Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
ggiles
member


Reged: 09/07/10

Loc: Trenton Ontario Canada
The universe may not be expanding?
      #6036416 - 08/20/13 12:38 PM

http://www.theprovince.com/technology/space/Universe+expanding+after+research...

Thoughts?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GregLee1
professor emeritus


Reged: 07/21/13

Loc: Waimanalo, HI
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: ggiles]
      #6036519 - 08/20/13 01:25 PM

Quote:

Because the frequency or “pitch” of light increases with mass, Prof Wetterich argues that masses could have been lower long ago.




Could this be a relativistic effect due to the increasing speed of modern life? Is this why that as we age, we feel increasingly that life is passing us by?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: GregLee1]
      #6037229 - 08/20/13 07:55 PM

So that explains it - as my mass increases, I get the blues...



Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
scopethis
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/30/08

Loc: Kingman, Ks
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: Jarad]
      #6037441 - 08/20/13 10:55 PM

so if we eat more Big Macs we can outrun the Universe...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: scopethis]
      #6037817 - 08/21/13 07:34 AM

On a serious note, I doubt this explanation. If mass really is changing constantly over time, it would also affect other things like orbits, nuclear fusion, supernovae, etc. We don't see those changes.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: Jarad]
      #6038006 - 08/21/13 10:11 AM

Same as the other "physical constants change with time" ideas. If they do, they'd have to do it in such a synchronized way that it's invisible to observation.

And thus proof of the divine what's-it, or whatever.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
shawnhar
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 06/25/10

Loc: Knoxville, TN
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: llanitedave]
      #6038234 - 08/21/13 12:07 PM

All hail the Devine What's-It!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GregLee1
professor emeritus


Reged: 07/21/13

Loc: Waimanalo, HI
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: llanitedave]
      #6038564 - 08/21/13 03:23 PM

Quote:

Same as the other "physical constants change with time" ideas. If they do, they'd have to do it in such a synchronized way that it's invisible to observation.



The changes are not invisible to observation -- they are proposed in order to account for certain observations. So are you saying that it's the synchronization that is not observable? I don't understand that.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: GregLee1]
      #6038579 - 08/21/13 03:34 PM

The proposal is to explain red shift as being due to a change in particle mass. Red shift is in fact observed.

But if mass of individual particles was changing, it should also change other things. For example, orbits. If the mass of the electrons and protons in the sun and the planets were getting heavier over the last 5 billion years, we should see the planets being pulled in closer over time. We should the same effect in galaxies - older galaxies should appear less massive, newer ones more massive in terms of orbital velocities. We don't see that.

For Type 1a supernovae, they go off when the star passes a certain critical mass limit to overcome the electrical repulsion between nuclei and initiate fusion. If the mass of the particles were changing over time, we should see differences in those supernovae - lighter mass per particle would require more particles to generate the same amount of pressure. Less mass per charge unit would require more pressure and temperature to overcome the charge repulsion. Less mass per particle may also mean less energy produced by the fusion.

So we should be seeing signficicant differences in star behaviors (brightness/temperature relationships, etc.) if fundamental properties like the mass of an electron and proton were changing. In order to keep the behavior constant (as it appears to be), you would need to adjust lots of other parameters (like the strong and weak nuclear forces, electric constant, gravity constant, etc.) in perfect synch with the mass change to make orbits, fusion, etc. appear to work the same as the mass changed.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GregLee1
professor emeritus


Reged: 07/21/13

Loc: Waimanalo, HI
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: Jarad]
      #6038734 - 08/21/13 04:54 PM

Quote:

In order to keep the behavior constant (as it appears to be), you would need to adjust lots of other parameters (like the strong and weak nuclear forces, electric constant, gravity constant, etc.) in perfect synch with the mass change to make orbits, fusion, etc. appear to work the same as the mass changed.



So? What does this have to do with observability? The synch is observable.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
gavinm
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 08/26/05

Loc: Auckland New Zealand
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: GregLee1]
      #6038933 - 08/21/13 06:44 PM

The synch is unlikely (even if it is observable)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ira
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 08/22/10

Loc: Mitzpe Ramon, Israel
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: gavinm]
      #6038997 - 08/21/13 07:21 PM

It's like saying the room you are sitting in is getting smaller by the minute but you never feel confined because you are getting smaller at the same rate. Possible but unlikely.

