / 5 (30) Oct 23, 2013
' "If we want to maintain Texas as one of the most important centers in the world for astronomy,..." '

Then you should acknowledge that the Big Bang is a fantasy math model designed to confuse and confound. Otherwise, why should you be taken seriously? The brightest galaxies at this distance are likely the very largest galaxies, and only 700 Million years old. Really?
pianoman
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 23, 2013
If the big bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago, that means the whole universe could only be 27.6 billion light years max. in diameter, of course assuming that nothing can exceed the speed of light. So explain the 30 billion light year distant galaxy
Artum
3.2 / 5 (22) Oct 23, 2013
@Tux: The article clearly states "one created within 700 million years AFTER the Big Bang" and not 700 million years ago.

@Pianoman: It's true, nothing can break the speed of light. However, 'nothing' is exactly what space is. The expansion of space can be of any speed, even those faster than light. Therefore, the universe could have easily expanded to 30+ billion light years across by now. A trillion years from now, our universe is going to be very lonely as most galaxies in the sky will be moving away from us (due to the expansion of space) faster than light- we'll never see them again. As an example, draw 2 dots on a deflated balloon. Then, inflate it! The dots themselves aren't moving, but the space between them has expanded.
Pressure2
1.7 / 5 (27) Oct 23, 2013
If the big bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago, that means the whole universe could only be 27.6 billion light years max. in diameter, of course assuming that nothing can exceed the speed of light. So explain the 30 billion light year distant galaxy

In order to save the BB theory they have had to resort to magic. The magic of the inflationary period and the now the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (27) Oct 23, 2013
This place has become a toilet of trolls. I can't understand why the site owners don't seem to mind that their reputation is in constant decline. There must be some monetary value in having your readership being exposed to (and diminished by) such foolishness, but I just can't fathom what it might be.
Pressure2
1.5 / 5 (18) Oct 23, 2013
@Pianoman: It's true, nothing can break the speed of light. However, 'nothing' is exactly what space is. The expansion of space can be of any speed, even those faster than light. Therefore, the universe could have easily expanded to 30+ billion light years across by now. A trillion years from now, our universe is going to be very lonely as most galaxies in the sky will be moving away from us (due to the expansion of space) faster than light- we'll never see them again. As an example, draw 2 dots on a deflated balloon. Then, inflate it! The dots themselves aren't moving, but the space between them has expanded.


Quote from another Physorg article: "One of the insights of quantum mechanics is that no space, not even outer space, is ever truly empty. It's full of energy in the form of quantum fluctuations, - - - -"
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

So if space is not truly empty how can it expand faster than the speed of light.
Artum
2 / 5 (19) Oct 23, 2013
My crude understanding of a very complicated and still evolving science:
Very true! Virtual particles (quantum fluctuations [matter/anti-matter pairs]) burst in and out of existence all the time in the vacuum of space. Space is never actually empty.

However, that doesn't change the fact that space itself is nothing. It is the nothingness between matter and energy, not the matter and energy inside it.

When we say "light speed" what we really mean to say is "the speed of light as it travels through a vacuum." The key part there being "travel through a vacuum". Light actually slows down as it travels through different mediums such as water or air. The fastest light can travel is through a vacuum. Space does not travel. Space is not moving into or through something else. Space isn't a thing. It's just what we call the area around everything we know of. At least, that's how I look at it.
pianoman
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 23, 2013
@Tux: The article clearly states "one created within 700 million years AFTER the Big Bang" and not 700 million years ago.

@Pianoman: It's true, nothing can break the speed of light. However, 'nothing' is exactly what space is. The expansion of space can be of any speed, even those faster than light. Therefore, the universe could have easily expanded to 30+ billion light years across by now. A trillion years from now, our universe is going to be very lonely as most galaxies in the sky will be moving away from us (due to the expansion of space) faster than light- we'll never see them again. As an example, draw 2 dots on a deflated balloon. Then, inflate it! The dots themselves aren't moving, but the space between them has expanded.

Just curious as to where you got your information. Thanks
Artum
2.6 / 5 (20) Oct 23, 2013
@Pianoman- I just finished reading "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss. It's a good book, but a word of warning: he's not friendly towards religious beliefs. I'm now reading "Quantum Reality" by Nick Herbert. Also, "The Universe Within" by Neil Turok has some interesting thoughts. To Amazon.com!

@Franklins- According to this article, 700 million years after the big bang is when this galaxy was formed. However, the "dark age" of our universe (the period without star formation) only lasted for ~380 million years after the big bang. During this period, it would be impossible for a galaxy to form since, yes, the universe was too hot (in a state of plasma) for protons and electrons to form. So, that leaves us with ~320 million years for a galaxy to form after the first protons and electrons formed. Is that enough time? According to this article, yes.
Dug
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 23, 2013
The article title - "Universe's most distant galaxy discovered." and the internal article claim - "the most distant spectroscopically confirmed galaxy ever found" are two entirely different and probably unrelated statements.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2013
"as it was 13 billion years ago. That's the time it took for the galaxy's light to travel to Earth. Just how mind-boggling is that?"

-But... if we turn our telescope around exactly 180 degrees and look equally far into the distance, we will again see things as they were 13 billion years ago. That is even more mind-buggering.
a word of warning: he's not friendly towards religious beliefs
Well thats because he has a modicum of intelligence.
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (24) Oct 23, 2013
In relativity theory "space" cannot be "nothingness" because space (space-time) is warped by the mass of objects. If something is being warped then it must be a "thing". Nothingness is not really a "thing" even though it is considered a "noun" in the English language. Technically it should not be a noun.

