Active galaxies point to new physics of cosmic expansion

January 29, 2019, European Space Agency
Artist’s impression of quasars, the cores of galaxies where an active supermassive black hole is pulling in matter from its surroundings at very intense rates, located at increasingly larger distances from us. Credit: ESA (artist's impression and composition); NASA/ESA/Hubble (background galaxies); CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO

Investigating the history of our cosmos with a large sample of distant 'active' galaxies observed by ESA's XMM-Newton, a team of astronomers found there might be more to the early expansion of the universe than predicted by the standard model of cosmology.

According to the leading scenario, our universe contains only a few percent of ordinary matter. One quarter of the cosmos is made of the elusive dark matter, which we can feel gravitationally but not observe, and the rest consists of the even more mysterious dark energy that is driving the current acceleration of the universe's expansion.

This model is based on a multitude of data collected over the last couple of decades, from the cosmic microwave background, or CMB – the first light in the history of the cosmos, released only 380,000 years after the big bang and observed in unprecedented detail by ESA's Planck mission – to more 'local' observations. The latter include supernova explosions, galaxy clusters and the gravitational distortion imprinted by dark matter on distant galaxies, and can be used to trace cosmic expansion in recent epochs of cosmic history – across the past nine billion years.

A new study, led by Guido Risaliti of Università di Firenze, Italy, and Elisabeta Lusso of Durham University, UK, points to another type of cosmic tracer – quasars – that would fill part of the gap between these observations, measuring the expansion of the universe up to 12 billion years ago.

Quasars are the cores of galaxies where an active supermassive black hole is pulling in matter from its surroundings at very intense rates, shining brightly across the electromagnetic spectrum. As material falls onto the black hole, it forms a swirling disc that radiates in visible and ; this light, in turn, heats up nearby electrons, generating X-rays.

Three years ago, Guido and Elisabeta realised that a well-known relation between the ultraviolet and X-ray brightness of quasars could be used to estimate the distance to these sources – something that is notoriously tricky in astronomy – and, ultimately, to probe the expansion history of the universe.

Astronomical sources whose properties allow us to gauge their distances are referred to as 'standard candles'.

The most notable class, known as 'type-Ia' supernova, consists of the spectacular demise of white dwarf stars after they have over-filled on material from a companion star, generating explosions of predictable brightness that allows astronomers to pinpoint the distance. Observations of these supernovas in the late 1990s revealed the universe's accelerated expansion over the last few billion years.

Artist’s impression of a quasar, the core of a galaxy where an active supermassive black hole is pulling in matter from its surroundings at very intense rates. As material falls onto the black hole, it forms a swirling disc that radiates in visible and ultraviolet light; this light, in turn, heats up nearby electrons, generating X-rays. The relation between the ultraviolet and X-ray brightness of quasars can be used to estimate the distance to these sources – something that is notoriously tricky in astronomy – and, ultimately, to probe the expansion history of the Universe. A team of astronomers has applied this method to a large sample of quasars observed by ESA’s XMM-Newton to investigate the history of our cosmos up to 12 billion years ago, finding there might be more to the early expansion of the Universe than predicted by the standard model of cosmology. Credit: ESA–C. Carreau
"Using quasars as standard candles has great potential, since we can observe them out to much greater distances from us than type-Ia supernovas, and so use them to probe much earlier epochs in the history of the cosmos," explains Elisabeta.

With a sizeable sample of quasars at hand, the astronomers have now put their method into practice, and the results are intriguing.

Digging into the XMM-Newton archive, they collected X-ray data for over 7000 quasars, combining them with ultraviolet observations from the ground-based Sloan Digital Sky Survey. They also used a new set of data, specially obtained with XMM-Newton in 2017 to look at very distant quasars, observing them as they were when the universe was only about two billion years old. Finally, they complemented the data with a small number of even more distant quasars and with some relatively nearby ones, observed with NASA's Chandra and Swift X-ray observatories, respectively.

"Such a large sample enabled us to scrutinise the relation between X-ray and ultraviolet emission of quasars in painstaking detail, which greatly refined our technique to estimate their distance," says Guido.

The new XMM-Newton observations of distant quasars are so good that the team even identified two different groups: 70 percent of the sources shine brightly in low-energy X-rays, while the remaining 30 percent emit lower amounts of X-rays that are characterised by higher energies. For the further analysis, they only kept the earlier group of sources, in which the relation between X-ray and ultraviolet emission appears clearer.

"It is quite remarkable that we can discern such level of detail in sources so distant from us that their light has been travelling for more than ten billion years before reaching us," says Norbert Schartel, XMM-Newton project scientist at ESA.

After skimming through the data and bringing the sample down to about 1600 quasars, the astronomers were left with the very best observations, leading to robust estimates of the distance to these sources that they could use to investigate the universe's expansion.

"When we combine the quasar sample, which spans almost 12 billion years of cosmic history, with the more local sample of type-Ia supernovas, covering only the past eight billion years or so, we find similar results in the overlapping epochs," says Elisabeta.

