B Can we measure acceleration of galaxies and stars?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges of measuring the acceleration of galaxies and stars, particularly in regions like the Great Repeller, where matter appears to be repelled due to surrounding gravitational influences. Current methods primarily allow for the measurement of instantaneous velocities along the line of sight, with most acceleration data derived from modeling rather than direct observation. The virial model is commonly used, relying on the virial theorem to relate kinetic and potential energy in a steady-state configuration. However, inaccuracies in the model can lead to biases in inferred accelerations. Independent mass measurements, such as those from gravitational lensing, can provide insights into whether a system is expanding or collapsing based on observed velocities.
elcaro
Messages
129
Reaction score
30
TL;DR Summary
We can (with increasing precission) measure distances of far away object in space, and velocities. But is there a method of measuring acceleration (so, in fact changes of velocity, or the time derivative of velocities) of far away galaxies.?
As for example we see a large void, the Great Repeller, which in fact is an underdense region, and with respect to this region, matter seems to be repelled by this region. The explenation for that is that matter outside that regions pulls on the matter inside it. But if that is really the explenation (attracation from surrounding matter, instead of repulsion from the center of that region) we would expect that closer to the center of that region, the acceleration falls down, whereas if there would be repulsion from this region, we would expect the accleration to increase when going further to the center. But can cosmologists/astrophysicist actually measure accelerations?
 
Space news on Phys.org
The short answer is not for most astrophysical systems, not directly.

For the most part we can only accurately measure the instantaneous velocity along the line of sight. The rest comes from modeling. You assume some sort of average velocity distribution model for lots of objects, and then measure the line-of-sight velocities to fit the parameters of that model. If you get the model wrong, this can lead to biases in the imputed accelerations, which is one complication in interpreting data about galaxies and galaxy clusters.

A typical model that is used is a virial model: this one assumes that the object being observed is in a "steady state" configuration, and that its velocities can be described using the virial theorem. The virial theorem gives a relationship between the average kinetic and potential energy of a cloud of particles, and so by measuring their velocities, we get a measure of their kinetic energy, which tells us about their potential energy, which tells us about the gravitational field if the system is static.

If we have an independent way of measuring the mass of the system, such as gravitational lensing, then measuring higher velocities than predicted by the virial theorem may suggest the system is expanding over time. Lower velocities would mean the system is collapsing.
 
  • Like
Likes elcaro, ohwilleke, Bandersnatch and 1 other person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top