Therefore it is not proper to say that space can move faster than light "because it is nothing," since space is not "nothing".

Scientists need to offer a better, more logical explanation of the theory that space can move faster than light, i.e. perhaps refer to the fact that "empty" space has no mass, or some such.

Simply calling it "nothing" cannot be correct, because it has properties, such as length, width, and warping due to mass of objects. "Nothingness" does not have such properties.
Zephir_fan
Oct 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
depth13
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 23, 2013
If something is being warped then it must be a "thing".


Your assumption is wrong, followed by the wrong conclusion.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (23) Oct 24, 2013
So 0+0=dark energy and x/0=black hole. Gotta love the "standard" theory. It would be comical if weren't for the many billions of dollars being flushed down the toilet hunting for snipe.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (20) Oct 24, 2013
This place has become a toilet of trolls. I can't understand why the site owners don't seem to mind that their reputation is in constant decline. There must be some monetary value in having your readership being exposed to (and diminished by) such foolishness, but I just can't fathom what it might be.


...............because this site has degenerated into a pecking order for "star ratings" instead of a place for scientific dialogue. I have posted word for word elements of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity on this site several times just to see how fast the likes of Open, Toot, Lite, and a few others will start casting their 1's, and like a magic show they show up. These voting nonposters show up because their science background is so weak that they find it challenging to conduct scientifically based dialogue. It is interesting who they give 5 star ratings......yep, also the scientifically challenged.
verkle
1 / 5 (17) Oct 24, 2013
Some people try so hard to separate science from morals and God. But, they are inseparable. We need both.

The scientist Mr. Pascal wrote,

"The vanity of the sciences---Physical science will not console me for the ignorance of morality in the time of affliction. But the science of ethics will always console me for the ignorance of the physical sciences."

vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2013
So if space is not truly empty how can it expand faster than the speed of light


Space-time itself is still not matter that needs to obey relativity, QM just says even in this empty space there is matter and energy floating around (or popping in and out of existence if you will), they don't say the vacuum itself is made of matter.

Effectively matter can actually move apart from each other faster than C, albeit not by it's own velocity but by expansion of space-time.

Try to avoid confusing vacuum and space-time, space-time is in which everything takes place, vacuum means that in that place and time there just happens to be nothing present.

I do wonder myself if all this vacuum matter and energy, how little it even is, doesn't slow light down a little bit and if the scientists take it in account.
brodix
1 / 5 (11) Oct 24, 2013
What sets the speed of light, if space expands? The vacuum? If this was relativistic expansion, the propagation/clock rate would have to increase, in order for the speed of light to remain constant to this expanding space. The argument is that light is just being "carried along" by this expansion, but the distance is still being denominated in lightyears. That's 6 trillion miles per. That's a stable ruler this expansion is being measured in. Einstein said space is what you measure with a ruler and this ruler isn't expanding, just more of them are used to measure an increased distance.
It can't be papered over as being four dimensional and we just can't understand it in terms of three dimensional space, because the space between two points is only one dimension.
GSwift7
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2013
Effectively matter can actually move apart from each other faster than C, albeit not by it's own velocity but by expansion of space-time


I've been following this thread of interesting philosophical discussion tucked between the garbage comments.

The idea of space itself expanding isn't easy to imagine, since it is so strange compared to our understanding of how things work.

To understand how two objects can become farther apart in a given time span than light could travel in that time, you've got to realize that the frame of reference changes.

Imagine 1 meter, expand it to 2 meters in 1 second. The outer edges moved at 1 m/s relative to eachother. Now divide it in half and expand each half to 2 meters in one second. The outer edge of each half still only moved at 1 m/s, but the farthest edges of the opposing halves moved at 2 relative to eachother. If 1 m/s was the speed of light, then the speed of light wasn't violated in either half. That's kinda how space expansion works
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2013
Science... god... We need both
Science is based on interpretation of evidence. Religion preaches belief despite evidence. Religion continues to insist that the events and characters in its books happened despite the evidence science has accumulated which indicates conclusively that they did not.

In other words religion insists we believes in lies. This is immoral. As dawkins says, belief despite evidence is evil. How can something immoral and evil be the source of morality? How can something which encourages people to be bigots and liars, be the source of goodness?

IT CAN'T.
vacuum means that in that place and time there just happens to be nothing present
Physicists use the term to represent something very specific:

"In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles."

-It is always better to quote experts and accepted definitions than to ad lib. Easier too.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2013
you've got to realize that the frame of reference changes
-Case in point. From experts:

"The expansion of the universe causes distant galaxies to recede from us faster than the speed of light, if comoving distance and cosmological time are used to calculate the speeds of these galaxies. However, in general relativity, velocity is a local notion, so velocity calculated using comoving coordinates does not have any simple relation to velocity calculated locally (see comoving distance for a discussion of different notions of 'velocity' in cosmology). Rules that apply to relative velocities in special relativity, such as the rule that relative velocities cannot increase past the speed of light, do not apply to relative velocities in comoving coordinates, which are often described in terms of the "expansion of space" between galaxies."

-This quote will lead people who wish to understand, to additional and more detailed info, again from experts.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2013
continued:

So, as you get more space between two objects, then expand that space, so you get more space, then expand that space, you get exponentially more expansion between stationary points over time. This is not equivalent to movement or acceleration.