Graph showing measurements of the distance to astronomical objects such as type-Ia supernovas (cyan symbols) and quasars (yellow, red and blue symbols) that can be used to study the expansion history of the universe.
"However, in the earlier phases that we can only probe with quasars, we find a discrepancy between the observed evolution of the universe and what we would predict based on the standard cosmological model."

Looking into this previously poorly explored period of cosmic history with the help of quasars, the astronomers have revealed a possible tension in the standard model of cosmology, which might require the addition of extra parameters to reconcile the data with theory.

"One of the possible solutions would be to invoke an evolving dark energy, with a density that increases as time goes by," says Guido.

Incidentally, this particular model would also alleviate another tension that has kept cosmologists busy lately, concerning the Hubble constant – the current rate of cosmic expansion. This discrepancy was found between estimates of the Hubble constant in the local universe, based on supernova data – and, independently, on – and those based on Planck's observations of the in the early universe.

"This model is quite interesting because it might solve two puzzles at once, but the jury is definitely not out yet and we'll have to look at many more models in great detail before we can solve this cosmic conundrum," adds Guido.

The team is looking forward to observing even more quasars in the future to further refine their results. Additional clues will also come from ESA's Euclid mission, scheduled for a 2022 launch to explore the past ten billion years of cosmic expansion and investigate the nature of dark energy.

"These are interesting times to investigate the history of our universe, and it's exciting that XMM-Newton can contribute by looking at a cosmic epoch that had remained largely unexplored so far," concludes Norbert.

Explore further: A new technique to gauge the distant universe

More information: G. Risaliti et al. Cosmological constraints from the Hubble diagram of quasars at high redshifts, Nature Astronomy (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-018-0657-z

Related Stories

A new technique to gauge the distant universe

December 4, 2015

Scientists have developed a technique to use quasars – powerful sources driven by supermassive black holes at the centre of galaxies – to study the universe's history and composition. To demonstrate the new method, based ...

Hubble goes deep

December 16, 2018

This image from the Hubble Deep UV (HDUV) Legacy Survey encompasses 12,000 star-forming galaxies in a part of the constellation Fornax known as the GOODS-South field. With the addition of ultraviolet light imagery, astronomers ...

Double or nothing—astronomers rethink quasar environment

March 13, 2018

Using Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) mounted on the Subaru Telescope, astronomers have identified nearly 200 "protoclusters," the progenitors of galaxy clusters, in the early universe, about 12 billion years ago, about ten times ...

Recommended for you

What rising seas mean for local economies

February 15, 2019

Impacts from climate change are not always easy to see. But for many local businesses in coastal communities across the United States, the evidence is right outside their doors—or in their parking lots.

Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?

February 15, 2019

Astronomers have spent decades looking for something that sounds like it would be hard to miss: about a third of the "normal" matter in the Universe. New results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory may have helped them ...

69 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2019
Observations do not match theory, so rather than be a real scientist and question the theory just add an epicycle. Typical darkist fail.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
Electro vs Graviton. My money's on Gen Talbot but they're both insane so-
grandpa
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
More parameters? That is what we need.
rrwillsj
3.9 / 5 (19) Jan 29, 2019
you wooloons are hilarious,
You whine cause "they" haven't resolved a reasonable explanation for reality.

You whine that they should have stopped looking for new data, a century ago,

You whine because the new data results in new answers resulting in new questions. & you just can't keep up.

You whine cause no one will accept your version of lunacy as real. Except the other lunatics.
JaxPavan
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2019
Everyone is free to believe whatever creation story they prefer, but don't call it science.
Elmo_McGillicutty
1.1 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2019
I think the cosmos "expanding acceleration" started with a change in the bonding frequencies, causing a massive quick decrease in G....and the relaxation and expansion reinforced each other, explaining the fast expansion in the past. The high velocities are old.

G is dependent on density and momentum, not amount. We are still relaxing, but at a very slow rate now.

G has always been falling. It's not fundamental.

valeriy_polulyakh
1.7 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2019
Recently two papers have been published. The first one deals with the measurement of the speed of rotation of galaxies and, in our view, closes the issue of the existence of dark matter. The second one argues that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating. However, this fact does not answer the question as to what in general is the cause of the universe's expansion and does not address the widespread opinion that 70% of the universe consists of dark energy.
https://www.acade...k_Energy
https://www.acade...osmology
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2019
This is of course both a precarious and early data set among many earlier that putatively showed dark energy changes but later failed in test. We now know *more* about cosmology including the seeming constancy of dark energy than we know about star and galaxy evolution [ http://www.scienc...s-cosmic ].

The people who uncritically jump on a new data set and then make proclamations of their pet ideas - often not science - are hilarious. What purpose would incessantly trolling "me, me, me" have among facts?

-tbctd-
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2019
- ctd-

"Phil Hopkins (Caltech), who wasn't involved in the study, urges caution in interpreting its results. The relation that Lusso and Risaliti use to turn quasars into standard candles may itself evolve over time, making those quasars not so standard. For example, if quasars slow their gas-guzzling as mergers become less frequent, that might change the shape of the relation between the emission of X-rays and visible light. "[The relation] only needs to evolve a little bit to explain these observations," he adds."

[ https://www.skyan...-energy/ ]

That the data set says more about quasar than cosmological development is likely.

