for example...if our sun would explode now, we would see it 8 minutes later. And then feel the shockwave much much later. The earth would be swallowed up and ripped apart with the explosion much much later again...after the schockwave.
@paulkazjack The furthest images we see in HDF are of young galaxies, ~1B yrs after the BB. Today they are 12.7B yrs older. They are made up of large, fast-burning population III & II stars. (Note that pop. III's were the first stars, II's next, & our current pop. I stars next.) Those large stars lived fast & died young. None are left. They were in our area of the U, too. But light from those passed us long ago. BTW, the MW is also old. About 10B yrs. Just not *as* old as the galaxies at Z=6.
When you say that you are looking back around 12 billion light years in past, does the possibility exist that you are Actually looking back at the object/star/dust a part of which has now matured to be our planet earth?
@UsmanUrRehmanAhmed The objects we see 12 billion light years away? No! It takes light 12 billion years to travel that distance. So how can a particle or object from that far away be a part of our planet now.
@jack3volution Here we go...so the fastest we know of any speed is the speed of light and if that light is approaching to us now that simply means that when that light started emitting itself we were away from it. That is, we are earlier product of big bang and pulled far away that the objects of which this light belongs to and meaning by what ever dust or gasses composed our solar system is even older than 12 billion light years? Raises a question mark. No?
@UsmanUrRehmanAhmed No that is not possible. If the star 12 bill years ago and 12 bill light years away explodes. The pieces of which the star was made of. Can not race ahead of light to reach us here before we see it (the light in a telescope like hubble) and make our planet.
@UsmanUrRehmanAhmed No. You're thinking of the BB as a place. The BB is a time. Time=0. It happened literally where your living room is now. At that time, all of space, itself, was really that small, and has expanded from that to its current size. The BB happened everywhere. There is no center where it happened. See this excellent YouTube video for a better demonstration of how it all works than I can give you in words:
@UsmanUrRehmanAhmed if u want 2 believe that when Hubble takes a picture now. Of a galaxy that is 12 billion light years away. And in the same time bits and pieces of that galaxy could be in our solar system now. Then go ahead and believe it...u mad man lol im not gonna stop u
@jack3volution All we are seeing is the light that was emitted in the past. If those stars went nova then it is possible that we are looking at what has become us (our planet) because it is the past we are looking at. At least in the deep field. How neat. I love thinking about this.
@736wilsonlm Thats impossible. Yes its 12 bill years ago but also 12 bill light years away! That is an unimaginably huge distance. The pieces of which the star was made of. Can not race ahead of light to reach us here before we see it (as light in a telescope like hubble) and make our planet.
@UsmanUrRehmanAhmed No. However, the Universe is homogeneous on large scales. So while the geometry of the spatial expansion would not allow for us seeing earlier versions of matter currently in this area of the Universe, what we do see would be indistinguishable from what this area would have looked like at that time. Not exactly the same, star for star. But statistical distributions would be equivalent.
ok so there is this CMB radiation coming from everywhere, that happened at the big bang, and its traveling away from the universe because yet its reflected back of nothing so we can observe it... or there are othere galaxys whoms light with the expansion of space has stretched into microwave and it is not the CMB. u even called galaxys points so they would need heaps more sensitive equiptment. Physicisits even said them selfs that the variarions in the CMB is where voids are, but why is it even
@Typho0n86 1) CMB reflected? why?? 2) variation in the CMB with respect to the average (both positive and negative) of course happen where there is more or less matter. 3) Observing a source as point-like, is not only related to the luminosity of the source itself, but also to the wavelength you observe, and to the instruments. There are point-like QSO that are more luminous than some more nearby galaxies..
@Typho0n86 The BB happened when all of space, itself, was a point. Space, itself, then expanded rapidly. Until age 380,000yrs light could not propagate. Thus the CMB radiation is an image of the Universe at that age. It is & has always been everywhere, traveling in every direction. What we see today (and tomorrow) is always radiation that happened to start in our direction at such a time as to pass us now. It's hasn't "reflected". And there will always be more. See:
@Typho0n86 We have to distinguish between the Universe & the Observable Universe. The Universe may or may not be infinite in extent. We don't know. The Observable Universe is what we usually mean when we sloppily say "Universe". It's the 45.7 billion light-year radius sphere around us representing all that we can, in principle, see at this time. Considering the wealth of data from COBE, WMAP, & Planck, claiming the CMB is "in debate" is literally in the same class as claiming the Earth is flat.
@sbergman27 And saying that all of space-time came from one point is like saying Jesus walked on water, but thats not the point. The point is, is that both theorys break down when we follow them back, so we really dont know what happend, and thats why the CMB is in dabate. I guess you are stuck in the past and have no clue about what therotical physics are developing. There is still lots to be uncovered and to have a closed mind like yours we will never get anywhere.
@Typho0n86 I've reviewed your discussion w/supergiuovane & see he's addressed the facts well. I'll give you credit for thinking, but it appears you don't understand some key concepts. In particular I'd recommend studying blackbody radiation until you understand what it is & why it means your view can't be right. Your 'distant galaxies' hypothesis can't explain a blackbody radiation curve. Let alone 1 uniform to within 0.001%. You're confused re: CMB being 'in debate'. Name these 'new theories'.
@sbergman27 If you look at the CMBR you will see that there is a band around the centre that lines up with our galaxy... which is suspicious enough in its self. All its measuring is the background temperature, which is a bit of a leap to link it to the BB, where black holes can emit the same radiation. To say that the temperature of space is even, therefore it came from the big bang is ludicrous and without testable foundation. Other theories; The Hydrogen/CMBR model, string theory.
@Typho0n86 That band *is* the plane of our galaxy. Everyone knows that. (Except for you, apparently.) See:
tinyurlDOTcom/78llng2
Using data from multiple freqs, near sources can be removed, leaving the center image. But it's good you're noticing distribution. I'm following up with a post describing what is required of your "distant galaxies" hypothesis. Study the power spectrum, especially. It shows BB Cosmology's pre-observation *prediction*. Predicting that is a phenomenal triumph. (cont'd)
@sbergman27 Well I did know what and I just assumed it. LOL. So if that band is our galaxy the that proves that it can come from other sources and didnt come from the big bang... easy. There are heaps of contridictions in this theory.
@Typho0n86 (cont'd) You seem confused re: string theory. It's not antithetical to the Standard Cosmology. It's an attempt to merge G with QM. BB is still very much central to ST. Regarding Hydrogen/CMBR, are you really serious? Or joking? It seems to be a paper sent to Phys Rev by some random guy in Australia with no credentials & even less of a grasp of physics than you, whining about Phys Rev's summary rejection. Stand by for my promised high points of the hurdles your hypothesis must address.
@Typho0n86 You asserted I wasn't aware of "what therotical physics are developing". I asked for specifics & you specified ST, which is orthogonal to the topic@hand & that Australian blogger w/the rejected paper. i'm not pushing my own personal theory, but my degree is a BS in CS from U of Cntrl Ok with a minor in Engineering including 3 semesters physics, 3 semesters Calculus, & 2 thermodynamics. Currently studying Linear Algebra & Diff E @ ocw.mit.edu. Tell me about your educational background.
@sbergman27 Computer science Bachelors degree?? I have a degree in civil avaition and curently in 3rd year of architecture from UNISA Double math and physics. Well my point of view is that the current model is wrong, cause of the BB and black holes. And we shouldnt be making assumptions of where the CMBR comes from. If it did come from inflation, then the universe is still continualy expanding and increasing, and can cause this Tempature.
Now you are trying to pass made up on the fly fiction as fact. Our conversation, & your exchanges with supergiuovane, make it painfully obvious that you have no math or physics background. e.g. black body radiation is typically 2nd semester physics. And you said to supergiuovane:
"Black body emission = black hole radiation right?"
That's... bad. It's too late, not to mention rather pathetic, for you to try to spin fictions about your educational background.
@sbergman27 Double math and physics was refering to school, but anyways, what the fuck would a computer scientiest know?
en*wikipedia*org/wiki/Black_body#Black_holes
Now you calling me pathetic, cause i see that there is a problem with the BB and black holes, Nice quote there too bad i didnt say that "Black body emission = black hole radiation right?" fucking puting words in my mouth
Fuck off u closed minded cant think for him self idiot
@sbergman27 I already know most of the shit that you have been rabbling on about, im not saying its wrong, im saying that it could come from other scources. But you stuck in the BB model... which has alot of problems and contridictions, as i keep explaining, but non is getting threw your thick closed mined skull. Heres an easy one, what caused the big bang... quantium fluxuations.... lol why hasnt it happened again, or even just a small one.
That's not BB. Or even Inflation theory. Neither address the BB singularity itself or what came "before". Nor whether the U is finite or infinite, BTW. In Inflation, QM fluctuations are responsible for the tiny anisotropies in the otherwise very smooth early Universe. If you're saying the Standard Cosmology is incomplete, that's correct. Our physics stops @the singularity's Schwarzschild limit. Inflation is iffy. But after that, the SC is on very solid ground.