The balloon analogy isn't really perfect either, since the balloon is actually being physically stretched. In the case of expansion, it is more like adding more balloon molecules between the existing balloon molecules without stretching the balloon.

Space 'expansion' is more like adding additional space rather than stretching existing space, hence the term 'expansion' is a bit technically misleading.

The idea that you still must locally obey the rules of physics regardless of global expansion, actually implies and deductively leads to some aspects of quantum theory. It's kinda the opposite idea of the frog that jumps half way to the top of the well, then half again, and again...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2013
So, as you get more space between two objects, then expand blahblah
And again with only a quick google search we can get a succinct explanation, from experts, as well as the formal term to use:

"The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself is changed. That is, a metric expansion is defined by an increase in distance between parts of the universe even without those parts "moving" anywhere."

"Balloon Model... A balloon has positive Gaussian curvature while observations suggest that the real universe is spatially flat, but this inconsistency can be eliminated by making the balloon very large so that it is locally flat to within the limits of observation. This analogy is potentially confusing since it wrongly suggests that the big bang took place at the center of the balloon."

Etc. Google these quotes for the source.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2013
And again with only a quick google search we can get a succinct explanation, from experts, as well as the formal term


Yes, I've read and referenced those very pages many times. What's your point?

Anyone can copy and paste word soup techno-bable from wiki. Trying to explain it in less technical terms, using common language, is what the person asking the question above was asking someone here to attempt.

This analogy is potentially confusing since it wrongly suggests that the big bang took place at the center of the balloon


yes, that's another misleading problem with the balloon analogy, in addition to the problem of thinking of it as something stretching in the first place.
Pressure2
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 24, 2013
The expansion of space time or the space between matter is just double talk and more magic to prop up the BB theory. If space is nothing how can nothing expand?

The only thing that give space (nothing) a dimension is the interaction of matter and energy. So in order to change the dimension of space you first must change the interaction of matter and energy.
scottfos
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 24, 2013
Some people try so hard to separate science from morals and God. But, they are inseparable. We need both.

The scientist Mr. Pascal wrote,

"The vanity of the sciences---Physical science will not console me for the ignorance of morality in the time of affliction. But the science of ethics will always console me for the ignorance of the physical sciences."


i have no problem with both. but faith shouldn't impact the scientific method, period. the scientific method can impact faith, which is of course why so many are fearful of science, but that is unfortunate; faith should be too important to ignore the hard questions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2013
Whats your point?
Whats my point? Well this for one:
then expand that space, so you get more space, then expand that space, you get exponentially more expansion between stationary points over time
-Youre not saying that the universe is expanding exponentially are you? Even if the word 'exponentially' is often misused?
Anyone can copy and paste word soup techno-bable from wiki
-Except that the quotes I used werent technobabble.
Trying to explain it in less technical terms, using common language
The excerpts I used were in common language. But your common language:
Space 'expansion' is more like adding additional space rather than stretching existing space, hence the term 'expansion' is a bit technically misleading
-is certainly misleading. Are you saying that when scientists use the proper term 'metric expansion', they really dont understand that 'expansion' is misleading? Why would they use the term 'expansion' at all then?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2013
yes, that's another misleading problem with the balloon analogy, in addition to the problem of thinking of it as something stretching in the first place
-And so if you were to provide links to comprehensive descriptions you wouldnt have to be explaining how you missed this particular point now would you?

Scientists rely on the work of others. They dont try to ad lib or reinvent things as they go. People who do those things here are doing science a disservice. Especially when they get it wrong. And they make it easy and fun for people like me to make them look bad.
faith shouldn't impact the scientific method, period
-But it does. It teaches people that evidence is arbitrary. It creates generation of people who are willing to ignore what science tells them in favor of the obvious lies they read in their books.

Faith is the enemy of science and of civilization.
scottfos
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 24, 2013
you're confusing fundies with faith, Otto. and yes, i agree, the fundies do impact (warp) the scientific method, and that's what's wrong. it is possible to have faith and do quality science. many do every day.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2013
When trying to "describe" or "understand" spacetime in particular and GR in general, the lay or general reader must accept two things. 1) It can not be intuited using your normal daily experiences. 2) Ya must be willing to accept that "It is just so" without proof.

The only way to truly understand the nuances and "feel" the topic intuitively,,,, get beyound "just accepting the general statements" and actually knowing it,,,, well that requires that you learn differential calculus and Riemannian geometry. And know them very well. There is just no way around that.

Ya just can't really KNOW SR or GR in terms only of Newtonian mechanics. The best ya can do is accept it by rote, and have confidence in those most brilliant people that discovered it.

By the By: The balloon analogy fails just for that reason, what is being described has nothing in common with the expanding balloon. The person ya are talking to is still stuck with seeing two dimensions instead of four.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2013
you're confusing fundies with faith
Absolutely not. Your 'moderate' or 'progressive' interpretations of scripture, at this particular time and in certain particular places, is an anomaly.

The books havent changed. They still condone slavery, the stoning of wayward women and insolent children, and the murder of unbelievers. There is no line of demarkation between the fundy and the reformed. By the bibles own definition, fundys should be more welcome in heaven. Moderates enable fundys to do what they do by legitimizing the nonsense found in books.

"Faith is evil" - dawkins. I defer to experts.
http://www.youtub...os1M-_Ts

Thinking people perhaps do not realize the depths faithers dwell in.

