News Release 8-Jul-2019
Neutron star mergers can provide new ‘cosmic ruler’
National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Astronomers using National Science Foundation (NSF) radio telescopes have demonstrated how a combination of gravitational-wave and radio observations, along with theoretical modeling, can turn the mergers of pairs of neutron stars into a “cosmic ruler” capable of measuring the expansion of the Universe and resolving an outstanding question over its rate.
The astronomers used the NSF’s Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) and the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope (GBT) to study the aftermath of the collision of two neutron stars that produced gravitational waves detected in 2017. This event offered a new way to measure the expansion rate of the Universe, known by scientists as the Hubble Constant. The expansion rate of the Universe can be used to determine its size and age, as well as serve as an essential tool for interpreting observations of objects elsewhere in the Universe.
Two leading methods of determining the Hubble Constant use the characteristics of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the leftover radiation from the Big Bang, or a specific type of supernova explosions, called Type Ia, in the distant Universe. However, these two methods give different results.
“The neutron star merger gives us a new way of measuring the Hubble Constant, and hopefully of resolving the problem,” said Kunal Mooley, of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) and Caltech.
The technique is similar to that using the supernova explosions. Type Ia supernova explosions are thought to all have an intrinsic brightness which can be calculated based on the speed at which they brighten and then fade away. Measuring the brightness as seen from Earth then tells the distance to the supernova explosion. Measuring the Doppler shift of the light from the supernova’s host galaxy indicates the speed at which the galaxy is receding from Earth. The speed divided by the distance yields the Hubble Constant. To get an accurate figure, many such measurements must be made at different distances.
When two massive neutron stars collide, they produce an explosion and a burst of gravitational waves. The shape of the gravitational-wave signal tells scientists how “bright” that burst of gravitational waves was. Measuring the “brightness,” or intensity of the gravitational waves as received at Earth can yield the distance.
“This is a completely independent means of measurement that we hope can clarify what the true value of the Hubble Constant is,” Mooley said.
However, there’s a twist. The intensity of the gravitational waves varies with their orientation with respect to the orbital plane of the two neutron stars. The gravitational waves are stronger in the direction perpendicular to the orbital plane, and weaker if the orbital plane is edge-on as seen from Earth.
“In order to use the gravitational waves to measure the distance, we needed to know that orientation,” said Adam Deller, of Swinburne University of Technology in Australia.
Over a period of months, the astronomers used the radio telescopes to measure the movement of a superfast jet of material ejected from the explosion. “We used these measurements along with detailed hydrodynamical simulations to determine the orientation angle, thus allowing use of the gravitational waves to determine the distance,” said Ehud Nakar from Tel Aviv University.
This single measurement, of an event some 130 million light-years from Earth, is not yet sufficient to resolve the uncertainty, the scientists said, but the technique now can be applied to future neutron-star mergers detected with gravitational waves.
“We think that 15 more such events that can be observed both with gravitational waves and in great detail with radio telescopes, may be able to solve the problem,” said Kenta Hotokezaka, of Princeton University. “This would be an important advance in our understanding of one of the most important aspects of the Universe,” he added.
###
The international scientific team led by Hotokezaka is reporting its results in the journal Nature Astronomy.
The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation, operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.
So it must be OK because they got ‘theoretical modeling’ confirming it.
Right….
No. They are using the theoretical modeling to make predictions that are then tested against the new observations.
It is an independent way of getting the Hubble constant using similar principles as looking at supernovas.
Not all science is junk.
well, the problem is a serious physical one.
Our information is NOT absolute, but is very source, dependent. There is NO absolute sea level, nor space/time. And the same measuring limits apply to the above. It’s good to have several methods, but thinking there is an absolute Time for when the unvierse began, esp. when it’s Complex system and NOT linear/logical. Is the basic flaw here.
More measurements are good. But thinking we will get an absolute measure is meaningless in view of Einstein’s relativity epistemology. There is NO absolute time or space, nor likely much of anything absolute. It’s all relative to our relatively arbitrary methods.
And the facts that using linear logics, maths, and concepts when we KNOW our universe of events i likely 99+% complex system, is the problem.
None of our models are even beginning to be complete. And those MUST be factored into these discussions.
There isn’t any such thing as gravitational waves.The 2017 experiment that supposedly detected them was a fraud. Cosmology has as big a problem in believability and verifiability as climate science has. It all starts with the big bang which contravenes all known laws of physics. If you believe in the big bang then you believe in fairy dust. The supposed cosmic background radiation was actually IR from our oceans.
How was your day?
That “fraudulent” experiment has detected 18 GW events (both BBH and BNS mergers) since 4 April 2019.