@sbergman27 Thats what the LOL was for after ur quote cause it was a joke, you really like mixing up what i say. But thats the current theory of how the big bang happened. am i wrong? If not then i ask again which u seemed to have missed out... What caused the big bang?
@Typho0n86 You do a lot of back-pedaling. i.e. saying things & then claiming you didn't. Anyway, certain current hypotheses posit QM fluctuations as a BB precursor. I think that's part of M-Theory/String Theory, but I'm not certain. @ any rate, it is an idea that you'll see thrown around. By it's very nature as a Quantum phenomenon, it is not part of BB, which is a classical theory. Nor a bona fide part of the broader Standard Cosmology. It's not currently testable/falsifiable.
@sbergman27 Yeah i need to do the back-pedaling cause u 'put words in my mouth' that i didnt say, and you dont answer the questions i ask. So u have no idea what caused the big bang... which is fair enough. I do gain alot of knowlage from arguing, but with the kinds of you who like to spit out the SM it goes nowhere, im trying to solve the problems with BB and BH's but yeah thanks for the waste of time
@Typho0n86 If you want to develop a real understanding of any type of modern physics, you're going to have to do some work. The good news is that there's never been a better time. I'll assume that you finished high school & got some basic Algebra several yrs ago. Here's a refresher course in Algebra, a 1st semester Calculus course, & an *excellent* 1st semester physics course:
That was not sarcasm, but a serious recommendation to you. You owe it to yourself to check out the available resources, even if you don't happen to like me.
@Typho0n86 Seriously, supergiuovane is worth listening to. I've learned a few things reading over his posts. And you could, too. My unsolicited advice? Take advantage of the learning opportunity and don't let it get too personal.
@sbergman27 I normaly find arguing quite educational and productive, but when people start throwing in 'low blows' like; "You really need to study", "lots of things you don't have a clue about" thats when it gets personal. But ill try and take you up on you advice... maybe
@Typho0n86 Sorry but if you want to talk about astrophysics, "You really need to study" and yes you've shown that there are "lots of things you don't have a clue about". And I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Apart from trying to make up things. So if you took those sentences as offense, then you have a problem.
@Typho0n86 You do need to study. *I* need to study. Recognizing that higher both mathematics & higher physics rest upon more foundational math & physics, I've started where I left off in school, taking virtual math & science courses based upon the prerequisites & corequisites listed in their syllabi. I would like to develop a deeper, more quantitative understanding of certain modern sciences. It's work. But satisfying work. And getting there is *more* than half the fun.
@Typho0n86 Every theory is an approximation that holds until differences with the behaviour it predicts are observed. What are the observable that the BB theory fails to predict?
@Typho0n86 What happened before is a non-sense question, since according to the BB theory time was created with the BB event. Singularity? The BB theory nowadays speaks not about singularities which was instead a concept introduced tens of years ago as a way to deal with our ignorance. Anyway yours is not an answer to my question. What are the observable that the BB theory fails to predict?
@supergiuovane Pft thats another problem with the BB, saying that spacetime was created at that point... common you really believe that shit? Expecially when both the theorys break down.
You had to add that word observable to it to try and trip me up. But the big bang in its self is not observable.. so thats a pretty non-sense question. But it fails to predict how black holes work.. once again we run into the singularity problem of infinity.
@Typho0n86 1) The fact that you cannot conceive or understand a thing does not make it "shit". And... theories break down?
2) You clearly do not understand how science works. You make a theory and than you compare it with observations. And (again, do you know what science is...?) observable doesn't necessarily mean you observe the phenomenon itself, but also its consequences (you don't observe gravity, in fact...). The BB and BH are completely unrelated. Why should the BB predict BH?
@Typho0n86 So the fact that you don't observe what's beyond the visible universe makes the BB theory non valid. Very clever, I have to say!!! If you had a basic clue about science you would know what scientists means with the word "observable", which is a phenomenon that you can measure somehow. What caused the BB? Ever heard of quantum fluctuation and vacuum energy...?
@Typho0n86 Science: this unknown things, right? Ok, I'll make the question easier for you. Tell me one phenomenon that astronomers observe which is in contradiction with what the BB theory predicts. And I am talking about the standard theory, so (sorry to disappoint you) no singularity (the concordance model has no singularity in it...)
@supergiuovane So the big bang came from a singularity, and a black hole is a singularity but they are "completely unrelated" ROFL. The BB theory fails to predict the existence of dark matter and energy, and the increase of acceleration of the expansion of the universe. You cant just talk about one theory of the SM cause u need GR in it. So in what space did this quantum fluctuation happen? and why doesnt it happen again? or can be reproduced?
@Typho0n86 Congratulation,you're keeping on the same mistake.BB did not came out of a singularity,which is only a mathematical concept introduced as a way to say: we don't know yet what happened.And same goes for BH,whose formation is due to stellar evolution.Dark matter is FULLY included in the concordance model (LambdaCDM, please check), and acceleration of the universe is already included in the current theories. So, please, read wikipedia better. Quantum fluctuations? Check Casimir effect.
@supergiuovane whats with all the fucking; "Congratulation", "You clearly do not understand how science works", "Very clever, I have to say" some scientist you are!!! fk head, they. The theory is full of contradictions, then you say "we don't know yet what happened"
@Typho0n86 I had not seen this comment before. Well, a bit less of "fucking" please. Do you read what you write? It is clear that you don't know any serious clue about BH and/or BB and yes, even science. You still have to come up with observational evidence that the concordance model is not able to reproduce/explain.
@supergiuovane Hey Fuckhead Ill use all the FUCKS I want if you are insulting me. Any observations that astronomers make that dont fit the model, they just add on something new, *inflation*, but like I sad dark energy, and dark matter. And stop putting 'words in my mouth' "new Universes bursting out of black holes"
@Typho0n86 1) I never insult you. Show me where I did. 2) Any theory is subject to improvements, based on observations. 3) Evidences for dark matters do NOT come from the BB (e.g. gravitational lensing). 4) Where do you see me writing that you said: "Universes bursting out of black holes". Typical attitude of someone with no argument, yours: insulting. Please go on showing how clever you are.
@supergiuovane Both the theorys fail at predicting what happened at the start so they are only assuming from there. The CMBR can be made from other sources, like the band our galaxy makes in it... so why cant it be from other galaxys as well...? To understand the universe the next step is to understand black holes, which every galaxy has a huge one in its centre, and the bigger the galaxy the bigger the black hole... hrmmm lots of unanswerd questions the BB theory leaves
@Typho0n86 "hrmmm lots of unanswerd questions the BB theory leaves" should be more: lots of things you don't have a clue about. You keep talking about black hole formation as it depended on the BB. A BH is a DIRECT consequence of stellar evolution. And please: don't cite works you do not understand.. (I refer to the papers By Ferrarese, e.g.).CMB cannot by made up from galaxies, since galaxies DO NOT emit like black bodies, and the CMB is the most perfect black body ever observed in nature.
@Typho0n86 Very polite of you. It's dust, and molecular gas, whose spectral energy distribution is NOT that of a black body. You really need to study. Really. Check results from the Herschel survey HiGal, for example.
@Typho0n86 BH are the latest stage of very massive stars. That's the way they form. When you have a very dense area, e.g. that in a galaxy bulge, BH can merge and "quickly" become extremely massive. For more information about the relation between the bulge and the BH mass start with the paper by Ferrarese and Merrit (2001).
@Typho0n86 "BlackBodyRadiation can come from black holes". This is simply fantastic. The only way a black hole would emit is through Hawking radiation, but completely different from a black body radiation. In fact you do NOT observe any emission coming directly from black holes. Shall I suggest you a book? "Accretion power in astrophysics", for example. Or "Radiative processes in astrophysics", very instructive.
@supergiuovane right there sarcasm; "Please go on showing how clever you are", "It is clear that you don't know any serious clue" "This is simply fantastic", "Very polite of you", "You really need to study", "lots of things you don't have a clue about"... Geee thanks those arnt insults.... thats sarcasm btw
@Typho0n86 Sarcasm is not offending, please. And (let's go one by one): 1) yes, your attitude does not prove you very clever. 2) your statements also showed you don't know what you are talking about. Sorry but it's as simple as this. Check some books. Talk to astrophysicists. 3) You really need to study, yes. Why? E.g. you don't know that the concordance model do not include any singularity. You talk about the Galactic dust lane or the CMB without any clue. Really..
@Typho0n86 You don't give a fuck what I think, sure. I wonder why you answered me so many time. BTW, by "your attitude" I mean the fact that you do not reply to my simple questions and, when you realize that what you just said is wrong, you start with the "fuck here, fuck there". What clever people do, is listen and try to understand while trying to make their point. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something, so please, at least do not pretend you do.
@supergiuovane 1) My attiude comes about from ur scarcasm, and its not trying to prove how clever I am 2) I dont give a fuck what you think 3) go fuck ur self again
@supergiuovane I gather, from my previous conversation, that Typho0n86 is troubled by the fact that we don't observe new Universes bursting out of black holes on a regular basis. It's interesting that there has been all this talk about black holes, and the Big Bang, without ever hitting on what's probably the most puzzling feature of our universe: Where did all this amazingly low entropy come from?