"So, however God orchestrated the insect survival of the flood, the obvious fact is that insects survived the flood."
http://www.insect...-ark.htm
scottfos
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 24, 2013
again, you're confusing fundamentalist (and probably christian fundamentalists) with people who possess a quiet, comfortable faith. which you probably don't even know they have, because they are so comfortable with it they don't feel the need to announce it. and which may or may not be rooted in the bible and/or specific bible verses.

the Founding Father Diests of the 18th century had it, as did the Natural Philosophers of the 19th century, and many top scientists of the 20th century. as for 21st century, so do probably most of the ~30% of self described "religious" scientists in the latest Scientific American poll.

the key ingredient is that none of these people let their faith get in the way of the scientific method.

alas, they're quiet so the only ones we hear are vocal minority of fundie asshats who, as you say, are a danger to quality science. which they are. we agree on that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2013
a quiet, comfortable faith
Their quiet comfort is based on

"16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

-But this cannot be separated from the understanding that

"20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God."

-With the caveat

"3 "You shall have no other gods before me."

Translation: People who do not accept god/allah/jesus etc cannot be good. This is bigotry codified.
none of these people let their faith get in the way of the scientific method
Thats a pretty wide brush. Lots of variation. What all these people have in common is that when there is a conflict between their faith and science, they will choose faith. Immortality is too important.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2013
the key ingredient is that none of these people let their faith get in the way of the scientific method
No, as Ive said, science has shown by the systematic collection and analysis of evidence, that the objects of their faith cannot exist. Why? Because:
-The bible stories didnt happen.
-Jesus is a copy verbatim, with bizarre twists.
-The bible itself (whichever of the conflicting variations they think is the right one) is full of obvious contradictions, adulterations, forgeries, graffiti, and lies.

-And so that in continuing to believe in their own particular god despite what science has discovered, they must accept that this god is willing to DECEIVE them in order to find out how much they TRUST him.

And they simply refuse to accept this dichotomy because the promises of absolution, immortality, and wish-granting, and the thrill of the epiphany, are too compelling to take the chance. So religion wins and science loses once again.
scottfos
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 24, 2013
shrug. i've told you twice that faith != christian fundamentalist, and yet your straw man rebuttals are to spout bible passages (and yet you say that i'm the one who paints with a wide brush lol). i doubt explaining it thrice would help. i'm sorry i got engaged; this has been as fruitful as try to have a conversation with the AWT people. cheers.
scottfos
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 24, 2013
ahhh, i see that i accidentally stumbled into a new athiest v noma debate. my bad. i guess i fall on the side of non-overlapping magisteria.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2013
to spout bible passages
Where do you think faith comes from? People get their ideas from the books. Their notions of god come from nowhere else BUT the books. The books will tell you what god expects them to do, how to act, what to think, all of it. If they are not acting upon what the books say at the moment, somebody somewhere IS.

There is a difference between atheism and antireligionism. Different focus, different expectations. The question of god is ridiculous. The threat of religion is real and critical. People who indulge in the quiet comfort of religion are reinforcing the beliefs of others who think it is worth killing and dying for. They are as guilty for the excesses that religion can generate, as are the people who carry them out.

ANYONE who succumbs to superstition must take responsibility for all the damage that it does, in a world whose people MUST learn to live within their means and work very hard to make THIS life work. Because it is the only one that existI
LarryD
1 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2013
When trying to "describe" or "understand" spacetime in particular and GR in general, the lay or general reader must accept two things. 1) It can not be intuited using your normal daily experiences. 2) Ya must be willing to accept that "It is just so" without proof.

The only way to truly understand the nuances and "feel" the topic intuitively,,,, get beyound "just accepting the general statements" and actually knowing it,,,, well that requires that you learn differential calculus and Riemannian geometry. And know them very well. There is just no way around that.....

This is so true and as layman (I must stop saying that!), I know! But Q-Star what you say is the comparatively easy part. I find the math very interesting but the difficult part for lay people is trying to form a personal opinion when the scientists have such differing veiws. But that's life and I suppose true of any topic so I'll keep trying ha! Varieity is the spice of life eh?
Q-Star
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2013
I find the math very interesting,,,


Maths can be torturous to many. When I was schooling, I approached math not as a "chore" to endure, but as a puzzle, a game,,,, then that feeling ya have when all of a sudden it clicks, and a blinding flash of "comprehension",,, of "getting it" PRICELESS !.

the difficult part for lay people is trying to form a personal opinion when the scientists have such differing veiws.


That is exactly why I always promote "first principals" first. Even for a general reader,, don't jump right to the really advanced deep stuff expecting a definitive answer. There is seldom one to be had.

Spend time getting the "first principles" where all the mainstream people agree, build confidence with understanding those things first, then ya can argue the "cutting edge" with confidence, logic, & self-consistency. The new ideas have to work with the new AND the old observations. Undisciplined musing is not science no matter how brilliant ya might be.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 24, 2013
1) It can not be intuited using your normal daily experiences. 2) Ya must be willing to accept that "It is just so" without proof.

Q, I couldn't have agree with you more. 1) It's ass backwards and is completely unintuitive. 2) Faith, lots and lots of faith

The only way to truly understand the nuances and "feel" the topic intuitively,,,, get beyound "just accepting the general statements" and actually knowing it,,,, well that requires that you learn differential calculus and Riemannian geometry. And know them very well. There is just no way around that.

"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén

And there you are, the disciple of imaginary conjecture claiming ya'll are just too dern dumb ta get it.

And a simple refutation from Q's favorite guy;
http://vixra.org/...24v2.pdf
LarryD
1 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2013
Q-Star, Agreed.
TheGhostofOtto1923 '...-The bible stories didnt happen.
-Jesus is a copy verbatim, with bizarre twists.
-The bible itself (whichever of the conflicting variations they think is the right one) is full of obvious contradictions, adulterations, forgeries, graffiti, and lies....'
Sounds a bit overboard to me. Don't forget that many ancient Astronomers were religious people and Constellation names we still use today.
'...the Bible stories didn't happen...', well probably not in the way that they are written. There are too many similarities with stories from Summer and later people so it is possible that the stories were re-written in the context of a single deity. Today, isn't it true that some scientists believe in an Almighty but suggest that the Almighty intended us to study the beauty that had been created? This is not my view but I respect that it is there.
cont.



LarryD
1 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2013
cont.
As for ideas on '...expansion...' I quote De sitter; 'What, however, blows up the ball? What makes the universe expand or swell up? That is done by lambda. No other answer can be given.'
Anyone care to expand on this?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2013
pianoman
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2013
If a definite conclusion hasn't been achieved from a theory, idea, or statement then to prattle on is mute and a waste of time and talent. Thanks
bluehigh
1 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2013
Latest measurements of directional travel and velocity, indicate that in 13 billion years this proto galaxy will collide with the Milky Way. Oh wait .. Is that us?

No? So, where is this proto galaxy now?

Of course, it's still in the same place and just the spaces expanded.

Well, pop my balloon.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2013
Sounds a bit overboard to me. Don't forget that many ancient Astronomers were religious people and Constellation names we still use today
So what? Are you saying that they should have known that the sun was a typical star with planets revolving around it? In fact, many of them DID as it is pretty obvious. But then religions came along which suppressed this knowledge, and tortured and murdered anyone who stated the obvious.
well probably not in the way that they are written. There are too many similarities with stories from Summer and later people so it is possible that the stories were re-written
-Why are you guessing? Summer - really??

You can find out for yourself how archeologists, geologists, historians, and exegists have disproven each and every major bible tale.

Its not just an absence of any positive evidence whatsoever, but an overwhelming amount of contrary evidence which tells us that other things were going on at the time which make bible fables impossible.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2013
WHY IS IT that so few people are unaware of this? If you do a google search of 'biblical archeology' you are inundated with religious sites reprinting the same lies which have been disproven time and again.

"Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."

-And let me add that there IS no identifiable mt sinai. A fable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2013
isn't it true that some scientists believe in an Almighty but suggest that the Almighty intended us to study the beauty that had been created? This is not my view but I respect that it is there
What almighty might that be? The one who said that joshua destroyed a long-abandoned and ruined jericho, solomon and david created nonexistent kingdoms, moses led 2M people through a sinai and conquered a palestine which were both at the time thoroughly controlled by garrisoned egyptian troops? There never WERE 2M jews in goshen.

THAT god is the one who claimed to have created everything in only 7 days. That god is the one who promises immortality and wish-granting. THAT god is either a liar on an incompetent.

And if there are other gods somewhere, there is absolutely no reason to suspect that they would want to grant all your wishes or have you sitting next to them for eternity.

The ONLY PLACE we find such notions are in the books which, as scientists tell us, are full of lies.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2013
So, where is this proto galaxy now?

Of course, it's still in the same place and just the spaces expanded.


Right, it is still in the same surroundings, the distance between us and that region has expanded by a factor of 8.51 from 3.47 billion light years to 29.5 billion.
Benni
1 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2013
So, where is this proto galaxy now?

Of course, it's still in the same place and just the spaces expanded.


Right, it is still in the same surroundings, the distance between us and that region has expanded by a factor of 8.51 from 3.47 billion light years to 29.5 billion.


........if this were the actual kinematics of the state of motion extant throughout the universe, galaxies would never collide, but they are colliding all over the place.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2013
........if this were the actual kinematics of the state of motion extant throughout the universe, galaxies would never collide, but they are colliding all over the place.


Most galaxies are gravitationally bound together in groups, clusters and super clusters. There has always been collisions and interactions within these large structures, and they will continue to happen into the distant future.

All phenomena must be assessed within the "system" it operates in. Universal expansion does not contradict galactic collisions.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (18) Oct 25, 2013
Ghost:

Monotheism wasn't common in Israel throughout much of it's history, because most people did not follow the YHWH,a nd it tells you this in the Bible. The Bible doesn't gloss that fact over or try to make trumped up claims about how many believers there were. At one point during the life of Elijah, it tells you there were only 7000 true believers "who had not bowed their knees to baal," in the entire nation of Israel.

It's also well known that on several occasions there were apostate Kings who killed the priests and put idolaters, including polytheists, in charge of the temple.

Hey, I don't see how you could think God was incompetent. You clearly don't realize what it would mean to be God anyway. Just because he CAN do something doesn't mean he is required to do it.

Zephir_fan
Oct 25, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (18) Oct 25, 2013
Have you ever watched Coming to America? You know how the girl they had arranged to marry Akeem parroted everything he liked?

What would "love" be if you only loved God because you were a robot? the point of Free Will is that without Free Will love doesn't mean anything. Who would want a puppet for love?