Even a no-brainer. I guess the trolls have negative brains. :-) :-) :-)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2019
Everyone is free to believe whatever creation story they prefer, but don't call it science.

says JaxPavan

The Creation could not have happened without the natural Laws, Rules and regulations that were incorporated into and became the Sciences - regardless of whichever Science methods were required first and subsequently. Creativeness by an Intelligent Designer/Creator had to be very well thought out for the designs/creations to work out so well - statistically and logically. Nothing was given to chance. Science IS Laws, Rules and Regulations. Otherwise, it isn't science.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
Recently two papers have been published. The first one deals with the measurement of the speed of rotation of galaxies and, in our view, closes the issue of the existence of dark matter. The second one argues that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating. However, this fact does not answer the question as to what in general is the cause of the universe's expansion and does not address the widespread opinion that 70% of the universe consists of dark energy.
https://www.acade...k_Energy
says valeriy_p

The Cosmos/Universe is a super-dynamo of Movement/Motion where everything, including quantum particles/waves are in constant motion that is unable to come to a stop. It is like a clock that continues for an eternity. Thus, there is no need for "Dark Energy" to move the contents of the Universe in any direction - as its natural motion will always go on within the Medium of Space.
Mr R
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
Are there any physicists or astronomers here who can explain what features the CMB has (like emission lines) which allow you to calculate its redshift to confirm when it was actual emitted.
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2019
"Are there any physicists or astronomers here who can explain what features the CMB has (like emission lines) which allow you to calculate its redshift to confirm when it was actual emitted."

Unless you are capable of appreciating circular logic...the answer to your question above is "No". They "calculate" the age of the CMB based on the frequency (red) shift observed and assume it is the "oldest" light in the universe based on this. Hence the leap in logic that it is somehow a light "echo" left over from an event (beyond what we have determined is physics)we are "inside".

You have to completely ignore the fact that every single star in the universe we can observe in visible light also emits in the frequencies observed in the CMB, along with the fact that to observe it as we do it must be continuously generated otherwise all of the photons would have "cleared out" by now.

A stationary "echo" composed of energy moving at the speed of light....LMAO
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 30, 2019
The CMB comes from everywhere. It comes from places where there's nothing else we can see. Where do you propose it came from?
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2019
I'm pretty cautious myself about using AGNs as "standard candles." Maybe they can identify one particular type. Though the UV-to-X-ray thing looks pretty good if it holds water.
theredpill
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2019
"The CMB comes from everywhere."

Of course it does, there are trillions of stars and galaxies surrounding us in all directions.
" It comes from places where there's nothing else we can see."
And beyond what we can see, there are likely more stars and galaxies...just a hunch.
" Where do you propose it came from?"
Them.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2019
"The CMB comes from everywhere."

Of course it does, there are trillions of stars and galaxies surrounding us in all directions.
" It comes from places where there's nothing else we can see."
And beyond what we can see, there are likely more stars and galaxies...just a hunch.
" Where do you propose it came from?"
Them.



Lol.
TuringTest
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2019
"The CMB comes from everywhere."

Of course it does, there are trillions of stars and galaxies surrounding us in all directions.
" It comes from places where there's nothing else we can see."
And beyond what we can see, there are likely more stars and galaxies...just a hunch.
" Where do you propose it came from?"
Them.



So you're saying light at the frequency of the CBM travels faster than... errr the rest of the light of the star, so that we can see the CBM in those locations but not the stars themselves?
theredpill
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
"So you're saying light at the frequency of the CBM travels faster than... errr the rest of the light of the star, so that we can see the CBM in those locations but not the stars themselves? "

No. I am saying we cannot see the edge of the universe...and that anything moving at speed C cannot produce a stationary "echo". Do you believe it can?

theredpill
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2019
"You have to completely ignore the fact that every single star in the universe we can observe in visible light also emits in the frequencies observed in the CMB"

@ Turing test, to qualify I should have said every warm body instead of every star, your point is correct.
theredpill
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2019
https://en.wikipe...icrowave

From the above: All warm objects emit low level microwave black-body radiation,

In a universe where the space between everything is occupied by hydrogen...and the above is known scientific fact....it is why I find the current theory of the CMB so amusing.
fourinfinities
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
The Newtonian principle of action-reaction is missing from the standard model. Star and galaxy formation constitutes "action," which must, by necessity, induce a "reaction." The "action" of star and galaxy formation is one of collapse. The reaction to collapse must be its opposite: expansion. Yet this expansive factor is entirely missing from the standard model. Lambda or "dark energy" may represent this missing reaction-term.
BobSage
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2019
It seems like nearly every theory of physics starts out simple and then becomes more and more complex as new discoveries are made.

This is, of course, not true in mathematics, where each solution continues to work forever.

Is it possible that our basic conception of the nature of reality is completely wrong? If you start from false assumptions, all theories based on them must prove to be incorrect.

I am waiting for some genius to overturn the whole current paradigm. He or she will, of course, be crucified by peers, as is every scientist who challenges the established order. But them's the breaks.
rrwillsj
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2019
well bs, you might want to put down that hammer & those nails you are holding... before you accuse anyone else of committing crucifixion?

how do I determine the wooloons from Real Science?