It's the #1 question on my mind, personally. And arguably the #1 question facing Cosmology.
@sbergman27 "..troubled by the fact that we don't observe new Universes bursting out of black holes on a regular basis." Yes, maybe. Under assumption that the word "singularity" makes the Universe = black hole. To me he just sounds like someone that knows because he have heard something but he did not understand. There's a lots of things one should know before pretending something is "completely wrong".
@supergiuovane And your pretending to know all about the big bang, im saying that im open to alternative theorys, and should not just tag on the CMBR to the BB.
@Typho0n86 No, I do not absolutely pretend I know everything, and of course I am open to new theory as everybody should. As I said in my second post, theories are by their very nature, subject to improvements. But I do not claim the BB is "wrong" because it does not predict BH..
@Typho0n86 "open to alternative theorys, and should not just tag on the CMBR to the BB"
The best place to start is to understand something about the most experimentally successful current theory, and how CMB relates to it. And then evaluate the more speculative, less well tested hypotheses. I linked to this before. But at minimum, you really should read through it:
Similarities & differences. Both represent a boundary to what our current physics can describe. However, black holes represent the highest entropy density possible in our Universe. (Interestingly, a proportional to surface area & not volume.. but I digress.) And the BB boundary yielded a Universe of fantastically low entropy. A pretty spectacular difference, I'd say.
@sbergman27 I agree. But then, why claiming a theory is wrong, when you do not know about its basic details?. And talking about black holes, (ok, maybe yet another topic...) what impresses me even more is the similarity with quantum particles. Amazing...
@supergiuovane Would you elaborate a bit? The closest I'm getting to what you might mean is Quantum Field Theory (SR+QM), but somehow I don't think that's it. I'm curious. A slight detour would probably not impede the impressive progress the main thread is making too terribly much.
@sbergman27 Well, it comes from the simple observation that a BH is perfectly defined in all of its characteristics when you specify mass, charge and angular momentum, which is pretty much the same as for quantum particle. But that's about all I know. You can find a bit more in this fantastic book, you probably already know: "The elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. Very well written, in my own opinion.
@supergiuovane Thanks for the reply. Black Holes have no hair. Yes, I see what you mean. I've seen the Nova special, but don't have the book. I do have the later "The Hidden Reality", which is excellent. And of course, Sean Carroll's latest, "From Eternity to Here" is sitting on the table right next to me. Also excellent. After reading the latter, I'll never think about Entropy the same way again. Especially as to how it relates to gravity-dominated systems like... well... our Universe.
@sbergman27 There as so many similaraties between a black hole and the start of the BB, so if the CMBR came from the BB then it can come from Black holes...
@sbergman27 You can keep quoting stuff from the standard model, which I already know, but it means didly squat to me untill, the black hole/BB problem has been solved
For your purposes, you can ignore it & work from the WMAP data with near sources subtracted. Just make the redshifted spectra of your distant galaxies look like uniform 2.7K blackbody radiation, with 0.001% anisotropies that exhibit an angular power function graph that looks like the WMAP graph. If you're right, it will be clear. (You'd get a Nobel.) Getting that right with an incorrect theory would be like winning the state lottery 38 times back to back.
@sbergman27 Yes ignoring evidence, some scientist you are. If we have 2 seprate theorys that break down at the BB then how do they know it happened. They are just assuming, Just like they are assuming that the CMBR came from the BB. Once they get a better theory that can explain how the BB happened, then ill agree with you, but untill then all i see is contradictions, and would prefer to go into this with an open mind.
If you like, you can add in the known sources of noise to your galactic spectra & try to reproduce the raw data. If you can match the angular sizes vs magnitudes of the anisotropies exactly in that data, you should end up with the same power function. But it seems a frightful complexity for you to add, to no clear purpose. You might find this helpful:
tinyurlDOTcom/ycuyjj8
It also includes some highlights of the Standard Cosmology's experimental confirmations.
GR breaks down *at* the singularity. QM does not, but doesn't include gravity. That's why the Standard (BB) Cosmology doesn't actually say anything about the singularity. Or anything about what came "before" (whatever that might mean). ST hopes to push past the BB singularity. But GR works perfectly well for any arbitrarily small 't'. CMB is a snapshot of the moment of recombination, 377,000yrs after the BB, when the Universe became transparent to light.
@win2rgirl "this makes me wanna study astronomy so badly"
There's never been a better time. Here is a Yale video course for non-science-majors which hits many of the exciting highlights of current astrophysics. More engaging than just listening to a talk, it will teach you to think like a scientist and to do basic calculations. And even better, to understand what your calculations mean. :-)
ok if we look at one of these galaxy’s that is 12billion light years away, and then look in the opposite direction and find another one that is 12blillion light years away, then the width of the universe will be approx 24billion light years with us in the centre. What if we were to go to one of these galaxy’s and find that in all observable directions we could see other galaxy’s that were 12 billion light years away. kinda makes me wonder if the big bang is correct.
@Typho0n86 "..if we were to go to one of these galaxy’s and find that in all observable directions we could see other galaxy’s that were 12 billion light years.."
Yes. That's exactly how the metric expansion of space works. We don't have to go there. We can map what people in those galaxies would see, in this direction at least, with the data we have. Keep reminding yourself that the BB was not an "explosion" & that there's no "center". Only metric expansion in all directions. That's what BB is.
we should get a microwave telescope and take a look at a blank spot in the ultra deep feild, i have a funny feeling that the cosmic microwave background radiation is actually other galaxys that light has gone past the visable range because space has expanded so much
@supergiuovane if light can shift into red due to the expansion of the universe, whats to stop it from going infared or microwave if its even further away? PS i think the universe is infinite so if you dont agree on that dont bother argung with me
@Typho0n86 It does, indeed, in fact all radiation is shifted according to its distance. But still.. The cosmic background is NOT made by point-like sources. BTW, about the universe being infinite or not, is not a matter of "thinking", but of what you observe (or what you don't..)
@supergiuovane So my theory is wrong cause the biggest thing we know in the universe is really points... GW, almost disproves what im theoryizing :S i spose you think electrons are points as well. HAHA how little you know reality
@Typho0n86 Ho NOTHING you know about astronomy. Since it is based on observations, you have to rely on that. In astronomy the concept of point-like sources is widely used (check, please). The more distant is an object, the smaller its apparent size is, I guess you can understand this. A galaxy at redshift 3-4, in a radio image, appears as a point. Let's talk again when you're more familiar with the concept of angular resolution and point spread function, ok?
@supergiuovane If its based on observation then how do they know then cosmic microwave background radiation is from the big bang? No matter where we point the telescope in the sky we see galaxys, so if the universe is inifinte then there could be galaxys so far away that they have shifted into the microwave range, if so they would be everywhere and look like a blur, with some being clusters of galaxys etc... The most distant galaxys are a few pixels, they do have size. we need higher rez stuff
@Typho0n86 1) few pixel is still point-like. It is a matter of resolving power as a function of wavelength AND of Point Spread Function. Instruments are build such that you can sample the point spread function of an object with at least 3 pixels. 2) What would be the physical mechanism that shapes the emission from distant galaxies to have the exact same form of a black body at a temperature of ~ 2.7 K?
@Typho0n86 1) good, means how you know about astronomy. 2) The expansion of space time, just moves rest-frame fluxes to lower frequencies, there is no single physical reason why the shape of the global emission should be exactly that of a black body. Galaxies do NOT emit like black bodies
@supergiuovane 2 wouldnt the distant galaxys have their own supermasive balck holes at the center of them so of course they would have the same emmissions...
@Typho0n86 1) not all of the most distant galaxies are QSO; 2) Let's assume that they have an active black hole, let's assume that the accretion rate is the same for all of them, let's assume that the BH mass is the same for all of them, let's assume that they all look like the same. Why would you see an emission peaking at 1.87 mm as if the sum of all emission of all QSO at all redshifts would peak there?
@supergiuovane probably wouldnt peak there if they could get more sensitive detectors and look at even further away 'blank space' and see what they get, Like this experement would have to be done like the hubble deep feild, but with like a pinhole in the deep feild and in the infared/microwave, and then if its really infinite it would be in the radio range as well. ;)
@Typho0n86 No, it's not a matter of instrument sensitivity. The cosmic background radiation has been very good sampled well beyond its peak. Most recent and sensitive observations with Planck just confirm this.
@supergiuovane Every direction we look in there are galaxys, furthere going faster and reder, so it apears to us that we are the center of the universe, and the universe is 27 billion light years across. But then if we were to go to the furtherst away galaxy that we can see, would we see that as the center with lots of other galaxys around it? or would that be the edge?
@Typho0n86 The universe that we can observe is that wide. But this has nothing to do with the fact that the spectral energy distribution of distant galaxies makes up a perfect black body emission.