I can't pretend to know why God doesn't stop evil doers in their tracks, but the fact remains that love is only meaningful if Free Will exists.

When you try to blame God for evil things happening, it's not God's fault. It's the fault of evil people.

It truly would be evil if people just winked out of existence when they died.

BTW, are you "Neapolitan" on Wunderground Weather forums?

You are among the biggest God-haters I know, and most of the lies you two spout are nearly identical to one another, so I figure you must be the same person, or brothers or something. It's hard to imagine there's actually two of you...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2013
........if this were the actual kinematics of the state of motion extant throughout the universe, galaxies would never collide, but they are colliding all over the place.

Expansion happens at a certain rate. If galaxies move faster (relative to one another) than the space between them expands they will be able to collide with one another. Is that such a complicated concept to grasp?

E.g. the Andromeda galaxy will crash into our galaxy in four billion years or so. Better get a good helmet.
LarryD
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2013
TheGhostofOtto1923, Okay so I wrote 'Summer' instead of 'Sumer'; I wrote 'Almighty' because it would depend on a scientist's own religious faith. I think you misunderstand me. I agree with you but I think you are going off on a 'tangent' on this.
I note that you write the term as God which suggests to me that you still have some religious regard for that term. I NEVER do. I either write almighty or 'God' ('god') with quote marks to indicate my complete disbelief. And I am not guessing; it's just that I have only read about the research (books by Samuel Noah Kramer and others [cuneiform]) and not examined tablets myself. One could suggest the bible was a early form of plagiarism (such as Noah's Ark MIGHT have originated from a much earlier flooding of the Euphrates) and if so, that has serious consequences for religions not to mention the effect that the emperor Constantine had on western religions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2013
Didn't follow YHWH
Sorry Lrrkrr those little statuettes they have found ARE the bible god, often sitting next to his consort for placement on the mantlepiece.

Yahweh was one of many tribal gods in the region. He was the one lucky enough to survive, after some clever tailoring and evolution in response to lessons learned through the ages. And NOWHERE ELSE can you get to know him, but in his embarrassingly, shamefully flawed book.
indicate my disbelief
Good for you. Read some dawkins, hitchens, Sam Harris, dan dennet. Watch them and others on YouTube. Understand why it is not enough to just disbelieve. Neil degrasse Tyson can show you that the real world can supply all the wonder and majesty and mystery you need, without compeling others to kill and die for it.

The world is in peril from superstition. It is no longer acceptable to let others indulge in passive comfort without chastising them for their irresponsibility.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2013
just because he CAN do something
Well we do know that if he is real, he CAN remove all the evidence for the bible stories and substitute only absolutely convincing contrary evidence.

But WHY would he do such a thing if he is really the honest, decent, kind and loving god he SAYS he is in his BOOK? WHY would he say that rabbits have cuds when they don't? And you know full well that that's not the only thing he got dead wrong. God is not in the details, at least not in his book.

How did marsupials get back to australia after the flood, and no where else? Oh that's right, he can do anything. So why did he need the whole ark thing to begin with? Oh that's right, we're not able to understand gods will.

So why did he write a book to make it look like it was cobbled together by malicious halfwits? (hint - it WAS) And why is it up to us to selectively decide NOW that slavery, genocide, rape, and self-mutilation are no longer acceptable? But only in certain denominations mind you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2013
when you try to blame god for evil things it's not gods fault
Go demands evil things from believers. He demands that unbelievers and apostates be killed. He demands that insolent children and wayward women be stoned. He demands genocide and when he doesnt get it, he begins slaughtering his own people.

He tells you that people who do not believe in him cannot be good and cannot follow his commandments. He tells you to shun them, not to associate with them, not to do business with them.

Today we have to pass laws to punish believers for doing what the bibleTELLS them to do, because we know that murder and rape and bigotry are EVIL. God REQUIRES believers to commit every act you yourself would consider evil. Warren Jeffs is sitting in jail right now for doing gods work. Joseph kony is rampaging through Africa right NOW doing gods work, just like joshua showed him. Elizabeth smart was kidnapped by a believer just like the Jews took the women from their brothers in the orchard.
LarryD
2 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2013
TheGhostofOtto1923, Oh boy, something has really got under your skin. Your quote '...Understand why it is not enough to just disbelieve...' is a bit off track for me because I consider it more important to know why I (emphatic 'why I') disblieve; and I know the actual time when I started to question (I was young).
You write 'Today we have to pass laws to punish believers for doing what the bibleTELLS them to do...' What do you suggest the laws should Be? Hang them on the nearest tree? Oh come on, get off your soap box and let's get back to science eh?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2013
So, where is this proto galaxy now?

Of course, it's still in the same place and just the spaces expanded.


Right, it is still in the same surroundings, the distance between us and that region has expanded by a factor of 8.51 from 3.47 billion light years to 29.5 billion.


........if this were the actual kinematics of the state of motion extant throughout the universe, galaxies would never collide, but they are colliding all over the place.


The Hubble flow is proportional to distance, random motions within clusters are of the same magnitude throughout the universe so those dominate over short distances. That combination of large scale expansion and local gravitational concentration is what is observed.
Fleetfoot
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2013
.. let's get back to science eh?


Yes please, you guys are getting worse than the trolls :-(
bluehigh
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 26, 2013
... random motions within clusters are of the same magnitude throughout the universe so those dominate over short distances ...


Galactic clusters 13 billion years ago?