Must be pretty good “fraud” as the Italians are in on most of those. The Japanese are about to join the party by the end of the year maybe too.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/gsjournal/einstein-disproved-by-the-michelson-morley-experim-t10298.html
They are all part of another groupthink. Even Einstein admitted in 1954 that it was quite possible that a continuous structure universe doesn’t exist. “In that case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included….” If a scientist like Einstein had so little belief in his own theories, we would do well to critically examine them.
Alan,
That really is just complete nonsense. All the evidence shows that the special theory of
relativity is correct. This include the existence of positrons, the time dilation of muons,
the fact that GPS works etc. etc.
Everything about the General Theory tests out too. And that is where GPS accuracy “works.” (Corrections for being inside a gravitational well.)
GPS works because the system is constantly being recalibrated precisely to keep it working, not because of some relativistic hocus pocus. The whole “duhrrr…your GPS phone workin’ proves muh relativity, brauh” trope is a belief of modern semi-smart wankers who sit at the feet of science popularizers and know little of spirit and practice of science.
This whole article is a glimpse into just how deep into the woods the so-called scientific community has gotten itself. Using nonexistent gravitational waves to measure the nonexistent Hubble expansion is about as close to ridiculous as it’s possible to get (as in 1/1000th of a proton diameter close).
The Special Theory has nothing to do with any of this, and the GPS system doesn’t use GR in any way shape or form, and thus can not be used to validate the correctness of GR.
GR might be correct, but it might not be. Nobody cares, or do they? It’s all very much a probability field, and one must observe the careness to determine the careness.
someone said that GR has nothing to do with GPS. I suggest reading chapter 18 of vol. 2 of Parkinson and Spilker (AIAA book on GPS). That chapter (70+ pages) is titled “Introduction to Relativistic Effects on the Global Positioning System.”
Alan you are p5obably right particularly about Einsteins calculations. He was not good at Maths and made some poor contradictory assumptions. Also, it appears that there is no background temperature left from the big bang. That measurement was was with poor instruments which could not eliminate the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere. a much more precise combined visual and radio telescope built by Russians in I think Armenia has shown no background temperature.
Emission theories are more or less conclusively disproved by the simple fact that through a telescope, the orbits of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn display completely normal orbital timings as viewed from earth. I say “more or less” because I recall my physics mentor telling me around 1974 that, although they seem obviously wrong, if you are willing to make up more and more unlikely hypotheses, they can be saved, but the amount of strange stuff you need to invent is so unlikely that no one believes them in practice. I didn’t pursue it with him, so I can’t vouch for it myself.
A more interesting theory is that by Indian physicist Narlikar. He says “Let’s assume that the equations of general relativity are correct, but also assume that space is flat – what happens?”
Well, physics theories are like half inflated balloons. If you press them down in one place they have to go up in another. He found that to make these two postulates work together, rest mass cannot be constant, it is proportional to the time since the matter was created squared.
Astronomer Halton Arp uses this to explain many strange features in astronomy. Too long to go into in detail here, but briefly, he thinks matter is created in the centre of galaxies with zero rest mass and therefore flies out at the speed of light, but as its mass increases, it must slow down. This results in the common phenomenon of a large galaxy surrounded by many smaller, newer ones. Since the newer matter is less massive, it has less energy and light it emits is red-shifted. In time the new matter forms galaxies which in turn emit more newer matter and so on. The oldest galaxy will be the largest, the next oldest smaller, newer ones even smaller, and so on. The result is a local group of galaxies, the oldest is the largest containing the oldest, most massive, most energetic matter, whose light will therefore be blue-shifted relative to the younger galaxies, the youngest having the most red shift.
Thus it might not be that Andromeda is moving towards us – perhaps the light is intrinsically bluer than our galaxy’s light.
>>
Thus it might not be that Andromeda is moving towards us – perhaps the light is intrinsically bluer than our galaxy’s light.
<<
A complete misunderstanding of the Doppler effect. They don’t look at the color of the light; they look at the emission and absorption lines in the spectrum. For example, the Lyman-alpha line of hydrogen appears at 1215.67 angstroms in the laboratory. It is due to an n=2 electron dropping to orbital n=1. If you see the line shifted to a shorter wavelength–then it’s blue-shifted. If that line is shifted to a longer wavelength–then it’s red-shifted.
It’s true that young-massive stars are bluer than older-less massive stars. But the color is due to their temperature. The Lyman-alpha line is independent of temperature. Two stars, side-by-side, one is a hot, blue O-type, and the other is a much cooler, red M-type will have the same Lyman-alpha shift if they have the same relative Doppler motion.
Jim
Jim Masterson July 14, 2019 at 9:39 am
“A complete misunderstanding of the Doppler effect.”
A complete misunderstanding of my comment.
I know perfectly well what red and blue shifts are, absorption lines etc. It doesn’t change a single word of what I said. You say:
“For example, the Lyman-alpha line of hydrogen appears at 1215.67 angstroms in the laboratory. It is due to an n=2 electron dropping to orbital n=1. If you see the line shifted to a shorter wavelength–then it’s blue-shifted. If that line is shifted to a longer wavelength–then it’s red-shifted.”
I don’t see anything on my comment that disagrees with that. But Narlikar and Arp’s hypothesis is that the actual subatomic particles making up Andromeda are more massive than the ones making up the Milky Way. Thus, this transition has a higher energy and therefore has a higher intrinsic frequency for matter in Andromeda than the same transition occurring in matter in our galaxy. Hence it is intrinsically blue-shifted relative to the same emission (or absorption) lines in our galaxy. If that blue shift is a Doppler effect, yes, Andromeda is moving towards us. But if it is even in part an intrinsic property of the light, then it might not be.
Just a thought: either write your remarks without snark, or be very very sure you are correct before writing.
>>
. . . hypothesis is that the actual subatomic particles making up Andromeda are more massive than the ones making up the Milky Way. Thus, this transition has a higher energy and therefore has a higher intrinsic frequency for matter in Andromeda than the same transition occurring in matter in our galaxy.
<<
So you weren’t as naive as I thought–you were advocating new physics. The principle of relativity (among other things) assumes that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. It doesn’t take much altering of the physical properties of subatomic particles to change how stars behave. There is no evidence of this strange behavior of stars–not in our nearby sister galaxy, M-31, nor in more distant galaxies.
I’m sorry I was snarky in my previous reply. I should have been more snarky. Advocating new physics is a greater hurdle to overcome than just accepting what you apparently don’t want to accept–the Doppler effect is real.
One of the interesting things about supernovae is that they have characteristic brightening and dimming light curves. Supernovae are classified according to their spectra, but you can also tell what type of supernova it is from how fast and long it takes to brighten and then fade.
Supernovae in very distant galaxies take longer to brighten and fade than in nearby galaxies. That would be a correct effect if those distant galaxies are receding at relativistic speeds–time dilation in accordance with Special Relativity.
Jim
Jim Masterson July 15, 2019 at 11:38 am
“So you weren’t as naive as I thought–you were advocating new physics. ”
Well I was replying to a comment that offered new physics, said why that new physics didn’t work, and offered some other new physics that might interest some of the readers here. A bit hard to miss I would have thought.
“I’m sorry I was snarky in my previous reply. I should have been more snarky.”
Something wrong with you?
“Advocating new physics is a greater hurdle to overcome than just accepting what you apparently don’t want to accept–the Doppler effect is real.”
Sigh. Where did I say anything of the sort?
1. I reported Narlikar’s work (because the participants here are generally a very intellectually curious crowd), didn’t say one way or the other whether I believed it.
2. Even if I believed it, I never made the silly assertion that the Doppler effect isn’t real. The question is whether this red shift is the Doppler effect or maybe not, or maybe only partly Doppler and partly something else.
Re your comments about SN light curves. Have you considered the effect on timing that having all the matter of a lighter mass would make – because buttons to a bootnail all those calculations were done on the assumption that particle masses are fixed. Not saying it’s wrong, just that your assumptions seem somewhat overconfident.
Anyway, enough of that. I joined in a discussion about alternative physics with some more alternative physics. Seems reasonable enough to me.
And the Indians.
Uh, well, yes there is. LIGO was first built in the USA with a very long ~3K mile baseline. They consistently detected baseline fluctuations which met the criteria for Einstein’s gravity waves.
But, and they were sensible, they knew the problem of systemic errors AND confirmations. So when the Eurozone LIGO cam on line, they then compared their findings. And found that a few that they’d missed were found on the Italiano LIGO. Thus, the two different LIGO’s were finding virtually the SAME events, coming form the same places. And that statistically, it was HIGHLY significant that those were gravity waves.
Just google LIGO, and see the data. It’s very robust.
They detected something, that might be gravity waves, or it might be distortions within spacetime itself. Heck, it might even be waves of radiations that propagate and appear as gravity.
Won’t know until the results can be duplicated and created in a controlled setting. If they can’t create the waves, then they can’t claim they are something.
We can’t create stars. Do we dump astronomy?
Backing away slowly. Calm down there big guy. i wasn’t talking about you. i was talking about the Mets on the phone with my friend. OK. I didn’t mean anything by it.
Dead theories have dead theories attached to them, such as “Inflation’, Dark Energy, and Dark Matter.
Your comment is odd. No content or indication that you have any knowledge of the subject, yet your emotions are at 11.
Are you interested in science or do you have some other reason for your comment(s)?
Astronomy is the only field in science that is allowed to change the laws of physics to keep its theory alive. Who the heck approved the changes? If they do not work did anybody go back to the start of the astronomy problem?
If a theory is dead of course the proposed changes to the laws in physics is also dead.
Astronomy has changed the laws of physics three times to try to make paradoxes that disprove that theory go away.
1. What ever makes ‘Inflation’ happen.
Inflation is the name for the 100,000 times faster than the speed of light expansion of all the space in the universe that is theorized to have happened just after the big bang, happened.
If theorize new physics ‘Inflation’ could not happen the big bang theory has multiple paradoxes.
The expansion of space than stops. It must be space expansion as the mechanism must move all the clusters of atoms apart without changing the velocity of the cluster of atoms.
This is really special changing the laws of physics.
15 years ago it was found that the mechanism ‘inflation’ if it could happen, inflation would have happened again which is impossible as we would be dead.
The solution to the it is not even theoretically possible to invent inflation is called the We are alive so there must be a way to tune the universe parameters so inflation does not happen again and kill us, theory.
That really is not a theory as it is not falsifiable.
The signal that is called the cosmic microwave background radiation is 30 times too smooth (it varies as 1/100,000 and should vary as 1/3000 or less) as if it is cosmic and there was a big bang, it represents the distribution of matter in the early universe.
If it is too smooth atoms would be distributed so evenly in the early universe, galaxies and stars would never form.
There is a massive cold spot in the signal which is called cosmic microwave background, which would mean there is a massive void in the universe which is impossible as the universe should be isotropic on large scale.
The Cold spot and a suite of other ‘CMB’ observational paradoxes such as things lining up with the axis of our galaxy and so on are called the large scale problems.
2. The invention of Dark Energy change to the laws of physics. Dark energy is a ‘place’ holder as it theoretically impossible.
Twenty years ago it has found that there are a great deal of astronomical observations that do not change correctly with red shift.
Dark Energy has invented to correct for one of these redshift anomalies.
Dood…
The problem is the GW signal from binary neutron star (BNS) mergers is only detectable out to a few hundred megaparsecs (Mpc) (a parsec = 3.2615 ly) with current generation of GW interferometers.
[Binary black holes merger (BBH) are much more massive affairs in terms of radiated GW energy and they have been detected recently beyond 5 Gpc (beyond the visual light EM range of telescopes), but they don’t have an EM light signature due to merger of event horizons before the holes actually merge. ]
So for a BNS at a distance much less than 1 Gly it is a redshift z ~ 0.1. We really need z > 1.0 , which basically more than 10 Gly in order to better assess a Hubble Constant across most of the observable universe.
For example, the 2017 August 17 BNS event mentioned above was at ~40 Mpc. Recently the LIGO-Virgo team found a likely BNS at 156 (+/- 41) Mpc (GW190425), which depending on orientation is really right at the rugged edge of the current generation of LIGO instrument sensitivity-detectability.
For example, see that day’s sensitivity (4/25/2019) here:
So I really don’t think there’s much here in the way of BNS GW’s being able to resolve a dispute over the Hubble Constant anytime soon despite the claims here. I really think the radio-telescope community is as always struggling to obtain funding to remain open. So anything they can reach for might help it that regards. I’d love to be able to shut down most of the climate scam funding and give to the radio-astronomy and GW LIGO folks of course. (As an aside, I visited the VLA back in 2001, and even then I felt like I was walking back in a mid-1980’s era museum of computers is saw there. All there computer then were 10-15 years old during a time when computer technology was racing ahead, so they always had problems with grants.)
There are other technical reasons to suspect this radio-telescope method being definitive as well, such as the difficulty in determining whether any observed jets actually break-out of the post-merger cocoon of debris so their brightness can be better estimated or did an observed signal remain “choked jets” inside the cocoon of expanding radioactive debris, and then what is the viewing angle before more difficult to resolve. Technical issues that make firm conclusions sketchy.
Have a look at ALMA’s hpc compute cluster, the fastest in the world.
They hooked up 8+ telescopes for the EHT with very long baseline interferometry. I presume they only needed very good picosecond clocks and a computer upgrade.
The Socorro NM VLA is very expensive just to maintain, much less keep up with rapid technology changes of the last few decades via upgrades. They’ve always struggled for money to keep up, and to pay staff, and then to get funded researchers to use their facilities. ALMA has had better luck, newer, and especially with its Southern Hemisphere skyview.
It’s not that they can’t do good science, but it’s at what cost? Is it affordable in a world of limited budgets? And if you can’t keep up with technology, you’re just doing yesterday’s science of verification-replication.
I’m with you on how sad it is that cutting edge cosmological science is so poorly funded that their technology is far from cutting edge. At the same time, I don’t think we should disdain the importance of verification-replication in science.
It’s disappointing to see in a news release for NRAO the term ‘Doppler shift’ being used when what is meant is ‘redshift’. The first relates to velocity, the latter to the expansion of space time. It is a subtle but important difference and suggests that the writer of the piece is not a scientist.
Or the writer is a scientist, but knows more about climate and global warming. Hopefully.
Or is being satirical, because training in astrophysics doesn’t necessarily make Niel Degrasse Tyson more of an expert on climate and weather than any well-read farmer.
What are you on about?
He’s right in a way – redshift has become such a hot-button in cosmology, scientists hide behind “doppler”. It is exactly the same oppression as in “climate”.
Go up against the closed “climate” sytem or the closed BB and you hit a glass cielling that most don’t even know is there untill they crash into it.
Why??? Is this article posted on a blog about climate issues?
Randy Wester
July 10, 2019 at 8:03 am
Because it’s Anthony’s site and he, like many of us, has a wider interest than just he CAGW scam.
The topic of this post was well signaled in the title so if someone doesn’t have an interest in a particular subject they can just skip that post. I always find I learn things from the posts no matter what the subject.
Theoretical modeling, no way the conclusion could be wrong. sarc
What’s wrong with a tape measure?
Not enough steel on Earth to make one long enough. Plus, its hard to coordinate the guys at either end given it takes many years to communicate any message. 🙂
It’s the same reason why solar electric panels were invented, because the extension cords to the satellites were too long.
You don’t need a really long one. You can get fibreglass ones about 60 m long. Start from one side of the universe, measure out the 60m, make a pencil mark, and then measure 60m from the mark, and so on till you reach the other side. Keep a running total. Easy.
Oh! I just invented faster than light communication!! A high tensile wire of arbitrary length with super low elasticity. Because it doesn’t stretch, you can tug coded messages that would be sensed on the other end instantly? Interesting…
Someone tell me why this wouldn’t work, please! Besides current material science limitations…
What is interesting to me is that the CMB measurement is made by similar detectors to how the GHGs are measured – thermoelectrics (TE). TE – I have found – all produce a bell-shaped curve proportion to the ‘temperature’ what we call a ‘ blackbody radiation curve’. And I wonder if they are equally flawed. When I say flawed, I mean with respect to the emissivity problem of thermoelectric (bolometer) detectors; they don’t measure the true temperature of any object and we call this discrepancy emissivity. I have found emissivity is a problem of the detector, not the substance. I have found it is best to us Raman Lasers to correct this systematic error. All my work is at The Greenhouse Gases and Infrared Radiation Misconceived by Thermoelectric Transducers https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329311153_The_Greenhouse_Gases_and_Infrared_Radiation_Misconceived_by_Thermoelectric_Transducers and Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328927828_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Raman_Spectroscopy_Refute_Greenhouse_Theory
The same rate of expansion is assumed to operate throughout the universe but that may not be correct,
The universe contains gaseous material of varying densities which allows mobility so it is likely that there are convective movements away from and back towards the centre of gravity.
Thus, areas of movement away from that centre would display expansion whilst areas of movement towards the centre would display contraction.
The apparent expansion in our locality could therefore still be consistent with a steady state universe.
Moreover, the rates of expansion and contraction would also vary from place to place, hence the apparent acceleration of expansion in our locality.
Convective overturning is ubiquitous in atmospheres so why not in the universe at large?
Have you seen General Relativity applied to inhomogenous spacetime by Abraham Zelamanov?
http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/
Interesting principle of relativity of infinity turns up.
“The universe contains gaseous material of varying densities which allows”
And what about all of that Dark Matter of varying densities that the universe contains?
Dark Matter, …. Lite Matter, ….. Black Holes, …. White Holes, …… whatever works.
Trust us, ………. they are “right as rain”, ……. ET told us so.
The big bang theory should theoretically makes any size of gas cloud.
If there were isolated clouds of gas in the universe they would have cooled and formed stars outside of galaxies. That is not observed.
Astronomers therefore looked for stars and tiny galaxies but found none.
What is interesting is the discovery of a new class of object, that is a hard paradox for the big bang theory.
The new object has called Globural Clusters as the object is a super high density of star like objects that is gravitational bound and it is typically round.
Ten years ago the Hubble telescope found that there were two and some times three and four generations of star like objects in the globular clusters.
If the globural cluster has a big bang entity there would be only one elemental composition of the stars in the cluster.
As there is one elemental composition when a conventional star is formed by a collapsing gas cloud. A gas cloud which has a single element composition as it is well mixed, collapses therefore the stars formed are different sizes but the same initial elemental composition.
Conventional newly formed stars do not remain with the clusters. There are much less dense and break apart due to the velocity differences in the original gas cloud.
The globural clusters that are older than a billion years have two populations of stars that have exactly the same elemental composition expect for elements lighter than silicon.
For the elements lighter than silicon the second generation of stars which is the majority (60%) is enhanced and enhanced systematically in a manner that is impossible to create using the big bang theory mechanisms.
What is found in the globural clusters was assumed to be stars. The first anomaly is the extraordinary stellar density in the cluster.
The stars in the centre of the globural cluster are roughly the distance from the sun and pluto which similar to the stellar density in the centre of a massive galaxy like ours. There is no physical natural explanation as to why the super high density.
Tiny ‘dwarf’ galaxies contain 30 times more dwarf galaxies than larger galaxies which is a paradox.
Normal stars form from the collapse of gas clouds. Gas clouds only collapse in regions where there are no stars. A specialist noted that in his entire career he saw only one cloud that was collapsing that had a star in it, and it was a tiny star.
The mass paradox is only about 10% of the process gas from the first generation stars is available to make the second generation stars which make up 60% of the cluster numbers.
The mass paradox is made worst as the heat from the first generation stars would dissipate the first generation star produced gas.
To enhance the elemental composition of the second generation stars for elements lighter than silicon the first generation stars must be an exact mixture of very hot, large, rare 30,000 K and 60000 K surface temperature stars. The solar surface is roughly 6000K in comparison. Ignoring the fact that only 10% of the super hot star gas is available to make the second generation, the heat from the first generation stars would dissipate that gas.
The gas formed from the first generation stars is too high in certain elements so the big bang keep alive theory assumes some of the original gas is hanging around and is pulled in.
Newly formed globural clusters are found to have only one generation of stars and the enormous amount of gas that is produced when the object is making star like objects is dissipated in less than 10 million years which is too fast to form any stars.
An interesting and thought provoking read, ……. thank you.
Lets strt at the basics. Big Bang is impossible, simply becaause to
creat a Universe, which may well go on for ever, after all how can it ever end, would requore a enoumous amount of energy, the energy presently in the Universe.
So are we back to a GOD and his magic wand.
So we are back to Hoyle and his Steady State theory. Seems a lot better to build a Universe over billions of years one Hydrogen atom at a time.
Again we see that dreadful word “Moddled”? enough said.
MJE VK5ELL
Everything in the universe is in a cause and effect relationship. Everything. Including its origin. So we are back to a non-material first cause. Hence a steady-state theory (a model actually) is illogical in its premise. So yes, God, outside of space and time and thus qualified as the First Mover. Don’t bother to ask where God comes from; it’s beyond knowing, but it is a logical assumption from the evidence.
Every human explanation of natural phenomena is a “model” of some sort. An analogy to what actually is happening at multiple levels of organization. Whatever the failures of numerical modeling in climate, dismissing attempts at understanding with a sneer isn’t constructive.
As one post above noted redshift is the problem. Compared to that discussion, “climate” is an auntie’s tea-party.
Even Hubble did not push “Doppler”. Einstein had problems with “expansion”. Today it is again Ptolemy’s epicycles to “save the BigBang” – move over Greta saving the Earth, we are saving the Universe (no less)!
In other words this BB ideology has trickled down to climate. It all began with a Jesuit priest Georges Lemaître, a good friend of Einstein (he got him safely out of Germany). Yet Einstein called it the greatest creation story ever, saying Lemaitre’s physics was questionable.
Along comes Halton Arp with quasar redshifts that simply sunk the BB (book Seeing Red). He got the full “denier” treatment , denied telescope access, and had to move to Germany from CA.
So when obvious quasars with major redshift anomalies are well documented, would anyone dare to claim redshift of extreme events such as neutron star mergers are “doppler”. Go ahead, it’s your destiny.
The James Webb infrared telescope, delayed yet again, will surely throw a cosmic door open on this entire debate. infrared can mean highly redshifted. So, what if we find fully formed infrared galaxies?
bonbon,… I find it interesting and delightful that you know about Halton Arp’s “Seeing Red”. So far, what I’ve found in my copy of that book throws the proverbial “Monkey Wrench” into cosmology.
You are correct that much of what science thinks it knows is not based on any understanding at all. Turns out that scientists are just as prone to blindness as the rest of humanity, especially when the money comes from government. Arp was like Feynman, a scientists scientist. The fact that he was denied telescope time in the U.S. speaks more to the powers that were behind Americas’ government and industry agenda than to science.
Basically it boils down to having power and control. That is what many on WUWT have come to discover about what is behind the AGW/Climate Change/Climate Emergency etc. etc.
Having personally worked on government financed projects in industry, I can attest to how research gets taken over by governmental agenda. I suspect that government money has an almost intoxicating addictive effect on business decisions. That’s when the businesses themselves have no interest whatsoever in putting their own money into the game. The government takes ALL the risk which means that the tax payer is the one who is on the hook.
When people are not held accountable for the actual results and those results are not tied to their own personal wallet, the level of delusion that becomes possible is unbounded. The nature of cosmology makes it a breeding ground for deception and self importance. So too does government attract both the noble and ignoble. Governmental systems become incubators for corruption and obfuscation. Rarely does one department know what another is doing.
Soon people will begin to discover the first levels of corruption that have been sucking the life blood out of the economies of nations for centuries. However I keep warning people to go slow and pace their learning as they venture down the “Rabbit Hole”. It’s also important to realize that there are people and deeds that exist behind the curtain called “Transparency”, which if not prepared for before hand will put 95% of people into a mental ward. That curtain turns out to be a type of projector screen which is designed to show people distraction and encourage them to do any research as long as it’s not behind the curtain.
Get ready,.. we are in for a ride that humanity has never been on before. In the mean time stay curious. May you have the courage to follow where ever the truth leads.
Opinion:
Physics is the physics of space, it is “space” that contains all the E and m within it, and expresses E and m whenever space is being sufficiently disturbed and begins to ‘wave’. When space is locally disturbed it ceases to be isotropic and its geometry changes. The more local the disturbance and smaller the scale the greater the space pendulum swings away from local isotropy. The shorter scale and steeper the geometry change to space, the higher the E expressed and the equivalent m produced.
The problem is we think that E=m*c2 is a two way equation. If E can’t make m it all falls apart.
eh? It does, are you not aware of particles produced by accelerator collision?
That’s E converted to m right there.
Am not a fan of the conspiracy theories, but one thing that has always bothered me is cosmic expansion…I get that the theory is that the expansion actually stretches the light as it travels great distances…but how do we know that expansion of wavelength isn’t just a general property of light propagation?
That would be different than and “Doppler shift” due to motion…just as the Hubble red shift is different than shift due to motion. I’m not sure how you could ever tell the difference. The only reason I know of that astrophysicists don’t go with this is because they just assume light is constant, and something must be changing it…
Any astrophysicists out there that can comment?
Roland – July 10, 2019 at 9:12 am
I’m pretty sure that “light” can not be stretched. Stretching it would, per se, change its frequency and iffen it was “stretched” too far (500/1,000 light years) it would “flatline” its frequency. duh
Light could redshift if it were passing through a medium composed of other matter that taxed it as it passed. There are perhaps two additional kinds of matter in the universe. See “Tablet of the Universe” for a description of a couple of their properties.
A particle which is not at rest with respect to the co-moving reference frame of an expanding universe will loose its relative velocity due to ‘Hubble drag’. Photons cannot slowdown so they increase in wavelength. This increase of wavelength equals the expansion of space. The photons from the horizon of last scattering (the CMB) are stretched a factor of ~1000.
Photons are not just a particle, but a wave as well (wave particle duality) which is just an excuse to use both types of calculations.
They have no mass, but they also have momentum, they carry “discrete packets” of energy but can be red-shifted to carry less.
I think these paradoxes are substantial enough to say that we don’t know enough to say that light does not red-shift by itself, and must be because of expansion. Expansion is just one possible answer, but where does the energy go? Is light the driver of expansion? Is the leaching of energy of photons through red-shift “dark energy”?
Teerhuls, I have never heard of the term “Hubble drag” but would assume that is just another way of saying the wavelength increases due to expansion…so we are saying the same thing.
I’m not an astrophysicist, but, now you mention it, I’ve sometimes found it a bit odd that the General Relativity treatment of galaxies receding due to universal expansion is different in some ways as compared to how we view something receding from us just due to straight motion or velocity as such? The difference is that for recession due to expansion, it is the *space* between that is supposed to be piling up. When the universe is able to make a whole lot *more* nothing from nothing, the effective recession velocity can even be Faster Than Light, it would seem!
What I find remarkable is just how impractical it is to either believe in what I said above, or disbelieve. It does remind be a bit of current climate science forecasting models!
Here a couple of questions, just for the sake of comparing dubious propositions as such. For instance, say, does cosmology imply that ‘warp drives’ are possible, or is that sort of thing fantastic drivel in reality (most likely). In climate science, does the earth know how to maintain stability most of the time (most likely), or is the earth perpetually balanced on a knife edge to hell (as alarmists like to think). Which of these concepts represents reality, anyway?
Singularity, Big Bang, something to trigger it too, Inflation and CMB. Not a shred of evidence. Dark energy, dark matter, and gravity waves. Four fundamental forces? Really? Extra-ordinary claims require EO evidence. None, nada, zip. There is evidence, however, that the temperature sig of the CMB is curiously close to the weak molecular bond of the water molecule. Recently cosmologist have been reporting that there’s water, everywhere they look, in space and a lot more than anyone knew about – mmmm. If CMB is debunked, as it has no definitive proof/origin (re above ‘theories’) everything falls apart, a sort of circular or two for one apparent argument/reason – CMB implies big bang – if big bang then should see CMB, hey we (think) we do – all expressed with awe at the universe and what/that we can know this/figured it out. As someone here pointed out, cosmology and many science disciplines have gone or are on the way down the climate debacle/fraud, inherent mainly in the funding following anything but a wide, open minded, alternative ideas range of true fact following investigation. Theory and drama take the stage all the time to keep the public in the dark as to what exactly is going on, what exactly is true and verified – rather give them science fiction entertainment. We’ve been lied to in so many ways. Put the phyz back in physics, not in the coolaid. Just to add that I fully agree with the comment above where it is suggested that light might naturally spread out a bit, elongate its wavyness over vast distances, which then implies that the blueshifted signals imply galaxies moving even faster toward us – the difference it seems comes down to a belief system, Big Bang, et al, the drama topic of many science/physics explanationists/media ‘wars’ (oops -a +’ho’). I’m tired of the media bullsh*t, it has become a pseudo science to feed a wow fiction to keep the dollars rolling in, another funding spinoff that promotes itself and fake science.
Many years ago Isaac Asmov wrote a very good and easy to read
paperback book about the Universe, cannot recall the name .
MJE VK5ELL
Now THIS was a comment-thread for the ages!
So many new contributors!…Contributing…
And it is just a shame that most of the contributors are spouting nonsense. I am not
sure which is the most ridiculous but I would start with the suggestion that special
relativity is wrong. When in fact when combined with quantum mechanics to produce
Quantum Electrodynamics it is the most correct theory we have. The comparison between
the predicted and measured value of the fine structure constant is better than any other theory
we have and is accurate to one part in 10 billion.
A steady state universe is not possible. A slight disturbance of homogeneity would result in a gravitational collapse. Due to the expansion of space the universe resulted in its present situation. Life could not have evolved much earlier, the universe would be to hot and the chemical elements were not yet available.
Mass (or energy) is just a property of the vacuum. Energy is not ‘created’ in the Big Bang, it is an other form of empty space. There seems to be very strict rules that govern the stability of the vacuum.
Answer this: If the Universe is infinite and ever expanding, what is it expanding into?
>>
Answer this: If the Universe is infinite and ever expanding, what is it expanding into?
<<
I thought the Universe was finite. However, with infinity, you can always make more room–even an infinity more.
Question like what happened before the Big Bang and what is the Universe expanding into are meaningless. It’s like asking what is north of the North Pole. Space-time was created in the Big Bang. There’s no other space for space to expand into and no prior time before time.
Jim
An infinite Universe occupies already all space and cannot expand into something beyond infinity.
In the Multiverse model each vacuum instability grows into a single universe. When this model is correct then someday we will see the merging of our universe with a neighboring one.
However I assume that there is one universe that is finite but unbounded. There is expansion of space, not into space. What is outside this universe? Nothingness.
Hmmm. Something from nothing.
Sounds like a great concept.
Are the chicks free?
>>
An infinite Universe occupies already all space and cannot expand into something beyond infinity.
<<
The mathematics of infinities and transfinite numbers of Georg Cantor would disagree with that statement.
Jim
Too many people are still grinding their axes in the Big Bang theory, dark matter, dark energy, universal expansion, and all that astrological nonsense — including entrenched textbook thumpers in Academia whose reputation is so ripe it is going to rot any moment… but, most of all, creationists of all shapes and shades, including Varican with all its money.
Keep fitting reality to theories, postmodern theologists… ahem, scientists.
Somethings are just beyond all human understanding.
Jim, July 13. That sounds a bit like “”His mysteries are far too deep for us mere mortals to understand. Will GOD please step forward. “”
Lets face it, apart from the interest to us mere mortals, other than our own Solar system, deep space may well always be beyond our abilities to explore.
Star Trek not withstanding.
MJE VK5ELL