@Typho0n86 What is your reference? The cosmic background radiation is by far the closest approximation to a black body emission ever observed and measured in nature. Nothing else gets so close to it (less than 1% over 3 order of magnitudes).
@supergiuovane Well it could be other supermasive black hole galaxys, that are beyond the reach of light. If its the same radiation, and everyone has one in its center then that makes pretty good sense
@Typho0n86 No, it makes no sense. ALso if these "black hole galaxies" (what's the meaning of this, btw?) were "beyond the reach of light", then.. no light at whatever wavelength would contribute to the cosmic background... But I'm glad to re-think my opinion if you show me a model where galaxies can make up a black body emission.
@Typho0n86 No, absolutely wrong. 1) black holes do NOT emit light; 2) what they instead do is power emission by accreting matter that would very efficiently emit huge amount of energy in the form of light. That's what a QSO is. Not all of the galaxies, in fact, have an "active" black hole. But come on.. this is BASIC physics..
@supergiuovane Active black holes do emit light though, well not the hole but the stuff around it. But the star doesnt emit light either its just the crust on the outside that does ;)
@Typho0n86 No, the processes that form light actually happen inside a star, while light emission is generated outside the black hole. But that's not the point. The point is that black body radiation is NOT black hole radiation. They are two distinct things and, again, they cannot be responsible for the CMB.
@supergiuovane Everytime we have thought we are the center of something, things take a big shift :D, of course i cant prove these yet.. but maybe one day you will think wow that guy on youtube allready knew about all this stuff, where you are 90 and in your chair watching the news and Australia is the new world power :P
@Typho0n86 Astronomers (or scientists in general) do not believe that earth is at the centre of the Universe. From a mere observational point of view, each point in the Universe is at the centre of the Universe itself.
@supergiuovane Are you telling me that space is round? It has been measured as flat, but we probably need more precice mesurements. But Im saying that its infinite. If its round, then i dont like the idea that its expanding into nothing, If its infinite then alot of things make more scence
@Typho0n86 Do you know what "flat" means in a cosmological context? A flat space is perfectly consistent with what I say: from each point in the universe you will see space expanding and galaxies moving apart from you.
@supergiuovane In a flat universe if we went to the furtherst away galaxy that we can see 13.2 billion ly away, we we look around, on one side we should see nothing and on the other we should see the rest of the universe, If it was round the when we looked around we we see other galaxys everwhere, unless the universe is inifinite and there are other galaxys out there that are beyond our light range
@Typho0n86 You got the meaning of "flat" completely wrong. Also the word "round" is quite meaningless in this context. Opposite to "flat", when talking about topology of the Universe, is "close" and "open". But, again, this has nothing to do with the CMB being made up by the emission of distant galaxies.
@supergiuovane If space was curved back on its self it would be round. Curving back around on its self would be a saddle shape, but that is also round so i was just simplifying it for you. I didnt say they emitted light fk hd, ever hear about hawking radiation.
@Typho0n86 "whats to stop it from going infared or microwave"
It can & does. That's why the CMB is in the microwave range. It wasn't originally. At the distance of our particle horizon, 45.7B LY away, objects shift, essentially, to infinitely long wavelengths as the expansion of the space between us carries them past our light cone and they literally disappear from our Observable Universe.
awesome video....I do not know much about deep space ..MY question is ..Why do the earth scientists always assume that the Earth is ALWAYS in the middle of the universe?
ok, if he is saying that the light that we are seeing of a galaxy or star from millions/billions miles away is what it physically WAS millions/billions years ago, will we see the galaxy or star any different than what it was if we see it again in a million years????????????(prob wont be here still :P)
how is picture info stored in light and does light ever lose owt after billion years travel . if galaxies end of universe are travelling faster than light then if you were on these galaxies looking at earth we would be travelling Faster than light cos of expansion ,so i dont feel like were traveliling that fast or wed know
how do we know we r at the edge of the universe. imagine u r at the other side side of the universe doin the same experiment. wil u not get the same red light area from our galaxy. wat if we(milky way galaxy) are not expanding away but the other side is expanding away and like he said those distance galaxies are young but wat if our galaxy is younger dan those at the distance. and due to vase distance we only receive small amount of light from them to assume its young. wat if we are wrong.
wat if the center of universe is not at the other side but on our side... will we still hve the same result of seing those galazy like we do now. imagine ur on the other side n watching us will we get the same result we get from here. just wondering..
for example...if our sun would explode now, we would see it 8 minutes later. And then feel the shockwave much much later. The earth would be swallowed up and ripped apart with the explosion much much later again...after the schockwave.
jack3volution 1 week ago
why cant andromeda be billions of years old? why does something thats far away be older?
paulkazjack 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
@paulkazjack The furthest images we see in HDF are of young galaxies, ~1B yrs after the BB. Today they are 12.7B yrs older. They are made up of large, fast-burning population III & II stars. (Note that pop. III's were the first stars, II's next, & our current pop. I stars next.) Those large stars lived fast & died young. None are left. They were in our area of the U, too. But light from those passed us long ago. BTW, the MW is also old. About 10B yrs. Just not *as* old as the galaxies at Z=6.
sbergman27 1 day ago
When you say that you are looking back around 12 billion light years in past, does the possibility exist that you are Actually looking back at the object/star/dust a part of which has now matured to be our planet earth?
UsmanUrRehmanAhmed 2 weeks ago
@UsmanUrRehmanAhmed The objects we see 12 billion light years away? No! It takes light 12 billion years to travel that distance. So how can a particle or object from that far away be a part of our planet now.
jack3volution 1 week ago
@jack3volution Here we go...so the fastest we know of any speed is the speed of light and if that light is approaching to us now that simply means that when that light started emitting itself we were away from it. That is, we are earlier product of big bang and pulled far away that the objects of which this light belongs to and meaning by what ever dust or gasses composed our solar system is even older than 12 billion light years? Raises a question mark. No?
UsmanUrRehmanAhmed 1 week ago
@UsmanUrRehmanAhmed No that is not possible. If the star 12 bill years ago and 12 bill light years away explodes. The pieces of which the star was made of. Can not race ahead of light to reach us here before we see it (the light in a telescope like hubble) and make our planet.
jack3volution 1 week ago
@jack3volution
Time = 0 (Big Bang happened)
...
Time = 12 billion years before
...
Time = Now (Hubble is observing light from an event 12 billion light years away)
That means that what ever composed our solar system was traveled ahead of that light when Big Bang happened (perhaps in the form of light itself)
Similarly my above claim, we are looking back into past and we are looking at our our existence. At-least a possibility.
UsmanUrRehmanAhmed 2 days ago
@UsmanUrRehmanAhmed No. You're thinking of the BB as a place. The BB is a time. Time=0. It happened literally where your living room is now. At that time, all of space, itself, was really that small, and has expanded from that to its current size. The BB happened everywhere. There is no center where it happened. See this excellent YouTube video for a better demonstration of how it all works than I can give you in words:
/watch?v=MoTNGmlOO2g
sbergman27 1 day ago
@UsmanUrRehmanAhmed In fact, you might want to start with this one:
/watch?v=3Gy1e2olvMw
which is the first part of the two part video. And then move on to my original recommendation:
/watch?v=MoTNGmlOO2g
which is part 2.
sbergman27 1 day ago
@UsmanUrRehmanAhmed if u want 2 believe that when Hubble takes a picture now. Of a galaxy that is 12 billion light years away. And in the same time bits and pieces of that galaxy could be in our solar system now. Then go ahead and believe it...u mad man lol im not gonna stop u
jack3volution 22 hours ago
@jack3volution All we are seeing is the light that was emitted in the past. If those stars went nova then it is possible that we are looking at what has become us (our planet) because it is the past we are looking at. At least in the deep field. How neat. I love thinking about this.
736wilsonlm 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@736wilsonlm Thats impossible. Yes its 12 bill years ago but also 12 bill light years away! That is an unimaginably huge distance. The pieces of which the star was made of. Can not race ahead of light to reach us here before we see it (as light in a telescope like hubble) and make our planet.
jack3volution 1 week ago
@UsmanUrRehmanAhmed No. However, the Universe is homogeneous on large scales. So while the geometry of the spatial expansion would not allow for us seeing earlier versions of matter currently in this area of the Universe, what we do see would be indistinguishable from what this area would have looked like at that time. Not exactly the same, star for star. But statistical distributions would be equivalent.
sbergman27 1 day ago
ok so there is this CMB radiation coming from everywhere, that happened at the big bang, and its traveling away from the universe because yet its reflected back of nothing so we can observe it... or there are othere galaxys whoms light with the expansion of space has stretched into microwave and it is not the CMB. u even called galaxys points so they would need heaps more sensitive equiptment. Physicisits even said them selfs that the variarions in the CMB is where voids are, but why is it even
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 1) CMB reflected? why?? 2) variation in the CMB with respect to the average (both positive and negative) of course happen where there is more or less matter. 3) Observing a source as point-like, is not only related to the luminosity of the source itself, but also to the wavelength you observe, and to the instruments. There are point-like QSO that are more luminous than some more nearby galaxies..