That's so shifty, it makes me see red.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2013
something has really got under your skin
Well I suppose youre right.
http://en.wikiped..._attacks
http://www.busine...s-2013-8

-Things like that do tend to annoy me. But I am certainly not the only one.
http://www.youtub...TVUulGwc
http://www.youtub...McTeLbes
http://www.youtub...brGcpyzQ
Hang them on the nearest tree?
What - you think our current punishments against hate crimes, discrimination, murder, rape, kidnapping and such arent strict enough? At least we dont stone people, cut off their hands, or gouge their eyes out any more. Not in the west at any rate. These things are all illegal here.
Yes please, you guys are getting worse than the trolls
This is a public forum. WHENEVER religionists choose to preach here, they WILL be challenged and opposed with the truth.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2013
Yes please, you guys are getting worse than the trolls

This is a public forum.


This is [supposed to be] a scientific forum, not a pulpit.

WHENEVER religionists choose to preach here, they WILL be challenged and opposed with the truth.


Your truth as opposed to their truth? If you take that approach, you are merely preaching your own religion, your behaviour becomes no better than theirs.
Benni
1 / 5 (14) Oct 26, 2013
.......if this were the actual kinematics of the state of motion extant throughout the universe, galaxies would never collide, but they are colliding all over the place.


Most galaxies are gravitationally bound together in groups, clusters and super clusters.


All phenomena must be assessed within the "system" it operates in.


.........and the Universe is a single system. Galaxies are not dispersed isolated groupings kinematically bound in clusters by "clumps in gravity", entropy does not allow for this. There must be equilibrium random spacing of mass for expansion to occur, there can be no voids, "entropy" does not allow it.

You do not understand how "entropy" works in the Universe. Everything in the Universe is entropically dispersed in a random fashion & is what determines the rate of expansion. The Universe expands as mass is transformed to energy which in turn drives entropy to levels assuring areas of unequal mass do not occur, enter Dark M.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2013
.........and the Universe is a single system. Galaxies are not dispersed isolated groupings kinematically bound in clusters by "clumps in gravity", entropy does not allow for this.


Of course it does, entropy is a statistical measure.

There must be equilibrium random spacing of mass for expansion to occur, there can be no voids, "entropy" does not allow it.


You seem to be forgetting there is a lot of "void" between stars.

You do not understand how "entropy" works in the Universe.


It is obvious you only speak for yourself.
LarryD
5 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2013
Yes please, you guys are getting worse than the trolls

This is a public forum.


This is [supposed to be] a scientific forum, not a pulpit.

WHENEVER religionists choose to preach here, they WILL be challenged and opposed with the truth.


Your truth as opposed to their truth? If you take that approach, you are merely preaching your own religion, your behaviour becomes no better than theirs.

Quite right!
I find the entropy posts interesting but isn't the case that cosmologically speaking there is no definite consensus on just how entropy governs the universe, ideas like 'heat death' and the opposite 'entropy gap'. Apart from QM having effects on a system might it also depend on whether the universe should be treated as a closed or open system?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2013
There must be equilibrium random spacing of mass for expansion to occur

Could oyu explain exactly how that follows from entropy?
Especially what you think an 'random equilibrium spacing' might be? Those two terms seem contradictory, as a random spacing of mass does allow for local maxima/minima to exist (i.e. something that is by definition NOT in an equilibrium state).
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2013
This is [supposed to be] a scientific forum, not a pulpit.

Quite right!


Thanks.

I find the entropy posts interesting but isn't the case that cosmologically speaking there is no definite consensus on just how entropy governs the universe, ideas like 'heat death' and the opposite 'entropy gap'. Apart from QM having effects on a system might it also depend on whether the universe should be treated as a closed or open system?


I believe there is no consensus on how to deal with the entropy of gravitational potential energy of the universe as a whole, but I am not aware of any problem for smaller parts such as galaxy clusters.
pianoman
1 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2013
I'll just throw this in ----- There was no big bang, and the speed of light can be well exceeded.
Benni
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 27, 2013
@Qstar

NOM | Ojorf | toot | VendicarH | Ducku | Zephir_fan | Blotto |

Here is the perfect example of your "toilet" crowd.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2013
If you take that approach
If we allow their approach to prevail they will be teaching creationism in schools and forbidding the teaching of evolution. They will end funding for stem cell research and genetics.

They will demand theocracy and sharia law. They will continue to kill and be killed in the name of god. They will destroy the world thinking that it is a quicker way to heaven.

Science and reason are not religions.
Benni
1 / 5 (14) Oct 27, 2013
I find the entropy posts interesting but isn't the case that cosmologically speaking there is no definite consensus on just how entropy governs the universe, ideas like 'heat death' and the opposite 'entropy gap'. Apart from QM having effects on a system might it also depend on whether the universe should be treated as a closed or open system?


Sure there is a definite consensus on how "entropy" governs the Universe, study reputable sources who understand the "expansion of the universe". Every reputable source will point out that galaxies are very evenly distributed throughout the Universe no matter what direction telescopes are pointed to. Why is this? One word, ENTROPY.

@Fleet- ENTROPY is not a statistical number.....it is part of the Law of Conservation of Energy in Thermodynamics. It determines the distance per unit volume that occurs between particles of mass within a given space, basically a measure of density. Too little or too much & motion stops. Do you know why?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2013
Sure there is a definite consensus on how "entropy" governs the Universe, study reputable sources who understand the "expansion of the universe".


https://en.wikipe.../Entropy#Cosmology]https://en.wikipe...osmology[/url]

"The role of entropy in cosmology remains a controversial subject."

