Following the redshift - from HST to JWST - part 1

In this fourth episode of the Science@ESA vodcast series Rebecca Barnes will identify some of the key discoveries achieved with the famous Hubble Space Telescope, look at the concept of redshift, and meet a new telescope that will be used to uncover the early Universe.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• ESA
• science
• technology
• space
• Hubble Space Telescope
• astronomy
• cosmology
• JWST
• James Webb Space Telescope
• infrared
• galaxies
• redshift
• electromagnetic spectrum
• Universe
• Science@ESA
• educational

[staranjela]

interesting video and very informative

[sbergman27]

@Znobyrd The 1987 Troitskii paper is of historical interest. What he was trying to do was imagine a solution to 2 puzzles of the time which are now resolved: "superluminal motion" of certain quasars, now known to be illusions due to SR. And the "too smooth" CMB, resolved by COBE. I'm not sure I understand your question, but the 2nd law has nothing to do with the the U losing energy. In fact, total energy is increasing. When light does lose energy, it becomes lower frequency, not slower.

[sbergman27]

@Znobyrd (cont'd) It also causes the entropy of a spherical volume to scale as the *area* of the sphere and not the volume. The Wikipedia article "Holographic Principle" is good. And your question is a major topic in the book I recommended to you. The holographic principle gets a chapter, as well. That we started out with such low entropy is a mater of empirical record. And it's what gives us our arrow of time. But *how* that happened is the sort of question that can keep one up at night.

[sbergman27]

@Znobyrd I very much want to see that question answered in my lifetime. It's likely related to quantum gravity. Both quantum mechanics and gravity are critically important at the BB. Our gravity theory, General Relativity, doesn't work near the BB. But we know from applying a combination of quantum theory & special relativity to black holes that quantum gravity has some very powerful & bizarre effects upon entropy. For one thing, it puts a cap on the maximum entropy in a given volume. And more.

[washmlakid]

@Znobyrd I'm certain you don't understand thermodynamics. If you did, you would know that the the 1st Law prohibits the "constant loss of energy throughout the Universe". Rather, if the Universe is a closed system, entropy must remain constant or increase. This is related to the 'heat death of the Universe' postulated by many Cosmologists. Once maximum entropy is reached, i.e. no work may be done, the Universe will be at thermal equilibrium, and entropy will thereafter remain constant.

[Znobyrd]

@sbergman27 Where did the unimaginably low entropy come from?

[Znobyrd]

@sbergman27 ldolphin /troitskii/ (remove space)

Also reference research by Tifft on quantized redshifts. I'm not changing the subject; there is order in the universe, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy, indicates a constant loss of energy throughout the universe, for light as well. The question remains: where did the order of energy come from in order to decay. Go ahead, don't answer it.

[sbergman27]

@Znobyrd (cont'd) Immediately after the BB, 13.75 (+/- 0.14) billion yrs ago, our Universe was in a state of unimaginably low entropy. Something like 1/10th of a trillionth of the entropy it has today. The entropy gradient is what powers *everything* in the Universe. If entropy were not increasing there could be no stars, galaxies, or life. Its' only the 2nd Law that allows energy consuming islands of order, like life, to exist. 2nd law applies to the whole system. Islands are no violation.

[sbergman27]

@Znobyrd Offensive? Or is it simply that you do not have any counterargument to Dr. Aardsma's analysis? Also, you specifically said: "There are others who have looked at the same theory from other angles, including quantum physics, and come to the same conclusion."

I'm simply asking you for verification of that claim. Who looked? Who agreed? Where can I read about this? If your claims are true, you should be able to provide at least 1 reference. Instead, you are trying to change the subject.

[Znobyrd]

@sbergman27 The tone of this discussion is quickly becoming one of offense due to religious or naturalistic biases. I have read the links you provided and some others as well. Clearly Setterfield is "reaching" for his own conclusions and may be in need of some criticism, however Dr. Aardsma said "the one-sidedness of the data before 1800 seems odd."

A larger issue: a universe is in existence, in which there exists some order. Knowing the 2nd law of thermodynamics, how did any order manifest?