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 The BB happened when all of space, itself, was a point. Space, itself, then expanded rapidly. Until age 380,000yrs light could not propagate. Thus the CMB radiation is an image of the Universe at that age. It is & has always been everywhere, traveling in every direction. What we see today (and tomorrow) is always radiation that happened to start in our direction at such a time as to pass us now. It's hasn't "reflected". And there will always be more. See:
/watch?v=MoTNGmlOO2g
sbergman27 1 day ago
@sbergman27 I prefer to think of space-time as infinite. And the CMB is in debate if it came from the BB
Typho0n86 1 day ago
@Typho0n86 We have to distinguish between the Universe & the Observable Universe. The Universe may or may not be infinite in extent. We don't know. The Observable Universe is what we usually mean when we sloppily say "Universe". It's the 45.7 billion light-year radius sphere around us representing all that we can, in principle, see at this time. Considering the wealth of data from COBE, WMAP, & Planck, claiming the CMB is "in debate" is literally in the same class as claiming the Earth is flat.
sbergman27 1 day ago
@sbergman27 And saying that all of space-time came from one point is like saying Jesus walked on water, but thats not the point. The point is, is that both theorys break down when we follow them back, so we really dont know what happend, and thats why the CMB is in dabate. I guess you are stuck in the past and have no clue about what therotical physics are developing. There is still lots to be uncovered and to have a closed mind like yours we will never get anywhere.
Typho0n86 1 day ago
@Typho0n86 I've reviewed your discussion w/supergiuovane & see he's addressed the facts well. I'll give you credit for thinking, but it appears you don't understand some key concepts. In particular I'd recommend studying blackbody radiation until you understand what it is & why it means your view can't be right. Your 'distant galaxies' hypothesis can't explain a blackbody radiation curve. Let alone 1 uniform to within 0.001%. You're confused re: CMB being 'in debate'. Name these 'new theories'.
sbergman27 1 day ago
@sbergman27 If you look at the CMBR you will see that there is a band around the centre that lines up with our galaxy... which is suspicious enough in its self. All its measuring is the background temperature, which is a bit of a leap to link it to the BB, where black holes can emit the same radiation. To say that the temperature of space is even, therefore it came from the big bang is ludicrous and without testable foundation. Other theories; The Hydrogen/CMBR model, string theory.
Typho0n86 21 hours ago
@Typho0n86 That band *is* the plane of our galaxy. Everyone knows that. (Except for you, apparently.) See:
tinyurlDOTcom/78llng2
Using data from multiple freqs, near sources can be removed, leaving the center image. But it's good you're noticing distribution. I'm following up with a post describing what is required of your "distant galaxies" hypothesis. Study the power spectrum, especially. It shows BB Cosmology's pre-observation *prediction*. Predicting that is a phenomenal triumph. (cont'd)
sbergman27 20 hours ago
@sbergman27 Well I did know what and I just assumed it. LOL. So if that band is our galaxy the that proves that it can come from other sources and didnt come from the big bang... easy. There are heaps of contridictions in this theory.
Typho0n86 19 hours ago
@Typho0n86 (cont'd) You seem confused re: string theory. It's not antithetical to the Standard Cosmology. It's an attempt to merge G with QM. BB is still very much central to ST. Regarding Hydrogen/CMBR, are you really serious? Or joking? It seems to be a paper sent to Phys Rev by some random guy in Australia with no credentials & even less of a grasp of physics than you, whining about Phys Rev's summary rejection. Stand by for my promised high points of the hurdles your hypothesis must address.
sbergman27 19 hours ago
@sbergman27 "Regarding Hydrogen/CMBR" you wanted to see some extra theorys, i didnt say i agreed with them. What degree do you have?
Typho0n86 17 hours ago
@Typho0n86 You asserted I wasn't aware of "what therotical physics are developing". I asked for specifics & you specified ST, which is orthogonal to the topic@hand & that Australian blogger w/the rejected paper. i'm not pushing my own personal theory, but my degree is a BS in CS from U of Cntrl Ok with a minor in Engineering including 3 semesters physics, 3 semesters Calculus, & 2 thermodynamics. Currently studying Linear Algebra & Diff E @ ocw.mit.edu. Tell me about your educational background.
sbergman27 16 hours ago
@sbergman27 Computer science Bachelors degree?? I have a degree in civil avaition and curently in 3rd year of architecture from UNISA Double math and physics. Well my point of view is that the current model is wrong, cause of the BB and black holes. And we shouldnt be making assumptions of where the CMBR comes from. If it did come from inflation, then the universe is still continualy expanding and increasing, and can cause this Tempature.
Typho0n86 16 hours ago
@Typho0n86 "Double math and physics"
Now you are trying to pass made up on the fly fiction as fact. Our conversation, & your exchanges with supergiuovane, make it painfully obvious that you have no math or physics background. e.g. black body radiation is typically 2nd semester physics. And you said to supergiuovane:
"Black body emission = black hole radiation right?"
That's... bad. It's too late, not to mention rather pathetic, for you to try to spin fictions about your educational background.
sbergman27 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sbergman27 Double math and physics was refering to school, but anyways, what the fuck would a computer scientiest know?
en*wikipedia*org/wiki/Black_body#Black_holes
Now you calling me pathetic, cause i see that there is a problem with the BB and black holes, Nice quote there too bad i didnt say that "Black body emission = black hole radiation right?" fucking puting words in my mouth
Fuck off u closed minded cant think for him self idiot
Typho0n86 16 hours ago
@sbergman27 I already know most of the shit that you have been rabbling on about, im not saying its wrong, im saying that it could come from other scources. But you stuck in the BB model... which has alot of problems and contridictions, as i keep explaining, but non is getting threw your thick closed mined skull. Heres an easy one, what caused the big bang... quantium fluxuations.... lol why hasnt it happened again, or even just a small one.
Typho0n86 16 hours ago
@Typho0n86 "quantium fluxuations"
That's not BB. Or even Inflation theory. Neither address the BB singularity itself or what came "before". Nor whether the U is finite or infinite, BTW. In Inflation, QM fluctuations are responsible for the tiny anisotropies in the otherwise very smooth early Universe. If you're saying the Standard Cosmology is incomplete, that's correct. Our physics stops @the singularity's Schwarzschild limit. Inflation is iffy. But after that, the SC is on very solid ground.
sbergman27 15 hours ago
@sbergman27 Thats what the LOL was for after ur quote cause it was a joke, you really like mixing up what i say. But thats the current theory of how the big bang happened. am i wrong? If not then i ask again which u seemed to have missed out... What caused the big bang?
Typho0n86 15 hours ago
@Typho0n86 You do a lot of back-pedaling. i.e. saying things & then claiming you didn't. Anyway, certain current hypotheses posit QM fluctuations as a BB precursor. I think that's part of M-Theory/String Theory, but I'm not certain. @ any rate, it is an idea that you'll see thrown around. By it's very nature as a Quantum phenomenon, it is not part of BB, which is a classical theory. Nor a bona fide part of the broader Standard Cosmology. It's not currently testable/falsifiable.
sbergman27 15 hours ago
@sbergman27 Yeah i need to do the back-pedaling cause u 'put words in my mouth' that i didnt say, and you dont answer the questions i ask. So u have no idea what caused the big bang... which is fair enough. I do gain alot of knowlage from arguing, but with the kinds of you who like to spit out the SM it goes nowhere, im trying to solve the problems with BB and BH's but yeah thanks for the waste of time
Typho0n86 14 hours ago
@Typho0n86 If you want to develop a real understanding of any type of modern physics, you're going to have to do some work. The good news is that there's never been a better time. I'll assume that you finished high school & got some basic Algebra several yrs ago. Here's a refresher course in Algebra, a 1st semester Calculus course, & an *excellent* 1st semester physics course:
tinyurlDOTcom/7xzmera
tinyurlDOTcom/2g4ocok
tinyurlDOTcom/2d5akhh
That should get you a good start.
sbergman27 6 hours ago
@sbergman27 If i didnt make my self clear before i shall reiterate; Fuck off you sarcastic cunt!
Typho0n86 6 hours ago
@Typho0n86 "Fuck off you sarcastic cunt!"
That was not sarcasm, but a serious recommendation to you. You owe it to yourself to check out the available resources, even if you don't happen to like me.
