How Does Space Expansion Affect the Velocity of Galaxies?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of space expansion on the velocities of galaxies, particularly focusing on hypothetical scenarios involving the Milky Way and other galaxies at varying distances. Participants explore concepts related to the expansion of space, redshift, and the implications of General Relativity (GR) on these phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the expansion of space can lead to galaxies receding at rates exceeding the speed of light, though this is debated.
  • There is a discussion about the distinction between speed and rate of recession, with some arguing that the terminology used is inconsistent.
  • One participant suggests that the elastic band model of expansion has limitations but can illustrate how galaxies move apart at different rates based on their distances.
  • Several participants assert that the expansion of space is fully explained by General Relativity, while others question whether dark energy requires modifications to GR.
  • Some participants argue that dark energy can be treated as an additional term in the field equations of GR without fundamentally altering the theory.
  • A participant seeks clarification on whether GR explains dark energy and how it relates to the expansion of the universe.
  • There is a request for a formula or equation that quantifies the expansion of space between two galaxies at a significant separation distance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of space expansion, the terminology used to describe it, and the relationship between GR and dark energy. No consensus is reached on these points, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential misapplication of models like the elastic band analogy, and the discussion reflects varying levels of understanding among participants regarding complex concepts in cosmology and GR.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring cosmology, the expansion of the universe, and the implications of General Relativity, particularly those seeking to understand the interplay between theoretical models and observational data.

  • #61
Ibix said:
so I'd be very suspicious of a blanket figure like that.
We can at least see if it's in the ballpark. The sun's disk is 7 x 10-5 steradians. Or 10-5 of the sky. It's 2000x hotter than the CMBR so it puts out 2000x as much energy per unit frequency per unit area, or in total 2%.

You definitely can see the sun in static, by looking at day vs. night. I don't think it's a factor of 2 - maybe 1.5, but I'm just spitballing. I am going to call it a factor of 2. And that takes our 2% down to 1%.

So it's not a crazy number. My estimate/guess is that it's a little high but not crazy high.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Ibix
Space news on Phys.org
  • #62
Boy did I goof. The CMBR actually carries more energy than the sun: 50x as much, not 1/50 as much.

Therefore the day-night effect on static is not due directly to the sun. It's got to be the ionosphere, either directly, or indirectly (e.g. RF signals from far away lightning or other TV stations/multipath).

I now wonder if the 1% is an underestimate. At 1% that means there is a source 5000x brighter than the sun in RF that isn't the CMBR. And it has to be very, very cold (about 1K).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #63
Delta2 said:
Ehm guys I don't have the background to fully grasp your replies but are you saying that GR even explains dark energy?
GR is a set of constraints. There are many states of the Universe that are consistent with these constraints. If your theory doesn't meet these constraints then doubt is darkly cast upon it. If your thesis does meet these constraints that's nice, but doesn't give any evidence that your idea is correct.

It appears to me they are saying that dark energy is consistent with GR.
 
  • #64
Vanadium 50 said:
What is this "static" of which you speak?
That I know not. But I heard tell of the mythical 'teevos' roaming the land in the days long past, when phones were rotary and news were made of paper. It was said that a teevo, if left to its own devices, would speak in 'static' to the befuddlement of onlookers.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50
  • #65
Something is confusing me

Bob is on Earth and Alice is one of those galaxies at the edge of the observable universe which is C or greater than C (post 13)

What does that do to their respective clocks?

You plug velocities in the time dilation equation at or above C and things get strange.
I am getting something wrong here- not sure what it it
 
  • #66
pinball1970 said:
You plug velocities in the time dilation equation at or above C and things get strange.
I am getting something wrong here- not sure what it it
You cannot use the time dilation formula from special relativity. The description of the expanding universe requires general relativity.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and pinball1970

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K