@Fleet- ENTROPY is not a statistical number.....it is part of the Law of Conservation of Energy in Thermodynamics. It determines the distance per unit volume that occurs between particles of mass within a given space, basically a measure of density. Too little or too much & motion stops. Do you know why?


Garbage. Wiki is hardly the most thorough source but at least study the basics:

"In the modern microscopic interpretation of entropy in statistical mechanics, entropy is the amount of additional information needed to specify the exact physical state of a system, given its thermodynamic specification."

https://en.wikipe.../Entropy

It has nothing to do with "distance per unit volume".
Benni
1 / 5 (16) Oct 27, 2013
@Fleet- 1)Take a course in Thermodynamics, 2) pass the final exam, 3) and get a grade. You resort to selectively quoting from spurious sources such as Wikipedia because you haven't done any of those three.

You can't even provide a simple explanation for why "too little or too much" entropy will result in a failed energy generation system. What's your problem there? Can't find it in Wikipedia? Try a textbook on the subject, you'll get further.

Have you even begun to comprehend why galaxies are so evenly distributed throughout the universe? Maybe you think that also is controversial no matter what the observational evidence is? The answer is ENTROPY but in cosmology it's only "controversial" because a tiny segment professionally populating cosmology want an infinite universe.

ENTROPY is not controversial to those in my profession whose job it is to keep your lights on while you sit comfortably inside your retirement enclave pontificating about Asymptotic Pseudo-Tensors.
Zephir_fan
Oct 27, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zephir_fan
Oct 27, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LarryD
1 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2013
Benni, yeah, sorry just trying to connect the differential/integral cal. with the universe...my mistake! Perhaps you're right that the topic ENTROPY is not controversial but it's implications might be? At very, very simple level order and disorder can be in the eye of the beholder. A human will think of order in one way but have you ever looked at your pet animal who has just made a deliberate mess of the of the bed you've just spent 2 hours putting straight? As I said very simple idea.
What I'm asking is, can we apply statistical entropy and expect to get answer that agree with our interpretation?
Benni
1 / 5 (14) Oct 27, 2013
@Qstar

NOM | Ojorf | toot | VendicarH | Ducku | Zephir_fan | Blotto |

Here is the perfect example of your "toilet" crowd.


Toilet crowd? Hey Skippy, I was giving you a pass considering your mental disabilities. But if that's the way the way you want it, alright by me.

Where did you get your science education from? Comic books? Watching the Star Trek reruns? So far you have not been able to say anything that would hint that you know anything at all about this science stuff. So sit down and shut up, let the smart people like Zephir and the Fleetman try to teach you something.

But steer clear of that Lurking dude, he's more of a retard than you are. Maybe that is where you are getting those stupid ideas from, you sound just like him. I would never trust someone known to Lurker around the schoolyards, would you?


@Qstar- here they come Q, right out of your toilet......it was your concept, now you get to live with it.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2013
@Qstar

NOM | Ojorf | toot | VendicarH | Ducku | Zephir_fan | Blotto |

Here is the perfect example of your "toilet" crowd.


Toilet crowd? Hey Skippy, I was giving you a pass considering your mental disabilities. But if that's the way the way you want it, alright by me.


@Qstar- here they come Q, right out of your toilet......it was your concept, now you get to live with it.


Oh no, not me. Ya are the one who named names. That's on ya Sir.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Oct 28, 2013
@Fleet- 1)Take a course in Thermodynamics, 2) pass the final exam, 3) and get a grade.


Been there, done that, got an honours degree. How about you?

You resort to selectively quoting from spurious sources such as Wikipedia because you haven't done any of those three.


Wrong on all three counts.

ENTROPY is not controversial to those in my profession whose job it is to keep your lights on ...


Cosmology is somewhat more complex than the Carnot cycle, but don't worry about it, just keep stoking the boiler and we'll all get along fine.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Oct 28, 2013
At very, very simple level order and disorder can be in the eye of the beholder.

Not really. The terms are pretty well defined (i.e. mathematical and not open to subjective interpretation). For a quick primer look here:
http://en.wikiped..._theory)

I hasten to add that there is a difference between the term entropy in information and in thermodynamics.
Even though there have been attempts to explain entropy in thermodynamics via entropy from information theory that hasn't conclusively worked out (one issue was the problem of black holes which may (or may not) cause a net loss of information. Also quantum mechanics and uncertainty principles only proviude an information bound - but point to states where the notion of absolute information content may not be applicable )
For some issues look here:
http://en.wikiped...n_theory

LarryD
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2013
antialias_physorg, yes I appreciate your point and thanks for the links. Ha, my own reading material list several issues already, quite enough for the grey matter at present.
(like the entropy of a star being less than the entropy of the BH by a wide margin which might be explained in terms of quantum microstates and/ or the states at the horizon)
My 'very, very simple level...' point was really that the thermodynamics is quite well laid out but it is indeed the information entropy that we have to interpret; that is, we don't have a entropy conservation 'law' equivalent to guide us as we do in energy etc. If someone says that the universe is not like a closed system, another says that it IS and yet another says it is more like a closed (forced) reversable entropy system (BH etc) who would be wrong? Maybe someone ought to to formulate a General Entropy (Relativity) Theorem...just for time being...to help with our local galalxy cluster (including its BH's).
Ha!

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.