-Steve
sbergman27 6 hours ago
@sbergman27 Yeah sorry, it was ment for the other guy 'supergiuovane'
Typho0n86 6 hours ago
@Typho0n86 Seriously, supergiuovane is worth listening to. I've learned a few things reading over his posts. And you could, too. My unsolicited advice? Take advantage of the learning opportunity and don't let it get too personal.
sbergman27 5 hours ago
@sbergman27 I normaly find arguing quite educational and productive, but when people start throwing in 'low blows' like; "You really need to study", "lots of things you don't have a clue about" thats when it gets personal. But ill try and take you up on you advice... maybe
Typho0n86 5 hours ago
@Typho0n86 Sorry but if you want to talk about astrophysics, "You really need to study" and yes you've shown that there are "lots of things you don't have a clue about". And I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Apart from trying to make up things. So if you took those sentences as offense, then you have a problem.
supergiuovane 5 hours ago
@Typho0n86 You do need to study. *I* need to study. Recognizing that higher both mathematics & higher physics rest upon more foundational math & physics, I've started where I left off in school, taking virtual math & science courses based upon the prerequisites & corequisites listed in their syllabi. I would like to develop a deeper, more quantitative understanding of certain modern sciences. It's work. But satisfying work. And getting there is *more* than half the fun.
sbergman27 5 hours ago
@Typho0n86 What are these problems of the BB theory?
supergiuovane 14 hours ago
@supergiuovane Are you fucking serious?
Typho0n86 14 hours ago
@Typho0n86 Every theory is an approximation that holds until differences with the behaviour it predicts are observed. What are the observable that the BB theory fails to predict?
supergiuovane 14 hours ago
@supergiuovane what happened before? the singularity problem...
Typho0n86 14 hours ago
@Typho0n86 What happened before is a non-sense question, since according to the BB theory time was created with the BB event. Singularity? The BB theory nowadays speaks not about singularities which was instead a concept introduced tens of years ago as a way to deal with our ignorance. Anyway yours is not an answer to my question. What are the observable that the BB theory fails to predict?
supergiuovane 13 hours ago
@supergiuovane Pft thats another problem with the BB, saying that spacetime was created at that point... common you really believe that shit? Expecially when both the theorys break down.
You had to add that word observable to it to try and trip me up. But the big bang in its self is not observable.. so thats a pretty non-sense question. But it fails to predict how black holes work.. once again we run into the singularity problem of infinity.
Typho0n86 13 hours ago
@Typho0n86 1) The fact that you cannot conceive or understand a thing does not make it "shit". And... theories break down?
2) You clearly do not understand how science works. You make a theory and than you compare it with observations. And (again, do you know what science is...?) observable doesn't necessarily mean you observe the phenomenon itself, but also its consequences (you don't observe gravity, in fact...). The BB and BH are completely unrelated. Why should the BB predict BH?
supergiuovane 13 hours ago
@supergiuovane Well what caused the big bang? If what happened before the big bang is a non-sense question...
Whats beyond the visable universe... ohhh wait you said observable... lol thats a non-sense question.
Typho0n86 13 hours ago
@Typho0n86 So the fact that you don't observe what's beyond the visible universe makes the BB theory non valid. Very clever, I have to say!!! If you had a basic clue about science you would know what scientists means with the word "observable", which is a phenomenon that you can measure somehow. What caused the BB? Ever heard of quantum fluctuation and vacuum energy...?
supergiuovane 13 hours ago
@supergiuovane saying "What are the observable that the BB theory fails to predict?" is like saying; What colour are the red M&M's in the M&M packet?
Typho0n86 13 hours ago
@Typho0n86 Science: this unknown things, right? Ok, I'll make the question easier for you. Tell me one phenomenon that astronomers observe which is in contradiction with what the BB theory predicts. And I am talking about the standard theory, so (sorry to disappoint you) no singularity (the concordance model has no singularity in it...)
supergiuovane 13 hours ago
@supergiuovane So the big bang came from a singularity, and a black hole is a singularity but they are "completely unrelated" ROFL. The BB theory fails to predict the existence of dark matter and energy, and the increase of acceleration of the expansion of the universe. You cant just talk about one theory of the SM cause u need GR in it. So in what space did this quantum fluctuation happen? and why doesnt it happen again? or can be reproduced?
Typho0n86 8 hours ago
@Typho0n86 Congratulation,you're keeping on the same mistake.BB did not came out of a singularity,which is only a mathematical concept introduced as a way to say: we don't know yet what happened.And same goes for BH,whose formation is due to stellar evolution.Dark matter is FULLY included in the concordance model (LambdaCDM, please check), and acceleration of the universe is already included in the current theories. So, please, read wikipedia better. Quantum fluctuations? Check Casimir effect.
supergiuovane 8 hours ago
@supergiuovane Yeah they keep tagging on these things after they observe them, but it failed to predict it
Typho0n86 8 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supergiuovane whats with all the fucking; "Congratulation", "You clearly do not understand how science works", "Very clever, I have to say" some scientist you are!!! fk head, they. The theory is full of contradictions, then you say "we don't know yet what happened"
Typho0n86 8 hours ago
@Typho0n86 I had not seen this comment before. Well, a bit less of "fucking" please. Do you read what you write? It is clear that you don't know any serious clue about BH and/or BB and yes, even science. You still have to come up with observational evidence that the concordance model is not able to reproduce/explain.
supergiuovane 6 hours ago
@supergiuovane Hey Fuckhead Ill use all the FUCKS I want if you are insulting me. Any observations that astronomers make that dont fit the model, they just add on something new, *inflation*, but like I sad dark energy, and dark matter. And stop putting 'words in my mouth' "new Universes bursting out of black holes"
Typho0n86 6 hours ago
@Typho0n86 1) I never insult you. Show me where I did. 2) Any theory is subject to improvements, based on observations. 3) Evidences for dark matters do NOT come from the BB (e.g. gravitational lensing). 4) Where do you see me writing that you said: "Universes bursting out of black holes". Typical attitude of someone with no argument, yours: insulting. Please go on showing how clever you are.
supergiuovane 6 hours ago
@supergiuovane Both the theorys fail at predicting what happened at the start so they are only assuming from there. The CMBR can be made from other sources, like the band our galaxy makes in it... so why cant it be from other galaxys as well...? To understand the universe the next step is to understand black holes, which every galaxy has a huge one in its centre, and the bigger the galaxy the bigger the black hole... hrmmm lots of unanswerd questions the BB theory leaves
Typho0n86 8 hours ago
@Typho0n86 "hrmmm lots of unanswerd questions the BB theory leaves" should be more: lots of things you don't have a clue about. You keep talking about black hole formation as it depended on the BB. A BH is a DIRECT consequence of stellar evolution. And please: don't cite works you do not understand.. (I refer to the papers By Ferrarese, e.g.).CMB cannot by made up from galaxies, since galaxies DO NOT emit like black bodies, and the CMB is the most perfect black body ever observed in nature.
supergiuovane 8 hours ago
@supergiuovane Ohhhh fuck off cunt "lots of things you don't have a clue about". Then how did the band form that lines up with our galaxy??????
Typho0n86 8 hours ago
@Typho0n86 Very polite of you. It's dust, and molecular gas, whose spectral energy distribution is NOT that of a black body. You really need to study. Really. Check results from the Herschel survey HiGal, for example.
supergiuovane 8 hours ago
@supergiuovane And im not saying that BH depends on BB quite the opposite!!! if it even happened
Typho0n86 8 hours ago
@Typho0n86 BH are the latest stage of very massive stars. That's the way they form. When you have a very dense area, e.g. that in a galaxy bulge, BH can merge and "quickly" become extremely massive. For more information about the relation between the bulge and the BH mass start with the paper by Ferrarese and Merrit (2001).
supergiuovane 8 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supergiuovane en*wikipedia*org/wiki/Black_body#Black_holes
"making it almost an ideal black body" but "are not perfect black bodies"
Fuck i know how fucking black holes form, your a fucking idiot, LOL and your calling me polite you sarcastic freak.
Typho0n86 8 hours ago
@supergiuovane BlackBodyRadiation can come from black holes
Typho0n86 8 hours ago
@Typho0n86 "BlackBodyRadiation can come from black holes". This is simply fantastic. The only way a black hole would emit is through Hawking radiation, but completely different from a black body radiation. In fact you do NOT observe any emission coming directly from black holes. Shall I suggest you a book? "Accretion power in astrophysics", for example. Or "Radiative processes in astrophysics", very instructive.
supergiuovane 8 hours ago
@supergiuovane right there sarcasm; "Please go on showing how clever you are", "It is clear that you don't know any serious clue" "This is simply fantastic", "Very polite of you", "You really need to study", "lots of things you don't have a clue about"... Geee thanks those arnt insults.... thats sarcasm btw
Typho0n86 5 hours ago
@Typho0n86 Sarcasm is not offending, please. And (let's go one by one): 1) yes, your attitude does not prove you very clever. 2) your statements also showed you don't know what you are talking about. Sorry but it's as simple as this. Check some books. Talk to astrophysicists. 3) You really need to study, yes. Why? E.g. you don't know that the concordance model do not include any singularity. You talk about the Galactic dust lane or the CMB without any clue. Really..
supergiuovane 5 hours ago
Comment removed
Typho0n86 5 hours ago
@Typho0n86 You don't give a fuck what I think, sure. I wonder why you answered me so many time. BTW, by "your attitude" I mean the fact that you do not reply to my simple questions and, when you realize that what you just said is wrong, you start with the "fuck here, fuck there". What clever people do, is listen and try to understand while trying to make their point. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something, so please, at least do not pretend you do.
supergiuovane 5 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supergiuovane 1) My attiude comes about from ur scarcasm, and its not trying to prove how clever I am 2) I dont give a fuck what you think 3) go fuck ur self again
Typho0n86 5 hours ago
@supergiuovane I gather, from my previous conversation, that Typho0n86 is troubled by the fact that we don't observe new Universes bursting out of black holes on a regular basis. It's interesting that there has been all this talk about black holes, and the Big Bang, without ever hitting on what's probably the most puzzling feature of our universe: Where did all this amazingly low entropy come from?
It's the #1 question on my mind, personally. And arguably the #1 question facing Cosmology.
sbergman27 6 hours ago
@sbergman27 "..troubled by the fact that we don't observe new Universes bursting out of black holes on a regular basis." Yes, maybe. Under assumption that the word "singularity" makes the Universe = black hole. To me he just sounds like someone that knows because he have heard something but he did not understand. There's a lots of things one should know before pretending something is "completely wrong".
supergiuovane 6 hours ago
@supergiuovane And your pretending to know all about the big bang, im saying that im open to alternative theorys, and should not just tag on the CMBR to the BB.
Typho0n86 6 hours ago
@Typho0n86 No, I do not absolutely pretend I know everything, and of course I am open to new theory as everybody should. As I said in my second post, theories are by their very nature, subject to improvements. But I do not claim the BB is "wrong" because it does not predict BH..
supergiuovane 5 hours ago
@supergiuovane "But I do not claim the BB is "wrong" because it does not predict BH" Good for you
Typho0n86 5 hours ago
@Typho0n86 Well, that's what you, and only you, I guess.. I know about no astronomer claiming the same.
supergiuovane 5 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Typho0n86 "open to alternative theorys, and should not just tag on the CMBR to the BB"
The best place to start is to understand something about the most experimentally successful current theory, and how CMB relates to it. And then evaluate the more speculative, less well tested hypotheses. I linked to this before. But at minimum, you really should read through it:
tinyurlDOTcom/ycuyjj8
sbergman27 5 hours ago
@supergiuovane "assumption that the word singularity"
Similarities & differences. Both represent a boundary to what our current physics can describe. However, black holes represent the highest entropy density possible in our Universe. (Interestingly, a proportional to surface area & not volume.. but I digress.) And the BB boundary yielded a Universe of fantastically low entropy. A pretty spectacular difference, I'd say.
sbergman27 5 hours ago
@sbergman27 I agree. But then, why claiming a theory is wrong, when you do not know about its basic details?. And talking about black holes, (ok, maybe yet another topic...) what impresses me even more is the similarity with quantum particles. Amazing...
supergiuovane 5 hours ago
@supergiuovane Would you elaborate a bit? The closest I'm getting to what you might mean is Quantum Field Theory (SR+QM), but somehow I don't think that's it. I'm curious. A slight detour would probably not impede the impressive progress the main thread is making too terribly much.
sbergman27 5 hours ago
@sbergman27 Well, it comes from the simple observation that a BH is perfectly defined in all of its characteristics when you specify mass, charge and angular momentum, which is pretty much the same as for quantum particle. But that's about all I know. You can find a bit more in this fantastic book, you probably already know: "The elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. Very well written, in my own opinion.
supergiuovane 5 hours ago
@supergiuovane Thanks for the reply. Black Holes have no hair. Yes, I see what you mean. I've seen the Nova special, but don't have the book. I do have the later "The Hidden Reality", which is excellent. And of course, Sean Carroll's latest, "From Eternity to Here" is sitting on the table right next to me. Also excellent. After reading the latter, I'll never think about Entropy the same way again. Especially as to how it relates to gravity-dominated systems like... well... our Universe.
sbergman27 4 hours ago
@sbergman27 "From Eternity to Here"? Ok, this is going to be next one for me, thanks for the suggestion!!
supergiuovane 4 hours ago
@supergiuovane After you've read it, feel free to drop me a PM with your impressions. I think you may have quite a treat in store.
sbergman27 4 hours ago
@sbergman27 I absolutely will, thanks!!
supergiuovane 4 hours ago
@sbergman27 You want a screen shot of my fucking academic reccord?
Typho0n86 16 hours ago
@sbergman27 There as so many similaraties between a black hole and the start of the BB, so if the CMBR came from the BB then it can come from Black holes...
Typho0n86 15 hours ago
@sbergman27 You can keep quoting stuff from the standard model, which I already know, but it means didly squat to me untill, the black hole/BB problem has been solved
Typho0n86 16 hours ago
@Typho0n86 You think you can shift galaxy spectra down to get your freq. You must match the *whole curve* to within the error bars:
tinyurlDOTcom/72fuj7z
Some galaxy spectra: tinyurlDOTcom/84cj5yh
Redshifting will change the numbers but not the shape.
Then you need to make that curve uniform across the sky to within 0.001%. Then you need to match the power spectrum to within the error bars:
tinyurlDOTcom/7melltg
In red is the BB Cosmologys prediction from *before* the observation. Extraordinary.
sbergman27 19 hours ago
@sbergman27 So now your telling me that the band isnt from our galaxy....... ROFL!!!!!!!!!
Typho0n86 19 hours ago
@Typho0n86 "So now your telling me"
For your purposes, you can ignore it & work from the WMAP data with near sources subtracted. Just make the redshifted spectra of your distant galaxies look like uniform 2.7K blackbody radiation, with 0.001% anisotropies that exhibit an angular power function graph that looks like the WMAP graph. If you're right, it will be clear. (You'd get a Nobel.) Getting that right with an incorrect theory would be like winning the state lottery 38 times back to back.
sbergman27 19 hours ago
@sbergman27 Yes ignoring evidence, some scientist you are. If we have 2 seprate theorys that break down at the BB then how do they know it happened. They are just assuming, Just like they are assuming that the CMBR came from the BB. Once they get a better theory that can explain how the BB happened, then ill agree with you, but untill then all i see is contradictions, and would prefer to go into this with an open mind.
Typho0n86 19 hours ago
@Typho0n86 "..ignoring evidence.."
If you like, you can add in the known sources of noise to your galactic spectra & try to reproduce the raw data. If you can match the angular sizes vs magnitudes of the anisotropies exactly in that data, you should end up with the same power function. But it seems a frightful complexity for you to add, to no clear purpose. You might find this helpful:
tinyurlDOTcom/ycuyjj8
It also includes some highlights of the Standard Cosmology's experimental confirmations.
sbergman27 18 hours ago
@Typho0n86 (cont'd) "..that break down.."
GR breaks down *at* the singularity. QM does not, but doesn't include gravity. That's why the Standard (BB) Cosmology doesn't actually say anything about the singularity. Or anything about what came "before" (whatever that might mean). ST hopes to push past the BB singularity. But GR works perfectly well for any arbitrarily small 't'. CMB is a snapshot of the moment of recombination, 377,000yrs after the BB, when the Universe became transparent to light.
sbergman27 18 hours ago
it was fantastic untill he mentioned the big bang, then he lost all credit.
DRP996 3 weeks ago
this makes me wanna study austrology so badly i wish this field had job oprotunities open !!
win2rgirl 1 month ago
@win2rgirl You want to study Australia?
kingwillie206 1 month ago in playlist Science
@kingwillie206 For reasons unknown, the link I posted previously doesn't work directly.
Use:
oycDOTyaleDOTedu/astronomy
Replace 'DOT' with '.' of course.
The course name is: ASTR 160: FRONTIERS AND CONTROVERSIES IN ASTROPHYSICS
sbergman27 1 day ago
@win2rgirl "this makes me wanna study astronomy so badly"
There's never been a better time. Here is a Yale video course for non-science-majors which hits many of the exciting highlights of current astrophysics. More engaging than just listening to a talk, it will teach you to think like a scientist and to do basic calculations. And even better, to understand what your calculations mean. :-)
oycDOTyaleDOTedu/astronomy/astr-160#sessions
sbergman27 1 day ago
Thank you for that amazing clarification.
fractalsteve 1 month ago
ok if we look at one of these galaxy’s that is 12billion light years away, and then look in the opposite direction and find another one that is 12blillion light years away, then the width of the universe will be approx 24billion light years with us in the centre. What if we were to go to one of these galaxy’s and find that in all observable directions we could see other galaxy’s that were 12 billion light years away. kinda makes me wonder if the big bang is correct.
Typho0n86 2 months ago
@Typho0n86 "..if we were to go to one of these galaxy’s and find that in all observable directions we could see other galaxy’s that were 12 billion light years.."
Yes. That's exactly how the metric expansion of space works. We don't have to go there. We can map what people in those galaxies would see, in this direction at least, with the data we have. Keep reminding yourself that the BB was not an "explosion" & that there's no "center". Only metric expansion in all directions. That's what BB is.
sbergman27 1 day ago
we should get a microwave telescope and take a look at a blank spot in the ultra deep feild, i have a funny feeling that the cosmic microwave background radiation is actually other galaxys that light has gone past the visable range because space has expanded so much
Typho0n86 2 months ago
@Typho0n86 No, the microwave background it's actually the best black body radiation ever observed.
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane if light can shift into red due to the expansion of the universe, whats to stop it from going infared or microwave if its even further away? PS i think the universe is infinite so if you dont agree on that dont bother argung with me
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 It does, indeed, in fact all radiation is shifted according to its distance. But still.. The cosmic background is NOT made by point-like sources. BTW, about the universe being infinite or not, is not a matter of "thinking", but of what you observe (or what you don't..)
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane a galaxy is not a point
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 In the radio domain distance galaxies ARE point-like sources...
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane So my theory is wrong cause the biggest thing we know in the universe is really points... GW, almost disproves what im theoryizing :S i spose you think electrons are points as well. HAHA how little you know reality
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 Ho NOTHING you know about astronomy. Since it is based on observations, you have to rely on that. In astronomy the concept of point-like sources is widely used (check, please). The more distant is an object, the smaller its apparent size is, I guess you can understand this. A galaxy at redshift 3-4, in a radio image, appears as a point. Let's talk again when you're more familiar with the concept of angular resolution and point spread function, ok?
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane If its based on observation then how do they know then cosmic microwave background radiation is from the big bang? No matter where we point the telescope in the sky we see galaxys, so if the universe is inifinte then there could be galaxys so far away that they have shifted into the microwave range, if so they would be everywhere and look like a blur, with some being clusters of galaxys etc... The most distant galaxys are a few pixels, they do have size. we need higher rez stuff
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 1) few pixel is still point-like. It is a matter of resolving power as a function of wavelength AND of Point Spread Function. Instruments are build such that you can sample the point spread function of an object with at least 3 pixels. 2) What would be the physical mechanism that shapes the emission from distant galaxies to have the exact same form of a black body at a temperature of ~ 2.7 K?
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane 1) care about points ne more 2) the expansion of space-time
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 1) good, means how you know about astronomy. 2) The expansion of space time, just moves rest-frame fluxes to lower frequencies, there is no single physical reason why the shape of the global emission should be exactly that of a black body. Galaxies do NOT emit like black bodies
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane 2 wouldnt the distant galaxys have their own supermasive balck holes at the center of them so of course they would have the same emmissions...
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 1) not all of the most distant galaxies are QSO; 2) Let's assume that they have an active black hole, let's assume that the accretion rate is the same for all of them, let's assume that the BH mass is the same for all of them, let's assume that they all look like the same. Why would you see an emission peaking at 1.87 mm as if the sum of all emission of all QSO at all redshifts would peak there?
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane probably wouldnt peak there if they could get more sensitive detectors and look at even further away 'blank space' and see what they get, Like this experement would have to be done like the hubble deep feild, but with like a pinhole in the deep feild and in the infared/microwave, and then if its really infinite it would be in the radio range as well. ;)
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 No, it's not a matter of instrument sensitivity. The cosmic background radiation has been very good sampled well beyond its peak. Most recent and sensitive observations with Planck just confirm this.
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane How much background radio radiation is there that we dont know where it came from!
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane Every direction we look in there are galaxys, furthere going faster and reder, so it apears to us that we are the center of the universe, and the universe is 27 billion light years across. But then if we were to go to the furtherst away galaxy that we can see, would we see that as the center with lots of other galaxys around it? or would that be the edge?
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 The universe that we can observe is that wide. But this has nothing to do with the fact that the spectral energy distribution of distant galaxies makes up a perfect black body emission.
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane its not even perfect
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 What is your reference? The cosmic background radiation is by far the closest approximation to a black body emission ever observed and measured in nature. Nothing else gets so close to it (less than 1% over 3 order of magnitudes).
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane Well it could be other supermasive black hole galaxys, that are beyond the reach of light. If its the same radiation, and everyone has one in its center then that makes pretty good sense
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 No, it makes no sense. ALso if these "black hole galaxies" (what's the meaning of this, btw?) were "beyond the reach of light", then.. no light at whatever wavelength would contribute to the cosmic background... But I'm glad to re-think my opinion if you show me a model where galaxies can make up a black body emission.
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane Black body emission = black hole radiation right? And theres a supermasive black hole in the middle of every galaxy...
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 No, absolutely wrong. 1) black holes do NOT emit light; 2) what they instead do is power emission by accreting matter that would very efficiently emit huge amount of energy in the form of light. That's what a QSO is. Not all of the galaxies, in fact, have an "active" black hole. But come on.. this is BASIC physics..
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane Active black holes do emit light though, well not the hole but the stuff around it. But the star doesnt emit light either its just the crust on the outside that does ;)
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 No, the processes that form light actually happen inside a star, while light emission is generated outside the black hole. But that's not the point. The point is that black body radiation is NOT black hole radiation. They are two distinct things and, again, they cannot be responsible for the CMB.
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane Everytime we have thought we are the center of something, things take a big shift :D, of course i cant prove these yet.. but maybe one day you will think wow that guy on youtube allready knew about all this stuff, where you are 90 and in your chair watching the news and Australia is the new world power :P
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 Astronomers (or scientists in general) do not believe that earth is at the centre of the Universe. From a mere observational point of view, each point in the Universe is at the centre of the Universe itself.
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane Are you telling me that space is round? It has been measured as flat, but we probably need more precice mesurements. But Im saying that its infinite. If its round, then i dont like the idea that its expanding into nothing, If its infinite then alot of things make more scence
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 Do you know what "flat" means in a cosmological context? A flat space is perfectly consistent with what I say: from each point in the universe you will see space expanding and galaxies moving apart from you.
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane In a flat universe if we went to the furtherst away galaxy that we can see 13.2 billion ly away, we we look around, on one side we should see nothing and on the other we should see the rest of the universe, If it was round the when we looked around we we see other galaxys everwhere, unless the universe is inifinite and there are other galaxys out there that are beyond our light range
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
@Typho0n86 You got the meaning of "flat" completely wrong. Also the word "round" is quite meaningless in this context. Opposite to "flat", when talking about topology of the Universe, is "close" and "open". But, again, this has nothing to do with the CMB being made up by the emission of distant galaxies.
supergiuovane 3 weeks ago
@supergiuovane If space was curved back on its self it would be round. Curving back around on its self would be a saddle shape, but that is also round so i was just simplifying it for you. I didnt say they emitted light fk hd, ever hear about hawking radiation.
Typho0n86 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Typho0n86 "whats to stop it from going infared or microwave"
It can & does. That's why the CMB is in the microwave range. It wasn't originally. At the distance of our particle horizon, 45.7B LY away, objects shift, essentially, to infinitely long wavelengths as the expansion of the space between us carries them past our light cone and they literally disappear from our Observable Universe.
sbergman27 1 day ago
Comment removed
Typho0n86 2 months ago
awesome video....I do not know much about deep space ..MY question is ..Why do the earth scientists always assume that the Earth is ALWAYS in the middle of the universe?
1marceltony 2 months ago
@1marceltony They do not assume that
alexigirgis 1 month ago
24:03 red shit
CognitiveNetwork 2 months ago
Fantastic viideo!
o00Tigger00o 2 months ago
wonderful ideas..
abhiramk55 2 months ago
ok, if he is saying that the light that we are seeing of a galaxy or star from millions/billions miles away is what it physically WAS millions/billions years ago, will we see the galaxy or star any different than what it was if we see it again in a million years????????????(prob wont be here still :P)
AznSensationZ95 2 months ago
how is picture info stored in light and does light ever lose owt after billion years travel . if galaxies end of universe are travelling faster than light then if you were on these galaxies looking at earth we would be travelling Faster than light cos of expansion ,so i dont feel like were traveliling that fast or wed know
sajakram1 3 months ago
how is picture info stored in light and does light ever lose owt after billion years travel
sajakram1 3 months ago
I hope when the ALMA telescope is completed in 2013 that we get cool vids like this for it.
Zurround100 3 months ago
The James Webb telescope has been on the budget chopping block for some time now. Let's all pray that we they fly the thing one day!
smkipus 3 months ago
how do we know we r at the edge of the universe. imagine u r at the other side side of the universe doin the same experiment. wil u not get the same red light area from our galaxy. wat if we(milky way galaxy) are not expanding away but the other side is expanding away and like he said those distance galaxies are young but wat if our galaxy is younger dan those at the distance. and due to vase distance we only receive small amount of light from them to assume its young. wat if we are wrong.
2550prince 3 months ago
Comment removed
2550prince 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wat if the center of universe is not at the other side but on our side... will we still hve the same result of seing those galazy like we do now. imagine ur on the other side n watching us will we get the same result we get from here. just wondering..
2550prince 3 months ago
i dont mean any disrespect to the guy because i like the video and everything but... i just wish the got someone a little more comfortable on camera.
isSHEEPMANimmortal 3 months ago
To look into the ancient past.
flusa74 3 months ago
What an amazing world we're living in.
punpcklbw 4 months ago
Imagine what we could see with The jams web space telescope
tavit111 4 months ago
WOW!!! Such great info. Thanks.
prettycountrygirl2 4 months ago