The wooloons constantly gobble about being suppressed.
For being so oppressed?
They are a noisy flock of turkeys.
& they never shut up about their lack of free speech.

Real Science is inventing, creating, accomplishing real achievements & working technology.

the wooloons still need to show the rest of us a single working device based on their self-proclaimed superpowers at understanding the Universe.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2019
JUst remember, whichever way you are looking in space, its the same direction.

The big bang is 'thataway'.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2019
@Mr R
@theredpill
@Da Schneib

As I have explained many times before, CMB spectrum is being produced by:

1. Innumerable 'localised sources' near and far (eg, NSs, BHs, SNovae, Galactic Nuclei etc).

2. Ubiquitous 'diffuse sources' of Microwave spectrum production/emission all over; as science now knows space is replete with ordinary matter (gas/dust/plasma etc) AND magnetic fields within/around which such diffuse matter congregates/spirals etc to produce a spectrum of synchrotron/bremsstrahlung etc radiation which includes CMB microwave frequencies.

3. Ubiquitous E-M radiation/Cosmic-rays of all sorts interacts with matter/magnetic fields etc to cause E-M 'up-shifting/downshifting' SCATTERING effects on PHOTONS of all sorts, producing a spectrum of E-M frequencies, a proportion of which fall in Microwave range.

4. There are natural MICROWAVE LASER (MASER) phenomena all over the place.

5. Radio(Microwave) capable Telescopes effectively detecting *that* CMB.

Cheers.
Ojorf
4 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2019
As I have explained many times before, CMB spectrum is being produced by:
-BS
-BS
-BS etc.


Your explanations help no one, since they are totally removed from reality and devoid of any logic or reason.

IOW, your explanations are plain stupid and make no sense.

There is no mystery to the origin of the CMB.

RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2019
@Ojorf.
As I have explained many times before, CMB spectrum is being produced by:
-BS
-BS
-BS etc.
...There is no mystery to the origin of the CMB.
Exactly as I just pointed out, @Ojorf. It's being produced all over all the time; no Big Bang etc interpretations/provenance required at all. :)

ps: @Ojorf, you had every opportunity to address, scientifically/logically refute (if you can) the 5 points I made to encourage you/others to check out for yourselves the relevant aspects pointed out. Instead you chose to make that self-serving, lying, cowardly post; which neither addressed nor refuted the points made, but only attacked/insulted the messenger (me). FYI, a similar thing happened during the bicep2 saga. I suggested that everyone check it all out for themselves, but the cowardly troll types chose to attack/insult me, instead of checking out that obviously flawed bicep2 exercise/claim for themselves. It ended badly (egg on faces) for those trolls. Learn.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2019
Are there any physicists or astronomers here who can explain what features the CMB has (like emission lines) which allow you to calculate its redshift to confirm when it was actual emitted.


Former physicist; CMB is (famously) the black body radiation of the universe that was generated under the Hot Big Bang era but due to the dense plasma conditions could not be release before a few 100 kyrs later (as quantified by our LCDM cosmology). The emission peak is in the microwave reagion, which is why it was first seen by radio telescopes and indicate a black body temperature of 3 K. Since the initial plasma was some 10 kK when it went neutral and captured the electrons that blocked the radiation, we can easily see that the universe has expanded 1,000 times since then, reversely that it happened at the "time" z ~ 1,000.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2019
to observe it as we do it must be continuously generated otherwise all of the photons would have "cleared out" by now


Considering that matter/antimatter symmetry breaking - atoms annihilating antimatter with a little rest of matter that built our universe structures - meant that there is now 10^9 CMB photons for every atom, and the universe is essentially see through after reionization, how would they now be captured? (And I see that you also later seem to assume they can arrive from beyond the horizon? Which they cannot,)

The Newtonian principle of action-reaction is missing


No, it is build into Einstein's general relativity, or it would not approximate Newton at classical regimes. In fact it is explicitly stated in his balancing set of equations!
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2019
The Creation could not have happened without the natural Laws


Erroneous superstition is irrelevant. (There are no 'gods' so no magic 'creation' as seen in the latest Planck data set: 100 % known, mechanistic universe, objects and events.) Also, that is backwards, fundamental laws express symmetries (as explained by Noether) so could not exist without nature to exist with it.

So I happen to think that it is enough that biology showed 2016 life evolved from alkaline hydrothermal vents, physics showed 2017 there are no 'soul/afterlife' reward possible, 2018 there are no 'gods' magic. But in fact the other side of the 2018 find is that we know have a most likely explanation for laws that religion would have to compete with without evidence, assuming there was such magic in the first place. So even that excuse for claiming bollocks is a no go.

Planck could see that eternal inflation is slow roll, which naturally makes universes. So life/laws are set by survival bias.
Mr R
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2019
@theredpill. Thanks. I didn't really expect a scientific answer because there isn't one. I know there are no features to the CMB so its redshift is unknowable - however a redshift is ASSIGNED to it in order to make it support the Big Bang. This is not science and hopefully it won't last too much longer.
It seems that the CMB is just the average/mean temperature of intergalactic space.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2019
@theredpill. Thanks. I didn't really expect a scientific answer because there isn't one.