/Ira


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GregLee1
professor emeritus


Reged: 07/21/13

Loc: Waimanalo, HI
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: Ira]
      #6039102 - 08/21/13 08:31 PM

Quote:

It's like saying the room you are sitting in is getting smaller by the minute but you never feel confined because you are getting smaller at the same rate. Possible but unlikely.




How did you go about estimating the likelihoods of getting smaller at the same rate and getting smaller at different rates? I don't understand your reasoning.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
groz
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 03/14/07

Loc: Campbell River, BC
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: GregLee1]
      #6039130 - 08/21/13 08:46 PM

If the mass is changing, then maybe we dont need all that unobserved dark stuff injected into the system in order to make equations work out. m=f(t) could solve that conundrum

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: GregLee1]
      #6039182 - 08/21/13 09:16 PM

Quote:

Quote:

In order to keep the behavior constant (as it appears to be), you would need to adjust lots of other parameters (like the strong and weak nuclear forces, electric constant, gravity constant, etc.) in perfect synch with the mass change to make orbits, fusion, etc. appear to work the same as the mass changed.



So? What does this have to do with observability? The synch is observable.




Is it? So what was the fine structure constant 11 billion years ago compared to what it is today? What is the difference in c between then and now? What is the difference in the value of the electroweak fore between then and now?

If the constants had changed in an observable way, these questions would be answerable.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GregLee1
professor emeritus


Reged: 07/21/13

Loc: Waimanalo, HI
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: llanitedave]
      #6039277 - 08/21/13 10:15 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

In order to keep the behavior constant (as it appears to be), you would need to adjust lots of other parameters (like the strong and weak nuclear forces, electric constant, gravity constant, etc.) in perfect synch with the mass change to make orbits, fusion, etc. appear to work the same as the mass changed.



So? What does this have to do with observability? The synch is observable.




Is it? So what was the fine structure constant 11 billion years ago compared to what it is today? What is the difference in c between then and now? What is the difference in the value of the electroweak fore between then and now?

If the constants had changed in an observable way, these questions would be answerable.



You said the behavior appears to be constant. That's the observation that shows the synchronization persists. So synchronization is observable, since it has been observed. This is all just your own reasoning.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Qwickdraw
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 03/03/12

Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: Jarad]
      #6039700 - 08/22/13 08:11 AM

Quote:


But if mass of individual particles was changing, it should also change other things. For example, orbits. If the mass of the electrons and protons in the sun and the planets were getting heavier over the last 5 billion years, we should see the planets being pulled in closer over time.

Jarad




I don't necessarily agree. If mass was changing across the board, the planets would have an equal increase in mass and have a net zero loss in angular momentum.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: GregLee1]
      #6039735 - 08/22/13 08:52 AM

Quote:

You said the behavior appears to be constant. That's the observation that shows the synchronization persists. So synchronization is observable, since it has been observed. This is all just your own reasoning.




No, synchronization has not been observed. What has been observed is that apparent behavior of orbits, star formation, supernovae, etc. appear the same in nearby galaxies and distant ones. So there are 2 possible interpretations of why that has happened:
1 - the natural constants are in fact constant, and red-shift is due to relative motion.
2 - the natural constants are all changing in such a way that orbits, star formation, supernovae, etc. are unaffected, but emisison lines are blue-shifted over time (so old lines appear red-shifted). It is not clear yet that such a thing is even possible (there would be a lot of math to work through to see if it is).

There is really no evidence that any of them are changing at all, just an assertion that they could be if they do it in a very complicated, synchronized manner that makes them unobservable except for a redshift effect.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: The universe may not be expanding? new [Re: Qwickdraw]
      #6039738 - 08/22/13 08:54 AM

Quote:

I don't necessarily agree. If mass was changing across the board, the planets would have an equal increase in mass and have a net zero loss in angular momentum.




Actually, that would be a gain in angular momentum (mass * angular velocity) with constant angular velocity. But that's still not enough, because if the mass of the sun increases, they need to increase angular velocity to maintain orbit. The only way to do that is to fall inward until they pick up enough speed.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: The universe may not be expanding? [Re: groz]
      #6039739 - 08/22/13 08:55 AM

Quote:

If the mass is changing, then maybe we dont need all that unobserved dark stuff injected into the system in order to make equations work out. m=f(t) could solve that conundrum




Only if we saw orbits indicating dark matter in old, distant galaxies but not nearby ones, or vice-versa.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)


Extra information
0 registered and 3 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 620

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics