Exploring the Problems in Cosmology: A Look at Conflicts with Standard Models

  • Thread starter bill alsept
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Cosmology
In summary, the problems with the standard cosmology models include the following: 1) the universe is apparently much older than 13.7 billion years, 2) the Hubble space telescope can see material at a redshift of 1100 which has long since cooled and condensed into galaxies and stars, 3) the distance measure used in astronomy often means the distance NOW, not on the other hand a travel time, and 4) the projected age of the universe gives us a radius, not a diameter.
  • #1
bill alsept
124
0
Is there a current list of the major problems or conflicts with the standard cosmology models?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #4
Lol, that's the link I just gave him Yenchin!
 
  • #5
LOL. Guess I was beaten by a few seconds :-p
 
  • #6
Here's one. The Hubble space telescope can see 12 billion light years of distance in most directions, more in some directions. This can only mean that 12 billion years ago the, (visible to us), universe had a diameter of at least 24 billion light years. And yet it is said to be "only" 13.7 billion years old. Something of a paradox there!
 
  • #7
Peter Watkins said:
Here's one. The Hubble space telescope can see 12 billion light years of distance in most directions, more in some directions. This can only mean that 12 billion years ago the, (visible to us), universe had a diameter of at least 24 billion light years. And yet it is said to be "only" 13.7 billion years old. Something of a paradox there!
Only if you completely ignore the expansion of the universe.
 
  • #8
This answer,above, makes no sense. It admits of no reply.
 
  • #9
Peter Watkins said:
Here's one. The Hubble space telescope can see 12 billion light years of distance in most directions, more in some directions. This can only mean that 12 billion years ago the, (visible to us), universe had a diameter of at least 24 billion light years. And yet it is said to be "only" 13.7 billion years old. Something of a paradox there!
:rofl:

Peter, for Heaven's sake learn a little about the heavens. :biggrin:

We see glowing hot gas at a redshift of 1100.

That material will have long since cooled and condensed into galaxies and stars. It is now at a distance of about 45.5 billion lightyears. So that's essentially how far we can see (with a microwave antenna telescope, not the Hubble telescope.)

Distance in astronomy often means the distance NOW---if you could freeze the expansion process at this moment to give yourself time to actually make the measurement. It is not in any simple relationship to the light travel time, or socalled "lookback time."
Popular accounts are often unclear what kind of distance measure they mean---a real instantaneous distance at some moment, or maybe on the other hand a travel time.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Peter Watkins said:
This answer,above, makes no sense. It admits of no reply.
Ok then: please explain what the paradox is that you see. Because I see no paradox in those two pieces of information. They do not contradict each other.
 
  • #11
The projected age of the universe gives us a radius, not a diameter. And keep in mind the universe has been expanding during the entire time those ancient photons have been journeying to meet our detectors.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
If the universe is expanding then to look back in time, via distance, would be to see a smaller universe. But we don't! The further back in time we look, the larger it can be seen to have been. To expand to a diameter of at least 24 B.L.Ys. in only 1.7 B.Ys. would seem to me to be a problem with our picture of the universe and its evolution.
 
  • #13
Peter Watkins said:
If the universe is expanding then to look back in time, via distance, would be to see a smaller universe. But we don't! The further back in time we look, the larger it can be seen to have been. To expand to a diameter of at least 24 B.L.Ys. in only 1.7 B.Ys. would seem to me to be a problem with our picture of the universe and its evolution.
No, it's a problem with your understanding of cosmology. What exactly do you mean by "The further back in time we look, the larger it can be seen to have been." What specific cosmological observation are you referring to here? To calculate the distance to the edge of the observable universe (the particle horizon, [itex]d_H[/itex]), one must compute the integral
[tex]d_H = a(t)\int_0^{t_0} \frac{dt'}{a(t')}[/tex]
where [itex]a(t)[/itex] is the scale factor of the universe and [itex]t_0[/itex] is the present time. It's not a matter of simply multiplying the age of the universe by the speed of light, since that assumes a static universe (the point I made earlier that you decided to ignore). See this FAQ for more information,
http://http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DN" [Broken]

There's plenty about this on wikipedia as well: http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
How on Earth is the original question ignoring the expansion of the universe?
 
  • #15
Peter Watkins said:
If the universe is expanding then to look back in time, via distance, would be to see a smaller universe. But we don't! ...

I have to go to a family get-together today but when I get back I want to try something, Peter. I am going to take a different tack and interpret every question of yours as thoughtful, well-motivated, and intelligent. I'm going to assume that all the critical reaction to your questions is due to a purely verbal misunderstanding (on one side or the other). It could just be due to a mismatch of verbal concepts.

When we look back in time the OU (the matter we see now out to the surface of last scattering) was actually much smaller---radius about 41 million LY, if you could have frozen it back then at the time it emitted the light.

It is NOW radius about 45.6 billion LY. Having expanded about 1100-fold.

You can get that from the Morgan calculator. I have a dim memory of your telling me you had "been there done that" with her "cosmos calculator". Is that right? You have spent some time playing around with it?

So it should be clear that what we see when we look back IS much smaller.

And the physics we see is of something that small, with the hot gas that dense, so that we can see even evidence of sound waves that were traveling thru it at that moment.

So you may find that reassuring. You seemed worried that we look back the OU is very large. No, what we see back then is small and is evidently behaving as a relatively small hot concentrated gas world. We see its image in the sky and measure its temperature. As it was back then.

But I have to go. When I get back I will try to reassure some of your worries. In the meanwhile I hope you hang in there and listen to the criticism cheerfully. It is well-informed and well-intended, for sure.

And there may be issues of substance (not just semantics) that do call for critical attention.
Anyway, I'll check in later.

OOPS I just saw your name crossed out. Well that's that. It was probably inevitable :smile:
 
  • #16
Last edited:
  • #17
Bill, is this what you're after ?

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What is cosmology and why is it important?

Cosmology is the scientific study of the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe. It is important because it helps us understand the fundamental laws and principles that govern the universe, as well as our place and role in it.

2. What are standard models in cosmology and why are there conflicts with them?

Standard models in cosmology refer to the widely accepted theories and models that attempt to explain the origin and evolution of the universe, such as the Big Bang Theory and the Inflationary Model. There are conflicts with these models because new observations and data have challenged some of their assumptions and predictions, leading to the need for further exploration and potential revisions.

3. What are some common problems in cosmology that scientists are currently exploring?

Some common problems in cosmology that scientists are currently exploring include the nature of dark matter and dark energy, the expansion rate and shape of the universe, and the origin of cosmic structures such as galaxies and clusters.

4. How do scientists investigate and address conflicts with standard models in cosmology?

Scientists investigate and address conflicts with standard models in cosmology through various methods, such as collecting and analyzing new data from telescopes and experiments, developing new theories and models, and conducting simulations and experiments to test these theories.

5. What potential implications could arise from resolving conflicts with standard models in cosmology?

If conflicts with standard models in cosmology are resolved, it could lead to a better understanding of the universe and its evolution, as well as potential advancements in fields such as physics and astronomy. It could also open up new avenues for scientific research and discovery. However, it is also important to remember that conflicts and debates in science are a natural and necessary part of the scientific process, and may not necessarily lead to a complete overhaul of existing theories and models.

Similar threads

Replies
34
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
92
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
882
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top