Um, what? I just related cosmology 101 which explains the science. *And* I discussed why the comments you chose are bollocks.

But yes, CMB energies set the blackbody temperature of the universe "cavity", and what "no expansion" models could never explain was why 3K when it should be as warm as star surfaces. In *such* a universe it would be true that photons are generated and seen continuously, it would be dense with stars when looking far enough. The comments you read has it exactly backwards!

So that is a hint why the universe must be expanding, right there.

If you do not ask in good faith for physicists, why do you expect good faith answers?
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2019
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson.
CMB is (famously) the black body radiation of the universe that was generated under the Hot Big Bang era
All those (increasingly falsified) BB-dependent claims/interpretations of observed CMB have now become 'IN-famous' rather than "famous"; as they derailed mainstream physical cosmology theory/understanding for DECADES. :)
..as quantified by our LCDM cosmology
Which has so far failed to explain everything; causing misinterpretations of observations/data instead.
emission peak is in the microwave region, which is why it was first seen by radio telescopes and indicate a black body temperature of 3 K....
Exactly! Radio (microwave frequencies capable) Telescopes which have been, and are increasingly, confirming that CMB MICROWAVES come from sources/process pointed out just yesterday (in my post to @Mr R, @theredpill, @Da Schneib); all of which owe nothing for their interpretation/provenance to failed BB-fantasies. Get up to speed, @torb. :)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2019
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson.
I just related cosmology 101 which explains the science.
Mate, you, as a "former physicist", should take greater care to desist incessant unthinking parroting of now-increasingly falsified 'dogma' re actual CMB; as your default/inculcated "cosmology 101" paradigm was based on now-falsified BB-fantasy interpretations/provenance of the real CMB being produced all over all time, with no BB 'overlays' needed!
CMB energies set the blackbody temperature of the universe "cavity", and what "no expansion" models could never explain was why 3K when it should be as warm as star surfaces.{/q]Will you PLEASE NOTE once and for all, @torbjorn, that I above, and long since elsewhere, HAVE BEEN explaining that observed CMB is being produced all over, all the time, by all the various sources/processes I pointed out in my above relevant post. See? NO failed BB 'needed'!
So that is a hint why the universe must be expanding,
Not 'hint'; 'misinterpretation'. :)
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2019
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson.
I just related cosmology 101 which explains the science.
Mate, you, as a "former physicist", should take greater care to desist incessant unthinking parroting of now-increasingly falsified 'dogma' re actual CMB; as your default/inculcated "cosmology 101" paradigm was based on now-falsified BB-fantasy interpretations/provenance of the real CMB being produced all over all time, with no BB 'overlays' needed!
CMB energies set the blackbody temperature of the universe "cavity", and what "no expansion" models could never explain was why 3K...
Will you PLEASE NOTE once and for all, @torbjorn, that I above, and long since elsewhere, HAVE BEEN explaining that observed CMB is being produced all over, all the time, by all the various sources/processes I pointed out in my above relevant post. See? NO failed BB 'needed'!
So that is a hint why the universe must be expanding,
Not 'hint'; 'misinterpretation'. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2019
ERRATA: Edited post inadvertently re-posted as 'new' post. Apologies. Thanks.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2019
@torbjorn.
there is now 10^9 CMB photons for every atom, and the universe is essentially see through after reionization, how would they now be captured?
The obvious fact that our Radio(Microwave frequencies capable) Telescopes DO detect the CMB photons, should answer your question re 'capture'. :)

In any case, as I've pointed out previously for you (and all those interested in reality rather than in BB-hypotheses-engendered fantasies), the CMB spectrum of photons is being produced all over all the time, by all the various near and far sources/processes across space to the observational universe horizon. So all BB-dependent 'age', 'redshift', 'distribution' etc etc INTERPRETATIONS of the observed CMB data is just plain moot; since BB is OBVIOUSLY NOT 'needed' to produce/interpret CMB observed.

Past time we shed those misleading falsified-BB paradigms/dogmas (re CMB/Expansion etc etc) so outrageously (and so tragically) inculcated for generations in 'cosmology 101'. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2019
The Creation could not have happened without the natural Laws

Erroneous superstition is irrelevant. (There are no 'gods' so no magic 'creation' as seen in the latest Planck data set: 100 % known, mechanistic universe, objects and events.) ... backwards, fundamental laws express symmetries (as explained by Noether) so could not exist without nature to exist with it.
says tbgl

Exactly. Superstition is irrelevant. Absolutely there are no "gods" and the only "magic" is done by magicians. The Planck data set - latest or earliest has nothing to do with the Creation of the Universe. I have already said - in another physorg phorum that the Universe is mechanistic - which it seems that you thereafter decided to imitate/copy - which is fine since I have no problem with plagiarism in this science site.
I'm not familiar with Noether. Yes, fundamental Laws DO express symmetries which is why those Laws are expressed in Nature. And those Laws were directed by the Creator.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2019
The Creation could not have happened without the natural Laws

So I happen to think that it is enough that biology showed 2016 life evolved from alkaline hydrothermal vents, physics showed 2017 there are no 'soul/afterlife' reward possible, 2018 there are no 'gods' magic. But in fact the other side of the 2018 find is that we know have a most likely explanation for laws that religion would have to compete with without evidence, assuming there was such magic in the first place. So even that excuse for claiming bollocks is a no go

says tbgl

Of course you are entitled to think your own thoughts - after all, all humans are free to make their choices - whether good or bad choices.
-contd-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2019
-contd-
@tbgl
Biologists are correct wrt where the first viable cells were created and then left to evolve in the hot and inclement environs that were only suitable for such cells - their having been created initially to be comfortable under such conditions. Yes, evolution is the process from which the Creation allows the continuation of that which had been created. Without evolution, none of those cells could have continued their division and then becoming a multitude of viable cells that became a multi-celled organism.

physics showed 2017 there are no 'soul/afterlife' reward possible
says tbgl

Neither the study of Physics nor physicists are theirselves equipped or have the equipment to determine the realities of the Soul and the Afterlife reward or punishment. Neither their eyes nor their instruments are able to SEE the Soul, so that it is impossible to make such determinations in order to fool those who are gullible enough to believe such tripe - like yourself.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2019
-contd-
Planck could see that eternal inflation is slow roll, which naturally makes universes. So life/laws are set by survival bias.
says tbglarsson

Is "eternal inflation" occurring in a straight line - or within a torus/circular sphere or donut-shape? Does it end somewhere in Space and in Time? Does it drop off from a cliff and continue on in the space below similar to "stair steps"? And how did Planck KNOW that inflation naturally makes Universes? Are those Universes so apparently created by inflation or had they existed already - only to be occupied sooner or later? What else does Planck tell you, tbgl?

Survival bias? By whose bias? Survival has no bias - survival depends on many many factors - too many to explain here. I/we try to assist survivability to those who will listen - but very few do. Which means, in general, that survivability is random/chaotic/reliable only on lessons learned, whether from experience or from the sages/philosophers such as Plato.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2019
ERRATA: Edited post inadvertently re-posted as 'new' post. Apologies. Thanks.
says RC

RealityCheck should have known by now that when you are referring to making a double post in error, it is referred to as an ERRATUM in the singular. ERRATA is the plural. Your first post was the correct one. But your second same exact post was the ERRATUM - singular.

Sorry - couldn't help it LOL
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2019
@S_E_U.
ERRATA: Edited post inadvertently re-posted as 'new' post. Apologies. Thanks.
says RC

RealityCheck should have known by now that when you are referring to making a double post in error, it is referred to as an ERRATUM in the singular. ERRATA is the plural. Your first post was the correct one. But your second same exact post was the ERRATUM - singular.

Sorry - couldn't help it LOL
Actually, I use the convention that: "ERRATA" alludes to any 'list' of errors/typos etc 'items' (and I treat any errata post as a potential 'list' even if it treats only one error in the errata/erratum post per se); while "ERRATUM" refers to some particular 'item' on such a 'list'. In this case the 'errata/list' effectively included only ONE 'erratum/item'. But you're welcome to use whatever convention you prefer as long as it doesn't add confusion rather than clarity. Cheers. :)
dsylvan
5 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2019
Everyone is free to believe whatever creation story they prefer, but don't call it science.
---JaxPaven

Exactly.

Thank god (either small g or large G) we have science--the real world chance to take actual measurements--to help save us from our preferred creation stories. Too bad so many here don't appreciate science for that alone.
Mr R
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2019
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson Can you point me to any empirical measurements which show that the galaxies are increasing their distance apart over time. Measurements like: increasing redshift of galaxies, or decreasing apparent brightness, or decreasing apparent diameter. ALL of which would show the universe is expanding and verify the ASSUMPTION that redshift is caused by galaxies increasing their distance away from us.
hat1208
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2019
@Mr R

It's called google.
theredpill
3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2019
"@theredpill. Thanks. I didn't really expect a scientific answer because there isn't one. I know there are no features to the CMB so its redshift is unknowable - however a redshift is ASSIGNED to it in order to make it support the Big Bang. This is not science and hopefully it won't last too much longer.
It seems that the CMB is just the average/mean temperature of intergalactic space"

Yup, but the guy who thinks he learned proper physics gave it a good shot. Wait til he finds out "spacetime" is actually not a medium that can be curved by gravity.

"It's called google."
LMAO...show us where you googled the mechanism generating DE which precisely defines the concept of expanding space....

Forget about the fact that all starlight must be redshifted if the mainstream theory is correct, being as all that light is generated in a "gravity well" caused by the stars mass. One measurement of blueshift...bye bye theory.

humy
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2019
Observations do not match theory, so rather than be a real scientist and question the theory ...
cantdrive85

They DID question the theory. Apparently you cannot read.

"One of the possible solutions would be to invoke an evolving dark energy, with a density that increases as time goes by,"

-which questions the usual dark energy theory which doesn't say density increases.
I take it you are just complaining because they, as in the REAL experts that know what they are talking about, wouldn't agree with whatever personal crackpot theory you are trying to promote that is at odds with known scientific facts.

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2019
Can anyone actually address the (NON-BB) explanation(s) I posted earlier:
...CMB spectrum is being produced by:
1. Innumerable 'localised sources' near and far (eg, NSs, BHs, SNovae, Galactic Nuclei etc).
2. Ubiquitous 'diffuse sources' of Microwave spectrum production/emission all over; as science now knows space is replete with ordinary matter (gas/dust/plasma etc) AND magnetic fields within/around which such diffuse matter congregates/spirals etc to produce a spectrum of synchrotron/bremsstrahlung etc radiation which includes CMB microwave frequencies.
3. Ubiquitous E-M radiation/Cosmic-rays of all sorts interacts with matter/magnetic fields etc to cause E-M 'up-shifting/downshifting' SCATTERING effects on PHOTONS of all sorts, producing a spectrum of E-M frequencies, a proportion of which fall in Microwave range.
4. There are natural MICROWAVE LASER (MASER) phenomena all over the place.
5. Radio(Microwave) capable Telescopes effectively detecting *that* CMB.


Ta. :)
Mr R
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2019
@hat1208. So in other words you don't have a clue where to find those measurements or IF they exist. Thanks.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2019
Everyone is free to believe whatever creation story they prefer, but don't call it science.
---JaxPaven

Exactly.

Thank god (either small g or large G) we have science--the real world chance to take actual measurements--to help save us from our preferred creation stories. Too bad so many here don't appreciate science for that alone.
says dsylvan

We have science - but of course. Was there ever any doubt that we have science? Science is supposed to be about TRUTH. Instead, our scientists give us Simulations, Artist's Impressions, Spectrographics or Spectrograms, red shift/blue shift to describe objects coming or going, and Theories.that are still unproven.
But everyone is given the ability to make Choices, whether good or bad ones. And science doesn't give us choices - except to believe whatever the scientists tell us to believe in their literature/journals/papers. They claim it exists, but I am still waiting to see an actual Image of a black hole itself.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2019
@R best to keep in mind that galaxy clusters are not of sufficient scale to show universal expansion. It's the distance between galaxy clusters that shows it, and since humans have only been around for ca. 50,000 years, and only been doing serious astronomy for less than a century, we use Doppler effect measurements. Those are the measurements you are looking for and they are ubiquitous. If you want to lie to yourself feel free but the rest of us know better.

I'd be eager to show them to you but I think you'd just deny them anyway so I don't see the point.

Based on your statements so far I think you're a lying YEC. But that will be shown shortly, I'm sure.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2019
Why do all the nutjobs not understand how big the visible universe is? I mean seriously, is it that they're too stupid to get powers of ten?
humy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2019
Science is supposed to be about TRUTH.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

No, its about obtaining/knowing those truths we can rationally deduce from observations/experiments.
Instead, our scientists give us Simulations, ...

No, NOT "Instead" of. Simulations are a vital part of scientific method in MANY areas of science as they tell us things that we would otherwise be unlikely to deduce.
Artist's Impressions,
So if something is illustrated with an artist's impression then its not science? Err, nope. Look up "science" in the dictionary and then come back to us.
Spectrographics or Spectrograms
are you implying that if it is recorded with an instrument then it must be a lie? I take it then what those instrument record prove your religious beliefs wrong.
And science doesn't give us choices - except to believe whatever the scientists tell us to believe in their literature/journals/papers.
That is a LIE.

humy
4 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2019
They claim it exists, but I am still waiting to see an actual Image of a black hole itself.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

If you are waiting for that then you are a complete MORON. Obviously, actual direct imaging of the singularity itself is impossible and we can only deduce its existence indirectly via observing the black hole's effects and understanding the relevant physics.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2019
@Forum.

Note how those who demand I provide the alternative scientific explanations (in this instance exposing the flaws in current BB etc hypotheses/interpretations/claims re observed CMB and its true source having nothing to do with BB etc provenance) have gone silent since I provided the 5 points which none have properly addressed, let alone refuted. I posted these 5 first on Jan 30 and again on Feb 1 in this thread. Yet not a peep from those who have been insulting the messenger while not actually having any real scientific refutation to those points which effectively falsify all claims that "CMB is supporting evidence for BB/Inflation/Expansion" etc.

So, folks, is their failure to address/refute properly what I have provided above, pursuant to their demands, tacit admission that I was correct all along and they not? That is the only logical construction that can be placed on their continuing silence re those 5 points. We all await further developments re this one. :)
Mr R
2 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2019
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson Your answer contained TWO unverified assumptions - theses are the very things I am trying to find out about. You CLAIM the CMB was "generated under the Hot Big Bang era but due to the dense plasma conditions could not be release before a few 100 kyrs later" but as we have no way of calculating the redshift of the CMB it is simply not possible to demonstrate when it was generated or released.
You also claim that "we can easily see that the universe has expanded 1,000 times since then" - really, how? I have previously asked for empirical measurements showing the increase in distance apart of galaxies over time to confirm the universe is expanding but got no reply. So as we cannot determine when the CMB was generated or released it CANNOT be used as a pillar to support the Big Bang/expansion hypothesis.
Mr R
2 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2019
@Da Schneib You ASSUME that redshift is a Doppler effect - quite reasonable. But what is not reasonable is your foolishness in not wanting verification of this. If galaxies cannot be shown to be increasing their distance apart over time then why would you be so foolish as to think the universe is expanding?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2019
@Da Schneib You ASSUME that redshift is a Doppler effect - quite reasonable. But what is not reasonable is your foolishness in not wanting verification of this. If galaxies cannot be shown to be increasing their distance apart over time then why would you be so foolish as to think the universe is expanding?
says Mr R

It's refreshing to know that there are others, such as you, who are not inclined to place faith in that "science" that cannot be verified with actual evidences/images. Doppler Effect works fine with such as cars on a highway due to sound, but Doppler doesn't work in the spaces between individual galaxies or galaxy clusters. Red and blue shifts supposedly reveal their goings and comings, but they are all actually going one way. The ones behind are following in the paths of the galaxies that are out in front. That premise is not accepted here, although there have been articles about it. It has to be more complicated or it isn't science.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2019
@R, then explain these observations-- they are not assumptions-- some other way.

Especially after the SNIA observations confirm them.

Maybe you forgot.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2019
They claim it exists, but I am still waiting to see an actual Image of a black hole itself.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

If you are waiting for that then you are a complete MORON. Obviously, actual direct imaging of the singularity itself is impossible and we can only deduce its existence indirectly via observing the black hole's effects and understanding the relevant physics.
says humy

So it is your opinion that anyone who is willing to wait for more substantial evidences of the actual existence of something that can't be seen as yet, must be a moron. Do you not realise how stupid you sound? I would highly recommend that you NEVER work in the fields of Forensics, Police Detective, a Judgeship or a High Court Justice where evidence of a crime must be submitted to either convict or exonerate the suspect.
Deducing its existence "indirectly" is not evidence of its existence.
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2019
They claim it exists, but I am still waiting to see an actual Image of a black hole itself.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

If you are waiting for that then you are a complete MORON. Obviously, actual direct imaging of the singularity itself is impossible and we can only deduce its existence indirectly via observing the black hole's effects and understanding the relevant physics.
says humy

So it is your opinion that anyone who is willing to wait for more substantial evidences of the actual existence of something that can't be seen as yet, must be a moron.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Straw man. I certainly did NOT say/imply in any way that it is moronic to wait for more substantial evidences of something. I just said "...actual direct imaging of the singularity itself is impossible..." and you would be a MORON to wait for DIRECT imaging of the singularity itself, because that is obviously impossible.

https://en.wikipe...traw_man

Mr R
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2019
@Da Schneib SN1A observations do not confirm that galaxies are increasing their distance apart over time. IF the apparent brightness of the whole galaxy was decreasing over time (along with decreasing apparent diameters of those galaxies) then that would confirm it, but the behavior of certain starts in a galaxy does not determine what the whole galaxy is doing.

Remember that the most distant galaxies are supposed to be increasing their distance away from us faster than light - this is somehow "allowed" as we are told (without confirmation) that "space" is expanding - so the measurements of a change, a decease, in apparent brightness and diameter of these galaxies should be easy and would confirm they are increasing their distance away from us. The false assumption of expansion has let to the invention of Dark Energy (after Dark Matter was invented) so we now have a "good" (Big Bang) hypothesis with 96% of the contents of the universe totally unaccounted for.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2019
@Da Schneib SN1A observations do not confirm that galaxies are increasing their distance apart over time.
We're done here. Their spectra confirm it. I'm not interested in another nutjob on psysorg. Blocked.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2019
I'll add one quick note: how fast those galaxies are going now isn't how fast they were going when we could see them. What you see now isn't what is now; accelerating expansion guarantees that. The speed of light is finite. If you can't deal with that you probably shouldn't make supposedly definitive statements about cosmology.
hat1208
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2019
@Mr R

Another sock puppet for Lenni the butthurt plagiarist
Mr R
2 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2019
@Da Schneib Any INTERPRETATION of spectra of ONE star does confirm the entire galaxy is receding. And now you are lying. We do not see accelerated expansion now at all. You can't post empirical measurements showing galaxies increasingly moving apart so repeat the same old unverified assumptions.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2019
@Mr R
@Forum

Don't hold your breath waiting for 'the gang' to admit recent mainstream discoveries/reviews casting even more doubt on BB, Inflation, Expansion etc than ever.

Mainstream increasingly confirms my longstanding observations to @IMP-9, @RNP etc, who 'just believe and regurgitate' old, naive, simplistic, erroneous 'interpretations' as purported 'supporting evidence for BB' etc based on long-since-falsified BB-Dogma-biased 'interpretations' of observed CMB; and of 'Type Ia Supenovae' data, based on flawed 'Standard Candle' assumptions which ALSO have been recently made 'mincemeat' of by mainstream itself, through discovery of MANY AND VARIED 'NON-standard' Type Ia Supernovae!

I have (again) exposed those 'just believing and regurgitating' instead of actually addressing scientifically valid observations challenging their repetitive BB-biased 'parrotings': they can be identified by their SILENCE re the 5 points I posted re NON-BB sources/interpretations of CMB. :)

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.